Missionary number has declined

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Were I the church, I'd be more concerned about the missionary to convert ratio than I would be to the number of missionaries in the field...something is amiss...Be it the message or the effectiveness of the missionary force The number of converts as a % of church membership continues to decline despite an increase in missionaries.  And now with this decline in missionaries...what exactly does that foretell?

I agree.  This should be a concern and it might be, even if they aren't saying so.  Last year we reported the lowest growth rate the Church had seen in 70 years.  If that trend continues, then it should be understood there is something amiss with our messaging.  I'm hoping they realize that now seeing as we've been on the decline since the heights reached in the late 80s through the mid-90s. 

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Someone if they haven't already, should go get numbers for about 10-20 years prior to 2012 to see what the average rate of change was for that time period.

Interestingly here are the number of children of record which helped us in our discussions last year. 

Kent Larsen at Times and Seasons keeps a google spreadsheet with all the church released numbers. The following is the number of "Children of Record" for the corresponding year:

 

1997 - 75,241

1998 - 76,829

1999 - 84,188

2000 - 81,450

2001 - 69,522

2002 - 81,132

2003 - 99,457

2004 - 98,870

2019 should have a number of boys that were born in 2001 go.  Unfortunately 2001 was the lowest number of children of record in this 8 year span.  But ti also should see a number of girls born in 2000 go.  The real spike might be reached in 2021-2 according to the children on record numbers.  Sadly, though, I fear a large number of people who are leaving the Church would be aged about that of those who had children in the early 2000s. 

This is interesting.  It should perhaps give us plenty to discuss.  But if feels like people don't want any of this to mean anything. 

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

(as of December, reported the following April)

2009:  51,736

2010:  52,225

2011:  55,410

2012:  58,990

2013:  83,035

2014:  85,147

2015:  75,000ish and rising again as reported by Scott's sources.

Got these stats from lds.org.  Looks like growth was at most 3500 a year prior to the age change.  Someone has undoubtedly already charted this, but it does seem like it is unlikely that in a little under four years there would be a 25,000 gain.  Perhaps 20,000.  However, I am not a stat watcher for this and undoubtedly the Church has better records, especially of the number of potential missionaries that will be available.  

It's interesting that a 25,000 gain is what resulted from the first year at age change.  It tells me to reach that we'd have to see some major change.  It ought to be alarming if we've dropped 10,000 particularly if those who were insistent that the age change surge was over last year.  I personally think the age change surge was not over last year.  It's starting to get cleared out now.  But we'll see.  It feels like we'll maybe rise up into the 80,000s by 2019, but as I said, I'm not in Elder HOlland's position to make that call.  it was weird though that the article that quoted him last year gave the impression that the numbers will grow, as if the author of it heard that from the Church.  Sadly, that was not the case, it seems, after the publication that numbers have dropped. 

Maybe they'll let kids go, again, who have erred regarding chastity and the like?  I know they were allowed back when I went and we were above the level of missionaries that were going out in 2012-12, twenty some odd years ago.  That may get the number a spike, as a number of kids are unchaste in high school.  I dont' know.

[Gray]

I don't know that we'll hit 100k any time soon, but I think the increase in Sister missionaries will mean that the numbers won't sink back to previous levels either.

The larger issue is what to do with all these missionaries. The conversion rate per missionary is going down - there are only so many people in the world who are interested in the message. Maybe their time would be better used doing service. 

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I'm curious to know if the age change will have an impact (positive or negative) on the number of returned missionaries that remain active in the church.

Me too.  This is an interesting point and one I think was the driving force of age change.  They figure more people stay active if they go on a mission--they are more committed and more obligated to stay with the Church on average.  But we'll see.  There are, it seems, an increasing number of factors that are playing into why people leave. 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The clock is still running. 

Mike Reed predicted that the number would drop back down in two or three years. I took this to mean it would drop to the 2012 pre-surge level of 58,000. 

