Update on missionaries

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

I've seen it applied to anything and everything church related. I'm not sure anyone knows for sure what it means.

My take is members are taking "hastening the work" to mean work harder.  But then, as Cinepro points out that's not what hastening means. 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

In American areas where there are higher concentrations of Mormons, the missionaries don't have enough to do. The neighborhoods have had way too much repetitive tracting. That results in the pleas for members to have them in their homes to let them give lessons. My sister's area opened a new zone and they have multiple sets of missionaries in their ward. They also don't let them stay long enough to build relationships with youth anymore. My daughter was very inspired by a young elder in her earlier years when they stayed longer.  In other words, I have to wonder how appealing or useful missionary service looks to younger ward members anymore in the more populated areas.

I think this is a great point.

The problem seems to be two-fold.

1- Youth are seeing the boredom factor of missions (it's always existed but has often been hidden well  ). The mission doesn't appear to be as appealing.

2- Parents are worried about the vast number of missionaries returning early and are concerned about sending their kids out.

With the age change/Missionary surge, there seem to have been changes in philosophy and practice in how mission presidents deal with missionaries who are homesick, anxious, have physical ailments etc. I think it's fair for parents and potential missionaries to know exactly what they're getting into and the policies that govern how missions function.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

In American areas where there are higher concentrations of Mormons, the missionaries don't have enough to do. The neighborhoods have had way too much repetitive tracting. That results in the pleas for members to have them in their homes to let them give lessons. My sister's area opened a new zone and they have multiple sets of missionaries in their ward. They also don't let them stay long enough to build relationships with youth anymore. My daughter was very inspired by a young elder in her earlier years when they stayed longer.  In other words, I have to wonder how appealing or useful missionary service looks to younger ward members anymore in the more populated areas.

Good points.  

 

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

We had a regional conference yesterday.  Elder Ballard's remarks were pretty good. 

Elder Hallstrom reported there are under 72,000 missionaries serving today.  That's a near 3 percent decline from the first of the year, as was reported.  The problem is, we were told then that the number of missionaries would grow upwards from the 74,000.  I wonder when we're going to hit the bottom after the surge?  When we were at 88,000 missionaries it was predicted we'd be at 100,000 in a couple years from that point (so in 2019).  That seems unlikely unless, of course, some really big changes come. 

The year I came home from my mission (1997) it was reported we had 56,531 missionaries.  Which was .56% of the Church.  Today we have under 72,000 (put it at 71,990 for evaluation purposes).  Which puts us at .47% of the Church.  So before the raising the bar we had more missionaries per member than we have today.  We also had more than twice the growth rate back then.  As it was we had more missionaries for the Church in '97 then we did in 2014 when the surge was at its peak (1997=.56% of the Church were missionaries; 2014=.55% of the Church were missionaries).  It was also said yesterday, by Elder Hallstrom that the percent of young women serving missions has doubled since 2012 (when we were down to 58,000 missionaries).  If the percent of young women serving missions had remained constant or somewhat constant from 1997 to 2012, then what we may have is far less young men serving missions now, percentage-wise in particular.   

For instance, if 7% of the missionaries were young women in 1997 or 2012, that'd mean 14% of the missionaries are young women today.  14% of the 71,990 is 10,078.  7% of the 58,000 is 4,060.  Or if we consider 1997, 3,957.  Let's do this, then.  non young women serving in 1997 could have been 52,574 (.52% of Church population)  Today non young women missionaries might be 61,912 (.39% of the Church population).  The Raising the Bar campaign likely is the biggest factor here, as it is many LDS young males are being excluded from missionary service because of it.  That was 2001, as I see it.  So in 2003, the first year that saw a pretty significant decline in missionaries, considering the same scenario as above, we'd see .43% of the Church as non young women serving missions.  Elder Hallstrom did not report what the percentage is today, only that it is twice as much as it ever has been.  And sadly, in my searches I'm not finding anything reporting the number of young women missionaries.  Side note:  He also indicated young men serving missions is a priesthood obligation, and there's no such obligation for young women. 

