Missionary number has declined

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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?

I just did quote him.  he didn't say anything about the number to drop back to where it was, though.  It has fallen.  Ah well, I won't worry too much about that.

But I am eager to understand what this drop in the number may mean.  Will it drop further?  Are the possible changes coming that might give us another bump? 

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I just did quote him.  he didn't say anything about the number to drop back to where it was, though.  It has fallen.  Ah well, I won't worry too much about that.

But I am eager to understand what this drop in the number may mean.  Will it drop further?  Are the possible changes coming that might give us another bump? 

Do you really think he meant that the surge would last for up to five years? On what basis did he (or you) think that? 

And again, why didn't he clarify when I questioned him on it?  Did you read my followup post in that thread?

Again, everybody expected there would be a post-surge reduction. The question was how much. Mike refused to say. 

And I've pointed out-- several times now -- what sources have said, that the number has bottomed out and is rising again. Mike Reed said "two or three years." Let's see where it is next year, or the following year. 

Why do you think the post-surge drop has to "mean" something, when it had been expected all along there would be such a drop?

Edited February 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you really think he meant that the surge would last for up to five years? On what basis did he (or you) think that? 

And again, why didn't he clarify when I questioned him on it?  Did you read my followup post in that thread?

Again, everybody expected there would be a post-surge reduction. The question was how much. Mike refused to say. 

And I've pointed out-- several times now -- what sources have said, that the number has bottomed out and is rising again. Mike Reed said "two or three years." Let's see where it is next year, or the following year. 

Why do you think the post-surge drop has to "mean" something, when it had been expected all along there would be such a drop?

"Within the next two or three years" does not mean in 5 years from when it started but anytime after that day he so said.  And the number has fallen, within the time frame he suggested.  it appears he is correct. 

I think he found it silly that he was answering to it in a new thread.  he did clarify to some extent, and I quoted him already in this thread. 

I'm confused by your messaging.  You started a thread claiming the surge had subsided over a year ago.  I suggested we had yet to see the end of that great boost that was the surge, and as far as memory had it so did Mike.  I think we were right. 

Your last question is interesting.  Last year when we discussed it, your position was the surge had subsided and your joy was the numbers haven't decreased.  Now here we are a year later with less numbers and your claim that you expected it to drop from late 2014's high.  But last year when the article quoting Elder Holland claimed the Church expects it to grow even more than the 85,000 at the time, no one made mention that we'd see a decline over the course of this year. 

honestly, Scott, I'm not sure why you brought Mike back up in this thread claiming he was glib with his statements and trying to suggest his "within two or three years" ought to mean there would be a drop in two or three years, not within those years.  It's within those two or three years now. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

"Within the next two or three years" does not mean in 5 years from when it started but anytime after that day he so said.  And the number has fallen, within the time frame he suggested.  it appears he is correct. 

I think he found it silly that he was answering to it in a new thread.  he did clarify to some extent, and I quoted him already in this thread. 

I'm confused by your messaging.  You started a thread claiming the surge had subsided over a year ago.  I suggested we had yet to see the end of that great boost that was the surge, and as far as memory had it so did Mike.  I think we were right. 

Your last question is interesting.  Last year when we discussed it, your position was the surge had subsided and your joy was the numbers haven't decreased.  Now here we are a year later with less numbers and your claim that you expected it to drop from late 2014's high.  But last year when the article quoting Elder Holland claimed the Church expects it to grow even more than the 85,000 at the time, no one made mention that we'd see a decline over the course of this year. 

honestly, Scott, I'm not sure why you brought Mike back up in this thread claiming he was glib with his statements and trying to suggest his "within two or three years" ought to mean there would be a drop in two or three years, not within those years.  It's within those two or three years now. 

He said in the <next> two or three years, meaning from the time he made that post. There had already been over two years transpire from the time the age changes were announced. Added together, that amounts to a surge of up to five years, if we are to accept the meaning you are trying to ascribe to Mike Reed. 

Why would he be predicting that the number would fall post-surge when it had already done so, by 5,000. You're not making sense.

And my "joy" was in the fact that the number had not dropped post-surge nearly as much as the Missionary Department had anticipated for that point in time. I never  said I thought it had bottomed out. I didn't know back then . 

Finally, the number is still at 75,000.  That's 17,000 more than in 2012. I don't know why you think you have cause to crow about a reduction and that it "means" something extraordinary and that the Church will be obliged to take unusual steps to cope with it. 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He said in the <next> two or three years, meaning from the time he made that post. There had already been over two years transpire from the time the age changes were announced. Added together, that amounts to a surge of up to five years, if we are to accept the meaning you are trying to ascribe to Mike Reed. 

Why would he be predicting that the number would fall post-surge when it had already done so, by 5,000. You're not making sense.

