Missionaries leaving

[ERMD]

7 hours ago, salgare said:

In this ward they don't send the kids to my home.  My home teacher has a prospective missionary as a companion but after the first meeting, he now comes alone.

And why do you suppose that is?

[CV75]

17 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It got me thinking, how do we address these types of issues?  Do we put more requirements on each other?  or do we be more open about problems everyone faces?

I think we will continue to strive to minister according to the suffering individuals' needs.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

But it was a revelation to lower the missionary age...so clearly God knew there would be a negative impact by sending out younger missionaries...right?  I'm guessing that its part of His plan

God doesn't make plans or speak in words. Revelation is identical to inspiration, and sometimes inspiration can be flawed. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is true. And it will be interesting to see what the future holds. As a historian, I'm acutely aware that outcomes often lag behind trends. I have no way of knowing how many seeds currently being planted by our worldwide missionary force will eventually germinate, but in these parts, I've never seen such receptivity to the seed before. Our area president told us that, according to internal Church research, the average convert has had eight prior contacts with the Church (members, missionaries, ads, etc.), and it takes time to accumulate that number of contacts

By the way, we had our ward missionary coordination meeting tonight, and our two sets of Elders taught a total of 23 lessons last week -- only eight of which were arranged by members. When I compare that to my own mission experience (in a very similar city) and to the situation just a few years ago, it boggles my mind.

I think part of the reason is that many of the extra missionaries were deployed in areas that were already sufficiently staffed with missionaries. But, the upside may be that more people have been reactivated due to a change of focus in that area. Hard to say.

In my mission we usually taught 30-35 lessons a week, but every area is different. 

[rodheadlee]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

God doesn't make plans or speak in words. Revelation is identical to inspiration, and sometimes inspiration can be flawed. 

Say what?

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think part of the reason is that many of the extra missionaries were deployed in areas that were already sufficiently staffed with missionaries. But, the upside may be that more people have been reactivated due to a change of focus in that area. Hard to say.

In my mission we usually taught 30-35 lessons a week, but every area is different. 

My son's success in Sweden has been chiefly among refugees and immigrants. These are people who might fall through the cracks if we assume that an area or country has been "tracted out" and thus decline to deploy missionaries there. 

That said, the folk in my beloved ancestral homeland tend to be stubborn -- a trait I have inherited. I'm for giving them chances again and again -- as many as it takes. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[salgare]

1 hour ago, ERMD said:

And why do you suppose that is?

Of course to shelter the young man. Perhaps I have a bit of inoculation serum for him?  Perhaps some come home and don't return because of the brutal slap in the face from all they have been protected from.

[Rain]

18 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yes, sadly we just had one more missionary return home early in our ward this month and the Bishop just received word that a sister who is out is struggling and wants to come home.  From what I've seen of those who have recently returned, they have stopped attending.  

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do sometimes doubt the wisdom behind sending these youth out at a younger age now (some boys right out of high school).  

I also feel they have not been prepared to answer some of the questions they are now asked or to see material that is more readily available.  I think that at the very least, the essays should be studied and discussed before they go out.

.

For me it is not the earlier age that is the problem.  The problem I have seen is when people have taken it to mean that is the time you should go rather than could go. 

My oldest was in high school when it was announced and the pressure he felt was incredible as person after person assumed he should go right out of high school.  I had to stop a number of them and remind them that President Monson said the change was for those that are ready and that some would need time before going.  

What I've seen is that the boys who were ready have done well for the most part.  The boys who were not came home early if they went and if they were not ready, but wanted to go at some point and chose not to go, then the pressure encouraged them to just not go at all. 

It's the same idea with the girls. The pressure to go at all is great.  Many are going who probably should have stayed home.  There is an assumption that if you are active you will go.  And if you are more spiritual in nature the assumption is even greater.  My daughter is 18 right now.  I've had to help her know how to respond because it was causing such stress.  I wish I could have helped my oldest with this better. 

Anyway,  I don't think it is because the kids are younger.  Some do fantastic.  I think it is the fact that people think you have to go when you are younger. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Rain

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense, stemelbow.  No one in my ward has come home early in the last five years, although some certainly do and always have, and I don't know about the rest of my stake.  That is nothing new and is a test of the character and resolve of the missionary -- a necessary part of the LDS Plan of Salvation.  What needs adjusting is the poor attitude of the missionary in the field who can't cut it.  If you disagree, which traditions would you adjust in order to keep such failures from happening?