So we have far less young men serving missions today then we've had for many many years, or so it seems.  Our other problem is, as has been reported to me by our local leaders as being a Church wide problem, many of our young men missionaries are heading home early.  Additionally our growth rate is as low as it's ever been in the past 100 years. 

This is meant as an update to some fo the past discussions we've had:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67003-missionary-number-has-declined/#comment-1209590103

Scott from the thread here linked:

As it was back then Scott was claiming that the actual missionaries in the field were closer to 75,000 than the reported 74,079.  But we were told by Scott that the number had bottomed out at 75,000, when at that time it was closer to 74,000 (74,049).  Today we have less than 72,000 as Elder Hallstrom reported, which could be I suppose anywhere from 71,001 to 71,999.  I like positivity so I consider it as 71,990 (the high end). 

And another thread

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64782-surge-has-subsided-but-missionary-work-continues-apace/#comment-1209454367

In this above thread, Scott challenged Mike Reeds assumption that "in two or three more years it will fall, I suspect, unless another change is made".  It has steadily fallen since MIke said so, near 2 years ago.  I'm curious how much more it will fall.  So far we know that in 2012 the percent of missionary to member was at .40%, now it's back down to .46%.  I'm curious if we'll get closer to .40% in the coming year.  It has gotten me curious if the leaders anticipated that the number of missionaries going home early would be so significant that it's been reported as a problem we face today? 

I welcome predictions or clarification, or ideas shared on all of this.  I love the year end reports. 

Does this take into account that all converts over typical missionary age are not likely to go on a mission? I mean your stats seemed to be aimed at those born into the Church. How much would this skew the stats?

 

[waveslider]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

ok Gotcha.  So missionaries were sent out younger because this is all going to happen?  And yet for some reason with all the missionaries out there we ended up spreading the word to less than we have before? 

I'm not saying that this is definitely the case, only that it is a very real possibility. It is always better to try than to just roll over get defeated anyway, even if we end up, "unprofitable servants." Younger missionaries being sent out is better than waiting until they are older and perhaps won't get to be sent out in the first place, or be sent home early when the crap starts to hit the fan, if indeed this is the case. Just my two cents worth anyway.

[rongo]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The problem seems to be two-fold.1- Youth are seeing the boredom factor of missions (it's always existed but has often been hidden well  ). The mission doesn't appear to be as appealing.

I think a lot of the "boredom factor," as you call it, is the Church's own fault. By design, missions in North America (where most new missionaries are called) have been "sissified." In my experience (bishop x2, counselor x2, WML x2, EQP x2), the Church is trying to shield missionaries from hard work and negative experiences, and this has the opposite effect of causing more boredom, depression, etc. than the hard work and rejection would have caused. We had a member of the 70 who told us in stake conference that our duty as members was to see that our missionaries in our wards never have any negative experiences, and only positive ones. That removes a lot of the adventure, romance, and sense of accomplishment (dealing with hard things) that a mission means. The missionaries in our stake are constantly at the church building. Constantly. It isn't their fault. They are told to spend down time at the church instead of doing "ineffective" tracting. If I knew that I would spend most of my mission hanging out doing basically nothing at the church, that would have factored into my desire to serve a mission. I think what you said above is a factor --- youth see what serving a mission entails, and as they weigh their options, there is competition. Paradoxically, because the Church has tried to make it easier.

The I-pads drive me nuts. Missionaries generally only show Mormon Messages and videos on them, and they act inept and lost when the system is down. They are glued to them in public and probably at home as well. While trying to ease the transition to mission with an electronics-addicted generation, I think the I-padization of missions has led to a decline in teaching ability, resiliency, and competency.

 Parents are worried about the vast number of missionaries returning early and are concerned about sending their kids out.

I don't know that it's a "vast number." When the Church used to have 52,000, the early return rate was around 3%. With the 93,000-75,000 of the last few years, it has increased to about 9%.*** This is both an increase of raw numbers and percentage, but I don't know that I would call it "vast." 