However, as we have seen, it stands at 75,000, which is s net gain of 17,000 since late 2012. And, as I said, my sources indicate that it has bottomed out and is now rising again. If it continues to do so, Mike Reed's prediction will be for naught. 

Bear in mind it was foregone that the number would fall a bit after the surge had topped out at 90,000 and those who were already on missions when the surge transpired came home. 

To put it another way, there were two cohorts in the mission field: those who were already there and those who came with the surge. The question has always been whether there would be a net gain once the surge had worked its way through the pipeline. That appears to have happened, as 17,000 is quite the net gain, no?

There were scarcely 17,000 in total at the time I left on my mission in August of 1974. 

Mike Reed didn't say anything about it dropping back to 58,000.  There was no reason for you to assume such of course.   Most it seemed, even those who were still expecting a drop last year, thought it might drop into the 70 thousands.  Which it did.  Others were assuming it'd continue to grow and the surge was over, which is what it seemed you were saying last year.  If anyone was wrong it was you, no Mike Reed. 

I think everyone assumed and agreed the age change would result in a net gain and even a percentage gain.  How much of a gain we weren't sure about, although the article from last year, which quoted Elder Holland suggested those who expected it still to drop would see it level out in the 70 thousand range. 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know that we'll hit 100k any time soon, but I think the increase in Sister missionaries will mean that the numbers won't sink back to previous levels either.

The larger issue is what to do with all these missionaries. The conversion rate per missionary is going down - there are only so many people in the world who are interested in the message. Maybe their time would be better used doing service. 

I agree with this.  Also, we are having many more missionaries come home early (so many that our Stake President has become quite alarmed and worried).  These all were missionaries who left at the younger age.

I really do believe too that there will be many more girls serving missions from now on, with the age change.  It will become more of the norm and almost expected (still not to the level it is for the boys though)

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know that we'll hit 100k any time soon, but I think the increase in Sister missionaries will mean that the numbers won't sink back to previous levels either.

The larger issue is what to do with all these missionaries. The conversion rate per missionary is going down - there are only so many people in the world who are interested in the message. Maybe their time would be better used doing service. 

I agree.  That is the big concern, or should be.  I hear many of the missionaries that went out during the spike years went to over-worked areas with many missionaries overlapping.  That's actually cool if they had stuff to do. 

I'm curious if they are planning to reinvent the missionary program.  make it far more service oriented.  It might get more kids going, I guess. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree with this.  Also, we are having many more missionaries come home early (so many that our Stake President has become quite alarmed and worried).  These all were missionaries who left at the younger age.

I really do believe too that there will be many more girls serving missions from now on, with the age change.  It will become more of the norm and almost expected (still not to the level it is for the boys though)

Surely the percentage of girls going should have increased, hopefully that percentage continues to grow.  It'd be nice to see the age for girls drop to 18.  maybe that's what they are planning in order to get a huge spike again. 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It'd be nice to see the age for girls drop to 18.  maybe that's what they are planning in order to get a huge spike again. 

Possibly, but I hope not.  It hasn't been very good for many of the boys who have gone right out of high school.  Of course, there are those who it's worked out well too.  There may be adjustments of the age requirements in the future and that will be interesting.

.

Edited February 10, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Possibly, but I hope not.  It hasn't been very good for many of the boys who have gone right out of high school.  Of course, there are those who it's worked out well too.  There may be adjustments of the age requirements in the future and that will be interesting.

.

Do we have any indication that going at 18 for boys has had a negative effect moreso than for all those who went and are going at 19?  I'm not sure it's the age that's the problem but maybe the program itself. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Do we have any indication that going at 18 for boys has had a negative effect moreso than for all those who went and are going at 19?  I'm not sure it's the age that's the problem but maybe the program itself. 

All I can go on is what has happened in our ward and stake.  We have now had 5 missionaries return home within just the last few months (we have a large stake).  All of them were for mental health issues and were boys who went out at the age of 18 years.  I hope they can go back out and I know our Bishop (and Stake President) are working towards that end.  