And my "joy" was in the fact that the number had not dropped post-surge nearly as much as the Missionary Department had anticipated for that point in time. I never  said I thought it had bottomed out. I didn't know back then . 

Finally, the number is still at 75,000.  That's 17,000 more than in 2012. I don't know why you think you have cause to crow about a reduction and that it "means" something extraordinary and that the Church will be obliged to take unusual steps to cope with it. 

Alright, I wanted to back out of this stuff about what Mike Reed said before and I should have stuck with it.  I don't care what he said.  I'm concerned, though with the drop in numbers.  That's a pretty big drop if we say the surge ended (or subsided) a year ago and from that point forth expected the numbers to climb from then on. 

But it seems likely the surge ended closer to now rather than last year.I"ll be eager to see how this all plays out in the coming years, as I always am.  And I'm quite eager to hear the numbers reported in a month and a half.  I'm just that way, I guess. 

[Guest]

On February 9, 2016 at 4:44 PM, stemelbow said:

As you will recall a year ago or so Elder Holland predicted to have 100,000 missionaries by 2019.  At that time last year, there was a recent decrease of some couple thousand missionaries from the end of 2014 and the time the article was written.  Today it appears the number has gone down even more.  We're at 75,000 missionaries now--a 13,000 some odd drop from then end of 2014.  Is the age change bubble starting to come back down?  it appears that is the case.  I recall last year I had argued that we won't see the end of the age change bubble until about now.  Anywho, thought it'd be interesting to discuss.  What do we think needs to change for the number of missionaries to increase dramatically over the next 3 years to reach 100,000? 

Follow link to verify 75,000 number. 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865645872/Elder-Dallin-H-Oaks-speaks-at-Worldwide-Missionary-Broadcast-Our-message-for-missionaries.html

 

Two things, first Elder Holland was not speaking as a Seer or Prophet, but using numbers and data to answer a question(s). Also, one day members and missionaries will plateau and even decrease as wickedness increases bringing about the second coming of Christ. 

[sjdawg]

15 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. 

If the church is growing either through birthrate or conversion it seems there should always be some net growth regardless of missionary age.

[VideoGameJunkie]

2 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

Two things, first Elder Holland was not speaking as a Seer or Prophet, but using numbers and data to answer a question(s). Also, one day members and missionaries will plateau and even decrease as wickedness increases bringing about the second coming of Christ. 

Woo hoo! Bring on the second coming! Wait....I don't want to be around when the really bad stuff starts happening.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

If the church is growing either through birthrate or conversion it seems there should always be some net growth regardless of missionary age.

There has been a net gain in missionaries of 17,000 since latter 2012. That's a 29 percent increase. Are you saying the Church has grown 29 percent in three years?

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Woo hoo! Bring on the second coming! Wait....I don't want to be around when the really bad stuff starts happening.

Since we do not know the "hour or the day" (BTW, not even Christ nor the Holy Spirit know) we may all be around or none of us will be around...in mortality that is. All of the righteous will be present, either coming with the Savior or being caught up to join him while he pours out his judgments upon the earth, then to live on the Earth with him. 

[sjdawg]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There has been a net gain in missionaries of 17,000 since latter 2012. That's a 29 percent increase. Are you saying the Church has grown 29 percent in three years?

Not at all.   What I am saying is that unless church membership begins to shrink we should never return to 2012 missionary levels.  You may have an odd year with lower numbers of youths but statistically it should consistently increase.  

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Not at all.   What I am saying is that unless church membership begins to shrink we should never return to 2012 missionary levels.  You may have an odd year with lower numbers of youths but statistically it should consistently increase.  

A net gain of 17,000 missionaries in three years is far more than a "consistent increase" commensurate with membership growth. In fact it is phenomenal. 

[sjdawg]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A net gain of 17,000 missionaries in three years is far more than a "consistent increase" commensurate with membership growth. In fact it is phenomenal. 

I'm not disagreeing with you.   

[Five Solas]

On 2/9/2016 at 2:00 PM, smac97 said:

I'm not sure Elder Holland was speaking prophetically.

...

I think that's pretty easily stated, especially with the benefit of hindsight. 

Out of curiosity, are there many times when you think Elder Holland was "speaking prophetically"--i.e., when something he prophesied actually did occur (or is about to)?  Forgive me if the question seems combative or unfair. 

--Erik

Edited February 11, 2016 by Five Solas

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I think that's pretty easily stated, especially with the benefit of hindsight. 

Out of curiosity, are there many times when you think Elder Holland was "speaking prophetically"--i.e., when something he prophesied actually did occur (or is about to)?  Forgive me if the question seems combative or unfair. 

--Erik

It seems off topic to me. But it's not my thread. 

[Five Solas]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It seems off topic to me. But it's not my thread. 