I have to admit in working with the local missionaries the work is bleak.  They don't have much going for them.  I think back on my mission and it felt far more filled with day-to-day interaction, activity, and fun.  Seeing it from my perspective makes me feel like these kids are missing out.  I don't know quite what it is, other than, for one thing, they are all in the Salt Lake Valley.  Most people they see are people who every familiarity with the Church and are tired of it.  Years ago I was the Ward Mission leader in a different area of the Valley and it was much different then.  Many more contacts and many more interesting people willing to at least discuss things. 

Our stake President councilor spoke this past Sunday and said he knows, somehow, that activity in the US is 33% and in our area it's lower.  I thought that odd because about 5 years ago our SP reported that activity rate in most wards in our stake was at 40%.  If activity dropped 7% in the past 5 years, that'd be awful.  It's possible though.  Our stake has cut out two wards in the past year.  We were told they did this because M Priesthood holders were so low relative to total membership count in our wards.  For some reason that rate kept going down for the past few years. 

I think the Church in traditional is a bit too exclusive and insular.  I'd love to see that change. Many people in ward boundaries I've been in who aren't LDS feel very excluded from their neighbors.  Members are typically aware of that issue but even if trying to address it the problem remains.  I'd love for Church to be more open in it's teaching and instructing.  I'd love to see more depth in Church discussion settings.  I'd love to see more focused and applicable lessons.  More flexible and open rules about the lessons (the whole sticking to the manual is rubbish).  I'd love us to drop the attitude of being better or blessed beyond others.  I'd love more service focused on things that matter rather than getting sister Johnson's weeds cleared.  I'd love it if the Church would stop with the rhetoric and teaching regarding homosexuality.  I'd love to see better embrace of women.  I'd love it if the Bishop wasn't so in control and influential but rather was able to share in his responsibilities more. 

Man there's tons.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

Fir me it is not the earlier age that is the problem.  The problem I have seen is when people have taken it to mean that is the time you should go rather than could go. 

My oldest was in high school when it was announced and the pressure he felt was incredible as person after person assumed he should go right out of high school.  I had to stop a number of them and remind them that President Monson said the change was for those that are ready and that some would need time before going.  

What I've seen is that the boys who were ready have done well for the most part.  The boys who were not came home early if they went and if they were not ready, but wanted to go at some point and chose not to go then the pressure encouraged them to just not go at all. 

It's the same idea with the girls. The pressure to go at all is great.  Many are going who probably should have stayed home.  There is an assumption that if you are active you will go.  And if you are more spiritual in nature the assumption is even greater.  My daughter is 18 right now.  I've had to help her know how to respond because it was causing such stress.  I wish I could have helped my oldest Witt this better. 

Anyway,  I don't think it is because the kids are younger.  Some do fantastic.  I think it is the fact that people think you have to go when you are younger. 

I completely agree with this.  The pressure is strong on the youth to serve missions (including it being more expected now of the girls to go too since the age change).  

I also think that missions are pretty glamorized and it would help if a more realistic picture was given to them (in a positive way).

One thing that the Bishop has heard many times is that the youth are having a horrible time being without their cellphones (and other electronic gadgets).  The youth are on these 24/7 it seems now.  Maybe parents could help with this by weaning them slowly off of them months before they leave?  

[flameburns623]

On facebook, someone has posted an image of a "contract for returned missionaries", apparently intended to be signed by the RM, their parents, and local leaders: a sort of goal-setting apparently designed to direct the energy of a person coming off of their mission and connect them to local support  so they don't feel a letdown and drift into inactivity because they lack the clear direction a mission provides.

http://m.imgur.com/a/tBkfM

I will try to see if an article accompanirs this link. 

 

EDIT:The link came from John Dehlin, with these remarks acconpanying:

A paper contract now being extended to every returned missionary in the American Fork Utah Hillcrest Stake -- meant to ensure that the stake stops losing returned missionaries to inactivity after they return home.  Must be physically signed by the [adult] RM, the parents, the bishop, and the stake president.

Part 3: "I will associate with and date only people who share a similar commitment to live the principles of the gospel."

Ouch.  Can't associate with inactive or non-LDS family and friends?  There is a lot of fear and desperation in this document.  I wonder if the effort is working?

Respectful comments only please.

If someone knows more they can add on. Dehlin is clearly dismissive of course. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by flameburns623
Added info

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Whatever the reason for the downturn, it's a fact that the number of baptisms per missionary has dropped dramatically.

It has been quite momentous to see the rate of growth drop dramatically as the number of missionaries has rose dramatically (albeit the number of missionaries or the missionaries per member number seems to be on the decline, since the peak).  I think the response is to do just more of the same--tell missionaries they aren't doing enough, or aren't worthy enough, increase the sales pressure pitching.  THat seems to be the response in our mission--double down and keep repeating the same old stuff.  I think at some point the Church will wake up and realize there are problems.  It'll happen. 