I do personally know one of the boys involved, and he really should not have gone out in the first place.  He begged his parents to stay home and was not in a good place to start with.  So, I don't know if his younger age made a difference or not, or if with some more maturity he would have wanted to go out and serve.  I think it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

[Johnnie Cake]

6 hours ago, why me said:

I think that it has more to do with secularism especially in the west. Not easy to get any religious message across. Also, christian churches are perhaps losing members to the secular view. I also think that one reason for more orthodoxy in islam is the threat of secularization. I see this happening in europe as muslim parents are dressing their daughters in the hajib at an earlier age. I also think that people are more reluctant to change their faith, especially if they are only nominal members. They may see very little use in changing their faiths. I also think that recent books on atheism have played a part in all this. Such books can tend to be best sellers.

It foretells that christianity is in trouble, at least in the western world. And that Islam will continue its march over the world as nominal christians allow it to happen. In social darwinism, the strong succeed and the weak die. If true, it is no different with ideas or with a religious outlook.

A well stated and thought out post

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

All I can go on is what has happened in our ward and stake.  We have now had 5 missionaries return home within just the last few months (we have a large stake).  All of them were for mental health issues and were boys who went out at the age of 18 years.  I hope they can go back out and I know our Bishop (and Stake President) are working towards that end.  

I do personally know one of the boys involved, and he really should not have gone out in the first place.  He begged his parents to stay home and was not in a good place to start with.  So, I don't know if his younger age made a difference or not, or if with some more maturity he would have wanted to go out and serve.  I think it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

Uh...yeah, sending boys out who don't want to go seems like a big mistake to me. Sorry to hear of the problems you've seen. 

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

All I can go on is what has happened in our ward and stake.  We have now had 5 missionaries return home within just the last few months (we have a large stake).  All of them were for mental health issues and were boys who went out at the age of 18 years.  I hope they can go back out and I know our Bishop (and Stake President) are working towards that end.  

I do personally know one of the boys involved, and he really should not have gone out in the first place.  He begged his parents to stay home and was not in a good place to start with.  So, I don't know if his younger age made a difference or not, or if with some more maturity he would have wanted to go out and serve.  I think it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

Part of the problem is that mission life is such a pressure cooker. No surprise that people break under those conditions. It doesn't have to be that way - giving missionaries more access to their support network (family) I think would help a lot. 

[ALarson]

Just now, Gray said:

Part of the problem is that mission life is such a pressure cooker. No surprise that people break under those conditions. It doesn't have to be that way - giving missionaries more access to their support network (family) I think would help a lot. 

I completely agree.

Another thing that my Bishop is really stressing is that missionary preparation is very important.  And, not the "these are going to be the best 2 years of your life!" type prep.  So many young boys go out believing a mission is going to be just so great, so much fun and almost like a vacation.  Although, I can still say that serving my mission was great and fun at times, it was also 2 of the most difficult, discouraging and depressing years of my life.  I loved my mission and loved serving, but it was no vacation.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

All I can go on is what has happened in our ward and stake.  We have now had 5 missionaries return home within just the last few months (we have a large stake).  All of them were for mental health issues and were boys who went out at the age of 18 years.  I hope they can go back out and I know our Bishop (and Stake President) are working towards that end.  

I do personally know one of the boys involved, and he really should not have gone out in the first place.  He begged his parents to stay home and was not in a good place to start with.  So, I don't know if his younger age made a difference or not, or if with some more maturity he would have wanted to go out and serve.  I think it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

I wonder if the surge of missionaries in and of itself contributes some to this. Convert baptisms did not rise, so baptisms per companionship went down. Many wards had more missionaries than they could reasonably accommodate. It would seem this would impact missionary morale in significant ways.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I wonder if the surge of missionaries in and of itself contributes some to this. Convert baptisms did not rise, so baptisms per companionship went down. Many wards had more missionaries than they could reasonably accommodate. It would seem this would impact missionary morale in significant ways.