Let's face it: many more of our youth and adults in the Church lack any resiliency at all. The state of our missionary program is simply a symptom of this larger problem.

***I'm not at liberty to disclose my source for these numbers. Take them or leave them, or ignore them if you like. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

What does that even mean?  Obviously, the Church has the most members in absolute numbers than ever before, with more Temples available than ever before.  How could we not have more people taking the sacrament, getting baptized, and going to the Temple than "ever before"?  

Honestly, that sounds like someone is trying to shift the emphasis from growth to something else. 

It would be like a website (like this one) suddenly stopping talking about how many new members are registering (after talking about membership growth for the last 12 years) and emphasizing that now they are getting more posts than ever before.  That might be all find and dandy, but I think I'd wonder why they were talking about membership growth on the website all those years and then suddenly stopped and started emphasizing a different metric.

I'm not sure I know how to respond to your question. But I went back and checked what Elder Hallstrom said, because I wanted to be precise with it.

He said, "By every important measurement, the number of individuals making and keeping covenants continues to increase. The work of salvation, with breathtaking advancements in missionary work, temple work, family history work and teaching the gospel has as its fundamental purpose to bless the sons and daughters of God."

Earlier in his talk, he defined the work that is being hastened -- drawing upon wording in the Handbook -- as member missionary work, convert retention, member reactivation, temple and family history work and teaching the gospel. He emphasized the inter-relatedness of these elements and took pains to note that, contrary to being in competition with each other, they are all intertwined, or, in scriptural terms, "the Lord's course is one eternal round."

He said the role of missionaries has expanded beyond just finding, teaching and baptizing and now includes all aspects of conversion, retention and activation. And now, members are encouraged to participate in every part of missionary work, even before the convert is baptized.

He said that on Oct. 6, 2012, when the age changes for missionary work were announced, the number of full-time missionaries was about 58,000. That in approximately two years, the number skyrocketed to more than 88,000. That it has decreased "as was fully anticipated" to just under 72,000. That it is expected "to be stable for a time and then grow in the future based on Church demographics."

He talked about the doubling in the number of sister missionaries and their increased opportunities for service with the new position of sister training leader and the membership of that individual as well as the wife of the mission president on the mission council.

He said the number of converts needs to be considered in view of what it takes to become a member of the Church: going from, in many cases, no church involvement at all to attending for three hours every Sunday; giving 10 percent of one's earnings to the Church; serving in callings, speaking in meetings, helping others continually, and on and on and on. He drew laughter from the congregation when he said, "When you consider what it takes to join this church, it is a miracle anybody does."

He talked about innovations in teaching of the gospel, including new youth curriculum.

He spoke of the rapid increase in temples and temple work and in family history work.

My take-away impression was that he mentioned the continual increase in individuals making and keeping covenants because it is a measure of real growth. On the other hand, It can be hard to get a reliable measure of growth from raw membership numbers, because they could include many who absent themselves from the Church and thus, in effect, have no Church involvement in their lives.

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't recall the word stabilized being used, but if so I would have to wonder what that would mean. 

He said: "While this total [more than 88,000] has decreased as was fully anticipated to now just under 72,000, we expect this number to be stable for a time and then grow in the future based on Church demographics."

That is a direct quote. It is not a paraphrase, and it is not merely based on memory.

And why do you "have to wonder what that would mean"? It seems pretty clear to me.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Atheist Mormon]

11 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I welcome predictions or clarification, or ideas shared on all of this.  I love the year end reports. 

Unfortunately the predictions are based on wild conjectures, not real results......In waning days of good years I was in Europe (1977) even then the pickings were so slim....but there was some success.... Nowadays I live in the middle of 4th biggest City (in US) and I don't see any missionaries. Period!

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Does this take into account that all converts over typical missionary age are not likely to go on a mission? I mean your stats seemed to be aimed at those born into the Church. How much would this skew the stats?