This thread simply wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Elder Holland's prediction, Scott.  I submit that makes his predictions/prophesies very much on topic.  On what basis would you argue otherwise?  

--Erik

 

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I think that's pretty easily stated, especially with the benefit of hindsight. 

Out of curiosity, are there many times when you think Elder Holland was "speaking prophetically"--i.e., when something he prophesied actually did occur (or is about to)?  Forgive me if the question seems combative or unfair. 

--Erik

So you consider this as possible prophetic language?:

"We’re projecting out probably within four years, the baseline number for the missionary force will be something around 100,000."

As far as hindsight goes, are you from the future given the prediction he gave was for 2019?

Edited February 11, 2016 by Calm

[Five Solas]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you consider this as possible prophetic language?:

"We’re projecting out probably within four years, the baseline number for the missionary force will be something around 100,000."

As far as hindsight goes, are you from the future given the prediction he gave was for 2019?

I recall I sparred with you elsewhere and am regretting it, Calm

;0)

I wish not to pass judgment on Elder Holland's prose (though I don't disagree it fails to inspire the confidence one might hope for from a prophet).  And as to whether we should suspend judgement until 2019--I'm happy to let time decide and will say no more on the topic, for now.  You'll track the date and keep us all honest, right?

--Erik

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

I recall I sparred with you elsewhere and am regretting it, Calm

;0)

I wish not to pass judgment on Elder Holland's prose (though I don't disagree it fails to inspire the confidence one might hope for from a prophet).  And as to whether we should suspend judgement until 2019--I'm happy to let time decide and will say no more on the topic, for now.  You'll track the date and keep us all honest, right?

--Erik

 

If I understand correctly, you are a former Latter-day Saint who forsook his faith. It's not surprising one with that background would pronounce himself uninspired by the words of a prophet, whether they be intended as a prophecy or merely as a projection based on current statistics. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

This thread simply wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Elder Holland's prediction, Scott.  I submit that makes his predictions/prophesies very much on topic.  On what basis would you argue otherwise?  

--Erik

 

This thread is not just about Elder Holland, but about numbers of missionaries before, during and after the surge occasioned by the change in ages of eligibility for missionary service. 

So I disagree that this thread is primarily about Elder Holland or the statement attributed to him. 

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

Two things, first Elder Holland was not speaking as a Seer or Prophet, but using numbers and data to answer a question(s). Also, one day members and missionaries will plateau and even decrease as wickedness increases bringing about the second coming of Christ. 

This may even be more concerning.  if from numbers and data he thought the number would increase from 85,000 then something has gone amiss.  I think it possible he's thinking they have other changes coming, something along the lines of the age change that would give a good hefty spark for more young men and women. 

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There has been a net gain in missionaries of 17,000 since latter 2012. That's a 29 percent increase. Are you saying the Church has grown 29 percent in three years?

I think everyone gets the age change worked.  the increase I think is great.  I'm happy about it, being a bit of a numbers person myself.  We're better off the more participation we have with more people--we as in the Church.  No doubt.  The issue, though, remains.  How did we lose 13,000 over the past 14/15 months?  We were told, maybe it was just you who said it, that the surge had subsided and the numbers hadn't dropped.  But then here we are a year later and the numbers have gone down.  This either means: 1. the surge had not subsided, or 2. we have another issue on our hands. 

It's possible we have another issue as some here have reported and as I've heard elsewhere, their is an increase in the number of missionaries going home early.  I'm curious what happened because when we heard from Elder Holland last year, the impression was was that the numbers were only going to increase, not decrease--a 15 percent decrease since Dec 2014. 

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There has been a net gain in missionaries of 17,000 since latter 2012. That's a 29 percent increase. 

Hasn't this already been discussed at length?  I thought everyone (or at least most?) agrees that it's because of the age change that took place in 2012 and this surge was expected.  That increase is old news, IMO

The recent decrease is of interest (or being discussed) because of the prediction from Elder Holland that 100,000 missionaries will be serving by 2019.  What will occur to turn the decrease into an increase by then?

 

 

.

Edited February 11, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

Again, why is this being discussed on 2 different threads?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think everyone gets the age change worked.  the increase I think is great.  I'm happy about it, being a bit of a numbers person myself.  We're better off the more participation we have with more people--we as in the Church.  No doubt.  The issue, though, remains.  How did we lose 13,000 over the past 14/15 months?  We were told, maybe it was just you who said it, that the surge had subsided and the numbers hadn't dropped.  But then here we are a year later and the numbers have gone down.  This either means: 1. the surge had not subsided, or 2. we have another issue on our hands. 

 

I didn't say the surge was finished. What I said, quoting the executive director of the the Missionary Department, was that the decrease was far less than had been expected for that point in time. I never said, and I don't think anyone else did, that wouldn't be more of a decrease before the number of missionaries in the field stabilized.