I agree.  I think there are many factors involved, but this is one of them (IMO).

Also, my Bishop has said that reports back from the mission home have told our Stake President that missionaries going out are experiencing a major "cell phone withdrawal" (and other electronics that the kids are on all the time it seems).  Apparently, this has been difficult for many missionaries.  I would hope that by the time they're out in the field, the withdrawals are worked through!

.

Edited February 10, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  I think there are many factors involved, but this is one of them (IMO).

Also, my Bishop has said that reports back from the mission home have told our Stake President that missionaries going out are experiencing a major "cell phone withdrawal" (and other electronics that the kids are on all the time it seems).  This has been difficult for many missionaries, it seems.  I would hope that by the time they're out in the field, the withdrawals are worked through!

Having a 17 year old son and trying to imagine him without a cell phone I get it. 

he's had a phone since he was about 13 or 14.  He's had a smart phone for the past couple of years.  It's really just a part of being somebody these days, in our culture. 

It's interesting because so many people out there keep in touch only via cell phones or some form of social media.  You set up an appointment with people and they aren't going to reach out to change things or inform you of anything if you don't have a cell phone.  I'm curious how this plays out.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  I've been in and out the past few months.  It was interesting as we discussed this last year.  The article that quoted Elder Holland suggested people were predicting the number to drop back down to the 70 thousands.  And yet the Church, and those who were saying Elder Holland may be on to something were saying the surge from the age change was over but the number was staying in the 80 thousands.  I think it might have even been you who were trying to make an issue out of someone else suggesting the number might drop back down again, which it did, as many predicted.  Here's the post: 

Also last year as this was discussed it was assumed by many that the age change bump was over with, but I and others continued to argue we can't be sure, and it's likely the number will drop further.  The article that quoted Elder Holland suggested the number was only going to rise from the 85,000 there were at that time.  But it dropped to the 70 thousand that people were arguing against. 

That's some fun recollection.  Dropping from a high of 88,000 Dec 2014 to 75,000 now is a pretty steep drop, that'd average 1,000 per month.  I'd maintain we'd need some pretty drastic changes to happen for the 100,000 to be realized.  So I wonder, perhaps, if Elder Holland and others have some changes to make.  It appears he might not have realized the number would decrease as it has, over the past year, but he might have known as holds out hope in that changes are yet to come.  What could those be? 

I think what I said back then was that 85,000 was higher than what the Missionary Department projected the number to be <at that point in time>. This is what Elder David Evans, executive director of the Missionary Department told me. They always expected there would be a reduction after the surge, but they had thought there would be more of a reduction by then. 

When there has been a net gain of 17,000 since 2012, and as it has begun to rise again, I think it premature for you to be proclaiming a reduction in the missionary force. 

[cinepro]

22 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Were I the church, I'd be more concerned about the missionary to convert ratio than I would be to the number of missionaries in the field...something is amiss...Be it the message or the effectiveness of the missionary force The number of converts as a % of church membership continues to decline despite an increase in missionaries.  And now with this decline in missionaries...what exactly does that foretell?

I think a lot of the "surge" increased the numbers of missionaries in already developed areas (like the USA), and increasing the number of missionaries hasn't really increased the numbers of converts commensurately.  In our ward we now have four elders when there wasn't even much for two elders to do. 

I know they're trying to do more service, but I still can't imagine what they do all day since they could probably tract out the entire ward in a month.  And I can't remember the last time we had a convert baptism. 

It will be interesting to see how the stats look in April...

 

https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/04/04/20-years-of-statistical-reports-visualized-ldsconf/

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Mike Reed didn't say anything about it dropping back to 58,000.  There was no reason for you to assume such of course.   Most it seemed, even those who were still expecting a drop last year, thought it might drop into the 70 thousands.  Which it did.  Others were assuming it'd continue to grow and the surge was over, which is what it seemed you were saying last year.  If anyone was wrong it was you, no Mike Reed. 