[Rain]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I completely agree with this.  The pressure is strong on the youth to serve missions (including it being more expected now of the girls to go too since the age change).  

I also think that missions are pretty glamorized and it would help if a more realistic picture was given to them (in a positive way).

One thing that the Bishop has heard many times is that the youth are having a horrible time being without their cellphones (and other electronic gadgets).  The youth are on these 24/7 it seems now.  Maybe parents could help with this by weaning them slowly off of them months before they leave?  

That has been a problem with 2 young men I know. Parents, helping is great, but they can only do so much.  I have experience with a child - they have to want to have help.  I wish it were as easy as just not supplying a phone. 

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

On facebook, someone has posted an image of a "contract for returned missionaries", apparently intended to be signed by the RM, their parents, and local leaders: a sort of goal-setting apparently designed to direct the energy of a person coming off of their mission and connect them to local support  so they don't feel a letdown and drift into inactivity because they lack the clear direction a mission provides.

http://m.imgur.com/a/tBkfM

I will try to see if an article accompanirs this link. 

 

EDIT:The link came from John Dehlin, with these remarks acconpanying:

A paper contract now being extended to every returned missionary in the American Fork Utah Hillcrest Stake -- meant to ensure that the stake stops losing returned missionaries to inactivity after they return home.  Must be physically signed by the [adult] RM, the parents, the bishop, and the stake president.

Part 3: "I will associate with and date only people who share a similar commitment to live the principles of the gospel."

Ouch.  Can't associate with inactive or non-LDS family and friends?  There is a lot of fear and desperation in this document.  I wonder if the effort is working?

Respectful comments only please.

If someone knows more they can add on. Dehlin is clearly dismissive of course. 

"I will associate with and date only people who share a similar commitment to live the principles..."

No please...don't tell me some stake in the Church is really advocating this?  That's despicable. 

 

[Rain]

I'm having technical dificulties and I have to run. Replying to ksfisher and stemelbow:

Yes, the 4 hours would be set by the mission - at least that is how it was about 6 months ago when I called our mission. Mission presidents can allow up to 10 per week. Our mission allows 10, but we were also part of the pilot programs for justserve.org so maybe there was more emphasis on serving.  

There are rules for serving besides hours.  Missionaries are not to use power tools. They can't be alone with children. There are a couple of others.  

[Gray]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I have no idea what's driving the downturn, but it has definitely happened. As for the change in missionary age, my guess is that it is based more on retention of missionary-age kids than anything else. Previously, young men typically had a year or so after high school before turning 19. Perhaps more kids were deciding in that year not to serve missions or becoming inactive. Lowering the age means these kids go directly from being under parental authority to a mission, so it's likely more would serve missions. 

When the age change happened, my parents both expressed their strong disapproval of the change, both saying that they thought it would mean more missionaries who were unprepared not just for a mission but for living on their own. Since the implementation of the change, they've told me that a number of missionaries serving in their ward have really struggled with living on their own, with several going home within a few months. Similarly, young men and young women from their ward have returned home early because they were not ready to be on their own. 

It would be nice if the church were encouraging only those young men and women who really want to serve missions, but I think there is a prevalent belief that just getting them on missions will change these kids mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. I recall that when my mission president attended a conference in Salt Lake, President Monson said that young men serve missions for many reasons--family, girlfriends, social pressure--but "they stay because they are converted." That goes along with what my mission president said initially when he arrived in Bolivia, that he was more concerned about converting us than he was about convert baptisms. I've seen parents send kids out on missions with the hope that the mission will resolve whatever problems they have, but I'm not sure that's a good reason to send someone out on a mission. Most of us who have served missions have had companions who did not want to be there. On rare occasions, things changed, but at least in my experience, those who didn't want to be there still didn't want to be there after 2 years. 

I've mentioned before that my oldest son is on the autism spectrum, though quite high functioning. My wife used to say, "If we could get him on a mission, I know he'd do much better." I finally asked her, "Would you want to be his companion? Would you feel good about someone else dealing with him as a companion?" She acknowledged that he would not have made a good missionary, and most likely, it would have been a bad experience for him. When I was young men's president years ago, we had a young man in our ward with severe social anxiety, such that he rarely came out to church or activities. He was a nice kid, but he couldn't handle social situations, so I visited him regularly and got to know him, but I didn't push him, as when he would attend church, he would sit in the back row and usually leave right after the sacrament was passed. A year or so after he graduated from high school (mostly homeschooled), I was elders quorum president, and our bishop announced that this young man was going to be ordained an elder and was preparing to serve a mission. The bishop paid for medical and dental work so this kid would pass the health requirements (he was quite obese, so I don't think he would qualify now). I told the bishop I thought this was a bad idea, but he said the spirit had prompted him to really push to get this kid on a mission. He was called to North Carolina, IIRC, but he was home 10 days after he left the MTC. I visited him, and he was worse than before because he felt like a complete failure. I still feel terrible that an overzealous bishop caused lasting harm to that kid. 

To me, the issue is the purpose of a mission. Is it to find and baptize converts, or is it to convert the missionaries themselves? If it's both, how do you balance or prioritize those goals? I'm glad that's not anything I will ever have to deal with. 

I remember my mom always saying to me, "a mission will be the making of you." I guess it's an article of faith. Sometimes though a mission is the breaking of you rather than the making of you. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My son's success in Sweden has been chiefly among refugees and immigrants. These are people who might fall through the cracks if we assume that an area or country has been "tracted out" and thus decline to deploy missionaries there. 

That said, the folk in my beloved ancestral homeland tend to be stubborn -- a trait I have inherited. I'm for giving them chances again and again -- as many as it takes. 

Yes, that's a good point. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Say what?

That's my religious belief. 

[Jeanne]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I wonder if that was a problem with a companion (or companions), or an overbearing mission president.  

I had some difficulty with some of my companions.  One drank a cup of his own urine every morning (an old Chinese folk remedy, or some such, he said).  Another insisted that "Basketball Contacting" was the best way to go (he would play basketball, and I would talk to guys on the sideline).  So he played basketball . . . a lot.  We had a general authority visit, during which he said some things which were . . . well, let's just say that the mission president subsequently went out of his way to "clarify" the GA's remarks.

I was too hard on one of my greenies.  I worked him too hard (I should probably track him down and apologize).

In the main, however, I had a great experience.  Lots of wonderful people.  Lots of work.  Lots of failure and frustration.  Lots of prayer.  Lots of growth.  I think I should feel fortunate I did not have traumatic experiences, as they do appear to happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh wow...a cup of urine..that would have been hard to take.

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Oh wow...a cup of urine..that would have been hard to take.

Sharing is caring.

[Jeanne]

10 hours ago, salgare said:

require them to visit an inactive once a week for two months before turning in their papers.

You know...that is not a bad idea.

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Sharing is caring.

[salgare]

18 hours ago, waveslider said:

If we get to the point that no one wants to join, then I think it is because the people as whole have grown so Godless that the whole Earth will need to be cleansed anyway, as prophesied before Christ returns again in His full glory, to reign on Earth.

Yes, pray the day is finally upon us!  Father, come quickly and cleanse this filthy earth.  Hell we should join the Radical Islamic and quit just praying and talking about it, but put our desires to actions!

Edited August 4, 2016 by salgare

[flameburns623]

56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

"I will associate with and date only people who share a similar commitment to live the principles..."

No please...don't tell me some stake in the Church is really advocating this?  That's despicable. 

 

I think there may be some fear that RM's are tempted to slip into a "wilding" or "rumspringa" phase, as part of coming 'down from the mountaintop' experience--or the sense of constraint and the self-imposed asceticism--of missionary life.

Military trainees--and combat vets--often go through that. Somewhere around the fourth week of Basic Training, everyone gets a chance at a weekend pass, and many use that weekend of liberty to head straight for the wildest, drunkest, wickedest bar they can find.

Same thing, so I understand, with guys on liberty between combat gigs.

I did it in BCT and immediately following. Remember please, this was way BEFORE I joined the Church Too many details would be inappropriate here, but my misadventures included copious drinking at bars which featured nude dancers with large snakes. And I was rather more introverted than some of my fellow soldiers. 

I can see returned missionaries, or at least some of them, lured to do the same sort of thing. My guess is, that clause in that contract is meant to get the RM to spend time "decompressing" among folks who will support their values; rather than with people who will (willfully or not) undermine those values.

Over the first six months or a year following that missionary service, this could be a positive thing, although long-term we all know that eventually one will have to live around, work with, and interact among folks who are not LDS. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by flameburns623

[jkwilliams]

36 minutes ago, Gray said:

I remember my mom always saying to me, "a mission will be the making of you." I guess it's an article of faith. Sometimes though a mission is the breaking of you rather than the making of you. 

Agreed. I came away from the mission believing that those who don't want to go shouldn't go and shouldn't be pressured to go. I realize that's not the conventional wisdom.