 

Should we suspect that today we have far more converts of missionary age than in times past?  I'm not sure there's any reason to suspect more or less at this point.  Do you know?

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Unfortunately the predictions are based on wild conjectures, not real results......In waning days of good years I was in Europe (1977) even then the pickings were so slim....but there was some success.... Nowadays I live in the middle of 4th biggest City (in US) and I don't see any missionaries. Period!

Depends on whether you're counting biggest city by MSA or city proper, but this means your in either Dallas (4th biggest MSA) or Houston (4th biggest city proper). 

There are plenty of missionaries in each of those cities.  That you're not seeing them doesn't mean much, though.  They are just quietly riding bikes, walking, taking the bus, or driving around. 

[ALarson]

16 hours ago, juliann said:

In American areas where there are higher concentrations of Mormons, the missionaries don't have enough to do. The neighborhoods have had way too much repetitive tracting. That results in the pleas for members to have them in their homes to let them give lessons. My sister's area opened a new zone and they have multiple sets of missionaries in their ward. They also don't let them stay long enough to build relationships with youth anymore. My daughter was very inspired by a young elder in her earlier years when they stayed longer.  In other words, I have to wonder how appealing or useful missionary service looks to younger ward members anymore in the more populated areas.

This is a very insightful post, juliann.

We are seeing some parents in our ward who have become very leery of sending their 18 year old sons out at the early age after seeing so many returning early in our stake (the majority of which went on their missions straight out of high school).  The results of them coming home early have been devastating for many (the missionaries and their families).

I do wonder if the church leaders will re-evaluate and raise the age back up to 19 for young men (and leave the age for the young women at 19 too).

Edited September 13, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He said: "While this total [more than 88,000] has decreased as was fully anticipated to now just under 72,000, we expect this number to be stable for a time and then grow in the future based on Church demographics."

 

That is a direct quote. It is not a paraphrase, and it is not merely based on memory.

And why do you "have to wonder what that would mean"? It seems pretty clear to me.

Thanks.  The quote helps.  My confusion was that perhaps the number at 74,000 was considered stabilized.  Maybe a drop of a couple thousand throughout the year will always happen.  I'm curious about Calm's idea of seasonality.  If Elder Hallstrom is reporting at a year's low point, perhaps.  Stuff like that. 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not sure I know how to respond to your question. But I went back and checked what Elder Hallstrom said, because I wanted to be precise with it.

He said, "By every important measurement, the number of individuals making and keeping covenants continues to increase. The work of salvation, with breathtaking advancements in missionary work, temple work, family history work and teaching the gospel has as its fundamental purpose to bless the sons and daughters of God."

Earlier in his talk, he defined the work that is being hastened -- drawing upon wording in the Handbook -- as member missionary work, convert retention, member reactivation, temple and family history work and teaching the gospel. He emphasized the inter-relatedness of these elements and took pains to note that, contrary to being in competition with each other, they are all intertwined, or, in scriptural terms, "the Lord's course is one eternal round."

He said the role of missionaries has expanded beyond just finding, teaching and baptizing and now includes all aspects of conversion, retention and activation. And now, members are encouraged to participate in every part of missionary work, even before the convert is baptized.

He said that on Oct. 6, 2012, when the age changes for missionary work were announced, the number of full-time missionaries was about 58,000. That in approximately two years, the number skyrocketed to more than 88,000. That it has decreased "as was fully anticipated" to just under 72,000. That it is expected "to be stable for a time and then grow in the future based on Church demographics."

He talked about the doubling in the number of sister missionaries and their increased opportunities for service with the new position of sister training leader and the membership of that individual as well as the wife of the mission president on the mission council.

He said the number of converts needs to be considered in view of what it takes to become a member of the Church: going from, in many cases, no church involvement at all to attending for three hours every Sunday; giving 10 percent of one's earnings to the Church; serving in callings, speaking in meetings, helping others continually, and on and on and on. He drew laughter from the congregation when he said, "When you consider what it takes to join this church, it is a miracle anybody does."

He talked about innovations in teaching of the gospel, including new youth curriculum.

He spoke of the rapid increase in temples and temple work and in family history work.

My take-away impression was that he mentioned the continual increase in individuals making and keeping covenants because it is a measure of real growth. On the other hand, It can be hard to get a reliable measure of growth from raw membership numbers, because they could include many who absent themselves from the Church and thus, in effect, have no Church involvement in their lives.

 

 

 

You would hope the percentage of members that are temple endowed has increased significantly with the availability of temple increase.  Such would be expected. I'm curious if 20 years ago a member who lived 900 miles away from the temple and without any reasonable means to get to one, but would desire to go in a heartbeat, is considered in such a calculation if we are comparing members 20 years ago to today.  Perhaps that same member is now 50 miles away and is able to get to the temple regularly now.  If such a measure of  more members "making and keeping covenants" is in consideration into what is real growth I think there's plenty more to consider.  The same member might have been more committed to God 20 years ago than today.  But we'd never know. 

Really what counts most, in my mind, is raw membership numbers, percent growth, and activity rates (rarely shared) in this consideration.  More making and keeping covenants is way too iffy--too many make and keep covenants, or potentially so, quietly without the Church knowing. 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

I think a lot of the "boredom factor," as you call it, is the Church's own fault. By design, missions in North America (where most new missionaries are called) have been "sissified." In my experience (bishop x2, counselor x2, WML x2, EQP x2), the Church is trying to shield missionaries from hard work and negative experiences, and this has the opposite effect of causing more boredom, depression, etc. than the hard work and rejection would have caused. We had a member of the 70 who told us in stake conference that our duty as members was to see that our missionaries in our wards never have any negative experiences, and only positive ones. That removes a lot of the adventure, romance, and sense of accomplishment (dealing with hard things) that a mission means. The missionaries in our stake are constantly at the church building. Constantly. It isn't their fault. They are told to spend down time at the church instead of doing "ineffective" tracting. If I knew that I would spend most of my mission hanging out doing basically nothing at the church, that would have factored into my desire to serve a mission. I think what you said above is a factor --- youth see what serving a mission entails, and as they weigh their options, there is competition. Paradoxically, because the Church has tried to make it easier.

I think those are some excellent thoughts.  These days when I go on splits with missionaries the missionary expects me to have the agenda.  That was never the case in my mission.  If we were lucky to have a member go out with us, it was always our duty to set up appointments and plan what to do for 3 hours.  Today splits with the missionaries are 1 hour with 15 minutes of meeting back at the Church and discussing what happened. 

15 hours ago, rongo said:

The I-pads drive me nuts. Missionaries generally only show Mormon Messages and videos on them, and they act inept and lost when the system is down. They are glued to them in public and probably at home as well. While trying to ease the transition to mission with an electronics-addicted generation, I think the I-padization of missions has led to a decline in teaching ability, resiliency, and competency.

Interesting. I've found the lesson tools on the I pad useful. I wish I had it back in the day.  I hear the bigger problem is missionaries are learning to crack them and access anything they want. 

15 hours ago, rongo said:

 

 

I don't know that it's a "vast number." When the Church used to have 52,000, the early return rate was around 3%. With the 93,000-75,000 of the last few years, it has increased to about 9%.*** This is both an increase of raw numbers and percentage, but I don't know that I would call it "vast." 

Vast is probably a strong word, but wow...a 200% increase in early returns is astounding. 

15 hours ago, rongo said:

Let's face it: many more of our youth and adults in the Church lack any resiliency at all. The state of our missionary program is simply a symptom of this larger problem.

Wow...that's a pretty strong condemnation.  I'm curious how we measure resiliency. 

15 hours ago, rongo said:

***I'm not at liberty to disclose my source for these numbers. Take them or leave them, or ignore them if you like. 

 

Shoot.  It'd be nice to know where the 93,000 high number came from.  The most I've heard from any official sounding sources is near 88,000. 

[Atheist Mormon]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Vast is probably a strong word, but wow...a 200% increase in early returns is astounding. 

Wow...that's a pretty strong condemnation.  I'm curious how we measure resiliency. 

Shoot.  It'd be nice to know where the 93,000 high number came from.  The most I've heard from any official sounding sources is near 88,000. 

Actually it is (if this was a private business enterprise) a horror story. How many converts would you get daily basis to break even? 

Running a business myself I know how much I depend on daily cash flow to stay afloat. It is truly a horror story when money stops even for a week, then I have to barrow.....Oh....I forgot these missionaries are non_impact, self supporting kids. Even so they are not bringing one tenth of expected converts in, and the retention failure claims half of those converted.......

I'm so glad I'm not running this enterprise, which come to think of it,,,,,,,,wouldn't an all powerful God use an better way to gain converts? I mean not even 0.1 %  of planet's population isn't converted yet? 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Actually it is (if this was a private business enterprise) a horror story. How many converts would you get daily basis to break even? 

Running a business myself I know how much I depend on daily cash flow to stay afloat. It is truly a horror story when money stops even for a week, then I have to barrow.....Oh....I forgot these missionaries are non_impact, self supporting kids. Even so they are not bringing one tenth of expected converts in, and the retention failure claims half of those converted.......

I'm so glad I'm not running this enterprise, which come to think of it,,,,,,,,wouldn't an all powerful God use an better way to gain converts? I mean not even 0.1 %  of planet's population isn't converted yet? 

You're right, except if the Church claims 15.7 million, then we're just over.2% of the world's population.  The problem is with that, though, is how does activity rate factor in.  In 2002 self-proclaimed members on a census in Brazil was about 1/10th of what the Church had on record, as I recall.  I think it was worse in Chile.  Mexico has also seen shown some signs of pretty low self-claimed vs Church's membership total.  With that said, I'd put us closer to 5 million members in the world.  That'd put us below .1%. 

[Duncan]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You would hope the percentage of members that are temple endowed has increased significantly with the availability of temple increase.  Such would be expected. I'm curious if 20 years ago a member who lived 900 miles away from the temple and without any reasonable means to get to one, but would desire to go in a heartbeat, is considered in such a calculation if we are comparing members 20 years ago to today.  Perhaps that same member is now 50 miles away and is able to get to the temple regularly now.  If such a measure of  more members "making and keeping covenants" is in consideration into what is real growth I think there's plenty more to consider.  The same member might have been more committed to God 20 years ago than today.  But we'd never know. 

Really what counts most, in my mind, is raw membership numbers, percent growth, and activity rates (rarely shared) in this consideration.  More making and keeping covenants is way too iffy--too many make and keep covenants, or potentially so, quietly without the Church knowing. 

I live 6 hours away from a Temple. I've heard from a legit source that in our stake of 3200 members, 1200 are active and then 500 have a current recommend with 300 that don't, roughly of course. Our Temple though is on its way to being approved and dedicated within 2 years now so I don't know what the close proximity will do to us in terms of recommend holders or even advancement in the the Priesthood but time will tell I guess

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I live 6 hours away from a Temple. I've heard from a legit source that in our stake of 3200 members, 1200 are active and then 500 have a current recommend with 300 that don't, roughly of course. Our Temple though is on its way to being approved and dedicated within 2 years now so I don't know what the close proximity will do to us in terms of recommend holders or even advancement in the the Priesthood but time will tell I guess

My guess is once the new temple comes your number of current recommend holders increases.  Likely, in addition, the 1200 active will increase as well.  This is, of course, all good news. I'd imagine it gets pretty exciting for places where new temples are going in. 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He said: "While this total [more than 88,000] has decreased as was fully anticipated to now just under 72,000, we expect this number to be stable for a time and then grow in the future based on Church demographics."

 

That is a direct quote. It is not a paraphrase, and it is not merely based on memory.

And why do you "have to wonder what that would mean"? It seems pretty clear to me.

After reading the quote again, I'm curious if he is suggesting that they fully anticipated the number to fall below 72,000?  or if he's just saying we fully expected the number to drop.

Since the first of the year, the impression seems to have been that the number would not drop any more.  I'm curious of the 2-3,000 decrease in this year alone, how much of that is due to early returns.  If 9% is accurate as rongo suggested, just think...that's around 6,500 early returns.  If say, that number increases 2% in the next year, that could mean another loss of 1500 missionaries.  If, after having recognized the problem, which has really gotten play this past year or so, that percentage decreases 2%, then we might see an added 1500 missionaries to the total.  That might get us back close to end of 2015. 

I really would love to see monthly figures for this stuff.  I think it'd explain a lot. 

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

I think a lot of the "boredom factor," as you call it, is the Church's own fault. By design, missions in North America (where most new missionaries are called) have been "sissified." In my experience (bishop x2, counselor x2, WML x2, EQP x2), the Church is trying to shield missionaries from hard work and negative experiences, and this has the opposite effect of causing more boredom, depression, etc. than the hard work and rejection would have caused. We had a member of the 70 who told us in stake conference that our duty as members was to see that our missionaries in our wards never have any negative experiences, and only positive ones. That removes a lot of the adventure, romance, and sense of accomplishment (dealing with hard things) that a mission means. The missionaries in our stake are constantly at the church building. Constantly. It isn't their fault. They are told to spend down time at the church instead of doing "ineffective" tracting. If I knew that I would spend most of my mission hanging out doing basically nothing at the church, that would have factored into my desire to serve a mission. I think what you said above is a factor --- youth see what serving a mission entails, and as they weigh their options, there is competition. Paradoxically, because the Church has tried to make it easier.

The I-pads drive me nuts. Missionaries generally only show Mormon Messages and videos on them, and they act inept and lost when the system is down. They are glued to them in public and probably at home as well. While trying to ease the transition to mission with an electronics-addicted generation, I think the I-padization of missions has led to a decline in teaching ability, resiliency, and competency.

 

 

I don't know that it's a "vast number." When the Church used to have 52,000, the early return rate was around 3%. With the 93,000-75,000 of the last few years, it has increased to about 9%.*** This is both an increase of raw numbers and percentage, but I don't know that I would call it "vast." 

Let's face it: many more of our youth and adults in the Church lack any resiliency at all. The state of our missionary program is simply a symptom of this larger problem.

***I'm not at liberty to disclose my source for these numbers. Take them or leave them, or ignore them if you like. 

 

Rongo, I agree with a lot of what you say. If your 9% number is correct, it's lower than I would expect based on what I've seen locally, but it is still triple the original rate of return. That's a pretty significant jump, no?

I've spent my church life mostly working with youth (bishop, counselorX2, YMPx3, SYMPx2, Ward mission, HC etc) and I don't really see much of a change in the youth today verses 20 years ago. I also think missions are largely the same now as they were then; some things are better, some worse, but mostly the same.

It is my opinion that the mission program needs an overhaul. There are many ways missions could be tailored to fit the needs and aptitudes of the missionary. We see this with senior couples. They essentially get to choose what kind of mission (service, family history, proselytizing) , where & how long they serve and they have much more freedom than young missionaries. I think that's a model for revamping the youth mission program.

Instead of expecting every YM/YW to serve the same kind of mission, what if they had options? Perhaps 6 month service mission in Africa or central America. Maybe a 12 month mixed mission of proselytizing and service, family history, performance (something like the Nauvoo pageant), you get the idea. Right now everyone is expected to serve for the same amount of time and do the same things. One-size-fits-all kind of programs are doomed to failure.

And don't get me started on restrictions of family communication and health care. There are a lot of things that could be done to make missions better. Right now, it just seems like a real crap shoot as to whether a missionary will be able to fit into the one-size mission program.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, stemelbow said:

My take is members are taking "hastening the work" to mean work harder.  But then, as Cinepro points out that's not what hastening means. 

I think the idea is that if we work harder we'll bring about the second coming faster? But the way it's used doesn't seem to have much rhyme or reason

[SteveO]

I'll throw this in for everyone's consideration:

My brother in law is a salesman for a solar supply company.  Living out in New York, he says that it takes a certain type of person to go knock doors there.  Very few people can do it, and even fewer can be successful at it.  He told me a while ago how the missionaries that have been going through his stake are..."socially unapproachable"...just not very well suited to sell themselves or the gospel.  I know we don't "sell" the gospel, but there is a way to go about presenting it, and socially awkward and insecure is a hard "sell".

Point is, my brother in law thinks that some of our more charismatic young men have failed to meet the standards due to mistakes made during their teen years.  The guys that are able to be those "socially approachable" missionaries simply aren't present in the mission field--they're at home.  I have to agree with him.  A lot of the missionaries I've been meeting anymore are just terribly awkward to even carry on casual conversation with.  Of course, the problem with letting more of these charismatic types serve is lowering mission standards--a definite predicament.  Maybe its just viewing the work as a business and maybe thats the wrong way to see it, but there it is.  What do you think?

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I'll throw this in for everyone's consideration:

My brother in law is a salesman for a solar supply company.  Living out in New York, he says that it takes a certain type of person to go knock doors there.  Very few people can do it, and even fewer can be successful at it.  He told me a while ago how the missionaries that have been going through his stake are..."socially unapproachable"...just not very well suited to sell themselves or the gospel.  I know we don't "sell" the gospel, but there is a way to go about presenting it, and socially awkward and insecure is a hard "sell".

Point is, my brother in law thinks that some of our more charismatic young men have failed to meet the standards due to mistakes made during their teen years.  The guys that are able to be those "socially approachable" missionaries simply aren't present in the mission field--they're at home.  I have to agree with him.  A lot of the missionaries I've been meeting anymore are just terribly awkward to even carry on casual conversation with.  Of course, the problem with letting more of these charismatic types serve is lowering mission standards--a definite predicament.  Maybe its just viewing the work as a business and maybe thats the wrong way to see it, but there it is.  What do you think?

I think many of us observed that the less obedient but more personable missionaries were among the highest baptizers in our own missions. 

Maybe direct persuasion is just the wrong tool for this job. It really is "selling". I think service work would be a better conversion tool than knocking on doors.

[stemelbow]

35 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I'll throw this in for everyone's consideration:

My brother in law is a salesman for a solar supply company.  Living out in New York, he says that it takes a certain type of person to go knock doors there.  Very few people can do it, and even fewer can be successful at it.  He told me a while ago how the missionaries that have been going through his stake are..."socially unapproachable"...just not very well suited to sell themselves or the gospel.  I know we don't "sell" the gospel, but there is a way to go about presenting it, and socially awkward and insecure is a hard "sell".

Point is, my brother in law thinks that some of our more charismatic young men have failed to meet the standards due to mistakes made during their teen years.  The guys that are able to be those "socially approachable" missionaries simply aren't present in the mission field--they're at home.  I have to agree with him.  A lot of the missionaries I've been meeting anymore are just terribly awkward to even carry on casual conversation with.  Of course, the problem with letting more of these charismatic types serve is lowering mission standards--a definite predicament.  Maybe its just viewing the work as a business and maybe thats the wrong way to see it, but there it is.  What do you think?

I don't know we had some pretty awkward missionaries back in the day. I"d guess there's still a pretty good mix.  Our lack of success I'd maintain has more to do with an unappealing message.  Don't get me wrong, Mormonism has a good enough message for a religion, but we prioritize things that make us appear exclusive and insular rather than open and loving.  We could have our most socially inept missionaries in the world doing the work going out as missionaries and we'd be more successful than ever if we could appeal to people in a more general sense.