I think everyone assumed and agreed the age change would result in a net gain and even a percentage gain.  How much of a gain we weren't sure about, although the article from last year, which quoted Elder Holland suggested those who expected it still to drop would see it level out in the 70 thousand range. 

Mike Reed was very glib about predicting the number would drop back down. 

Thing is, a prediction like that is not very meaningful without specifics. How much will it fall? He  wouldn't say when asked. 

Everyone knew there would be a reduction after the surge.  It was foregone. In fact it had already fallen somewhat when he made his prediction -- from 90,000 to 85,000. The question was whether the number would drop back down to 2012 levels. As we have seen, that hasn't happened, not even close. 

So when he refused to put specifics to his prediction and thus make it meaningful, I said I would assume he meant it would drop back to what it was in 2012, as though there had been no change made in the ages of missionary eligibility. 

Edited to add:

He has had ample time by now to better define his prediction but thus far has failed to do so. In fact he has come back on here a couple of times to make testy reference to my challenging his prediction, but on those occasions has not provided such a definition. 

Edited February 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Mike Reed was very glib about predicting the number would drop back down. 

Thing is, a prediction like that is not very meaningful without specifics. How much will it fall? He  wouldn't say when asked. 

Everyone knew there would be a reduction after the surge.  It was foregone. In fact it had already fallen somewhat when he made his prediction -- from 90,000 to 85,000. The question was whether the number would drop back down to 2012 levels. As we have seen, that hasn't happened, not even close. 

So when he refused to put specifics to his prediction and thus make it meaningful, I said I would assume he meant it would drop back to what it was in 2012, as though there had been no change made in the ages of missionary eligibility. 

Edited to add:

He has had ample time by now to better define his prediction but thus far has failed to do so. In fact he has come back on here a couple of times to make testy reference to my challenging his prediction, but on those occasions has not provided such a definition. 

Well I went back and refreshed my memory on this topic a bit.  I don't see Mike Reed being anything near glib about it.  he seemed to be counter the notion that the surge was over.  I was with him that it didn't seem to be over, quite yet.  And it appears we were both right.  That the surge had yet to be over and the number would come down some.  Your thread linked below suggested the surge had subsided.  But that doesn't appear true.  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64782-surge-has-subsided-but-missionary-work-continues-apace/?do=findComment&comment=1209454367

I don't see where he suggested anything about the number would come down around the same as where it was before.  Mike Reed said, "I suspect that we are still in the wake of the recent age change. In two or three more years it will fall, I suspect, unless another change is made (ie.Internet missions served from home, or a push to expand non-prosteletyzing service missions)."

It seems to have fallen now.  It appears he was right, no? 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you referring to Elder Holland's prediction?  He may have been a bit optimistic. 

Be wonderful if it happened though. 

Yes.  I see it the same way.

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well I went back and refreshed my memory on this topic a bit.  I don't see Mike Reed being anything near glib about it.  he seemed to be counter the notion that the surge was over.  I was with him that it didn't seem to be over, quite yet.  And it appears we were both right.  That the surge had yet to be over and the number would come down some.  Your thread linked below suggested the surge had subsided.  But that doesn't appear true.  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64782-surge-has-subsided-but-missionary-work-continues-apace/?do=findComment&comment=1209454367

I don't see where he suggested anything about the number would come down around the same as where it was before.  Mike Reed said, "I suspect that we are still in the wake of the recent age change. In two or three more years it will fall, I suspect, unless another change is made (ie.Internet missions served from home, or a push to expand non-prosteletyzing service missions)."

It seems to have fallen now.  It appears he was right, no? 

He said "in the next two or three years". Do you really expect me to believe he thought the surge was going to take three more years to finish? It only lasts as long as it takes for those who were already serving to complete their missions and come home. And the surge had already been going on for two years.

And as I've pointed out, Mike has had ample time by now to clarify his assertion; he has failed to so. 

If he meant what you claim he meant, why didn't he say so when I questioned him in a followup post?

Edited February 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd