Update on missionaries

[gopher]

On the church's http://hasteningthework.lds.org page, the full title is "Hastening the Work of Salvation - A Unified Effort in Conversion, Retention, and Activation".  There isn't a new program, but missionaries are now more involved in the ward (attending ward council, teaching new member lessons, working with lessactives, etc).

I know some have taken Pres Monson's remarks in June 2013 to mean that D&C 88:73 ("Behold, I will hasten my work in its time.") is now being fulfilled.  The hastening is to be done by God, with the members helping.  What that all means, I don't know.

[RevTestament]

My input on this is if missionaries are actively teaching someone, they shouldn't get transferred unless absolutely necessary. Finding investigators and starting a relationship is hard enough without getting transferred and new missionar(y)ies taking over. I suppose the danger of inappropriate relationships getting started is lessoned by frequent transfers, but the relationship thing is important for effective missionary work. However, I don't know the rationale for seemingly frequent transfers - at least in some missions.

[juliann]

I'm going to get sexist. I have no interaction with the male missionaries but the women sisters are in RS so I see a lot of them. It seems really odd to me that more attention isn't paid to their apparel in a church that emphasizes you are how you dress. The men just have to wear suits so it isn't fair at all but hey, life.   When so much attention is placed on attractiveness for women in the church, I think there should be a fund for those sisters who don't have the money to buy clothing. They should have at least two outfits that don't cause people to stare. The rules have lightened up enough that they don't look Amish anymore but nobody should have to represent the church in mismatched, shabby or ill fitting clothes in a society that judges women by how they look. 

[notHagoth7]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

My input on this is if missionaries are actively teaching someone, they shouldn't get transferred unless absolutely necessary....

If so, most missionaries would get assigned to one area, and remain in that same area until released to go home, because there's basically never a week/month when a missionary is not actively teaching *someone*.  

 

 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I'm going to get sexist. I have no interaction with the male missionaries but the women sisters are in RS so I see a lot of them. It seems really odd to me that more attention isn't paid to their apparel in a church that emphasizes you are how you dress. The men just have to wear suits so it isn't fair at all but hey, life.   When so much attention is placed on attractiveness for women in the church, I think there should be a fund for those sisters who don't have the money to buy clothing. They should have at least two outfits that don't cause people to stare. The rules have lightened up enough that they don't look Amish anymore but nobody should have to represent the church in mismatched, shabby or ill fitting clothes in a society that judges women by how they look. 

My Mom has said similar things. She asked me if there was an award for the oldest that the sister missionaries try to look. Mind you she did say that other sisters are very well dressed and not wearing "pioneer women clothing" emails go directly to her! I know we had a Seventy come here maybe 2 years ago now that his wife commented on how skimpy some sisters' clothing was

Edited September 13, 2016 by Duncan

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I'm going to get sexist. I have no interaction with the male missionaries but the women sisters are in RS so I see a lot of them. It seems really odd to me that more attention isn't paid to their apparel in a church that emphasizes you are how you dress. The men just have to wear suits so it isn't fair at all but hey, life.   When so much attention is placed on attractiveness for women in the church, I think there should be a fund for those sisters who don't have the money to buy clothing. They should have at least two outfits that don't cause people to stare. The rules have lightened up enough that they don't look Amish anymore but nobody should have to represent the church in mismatched, shabby or ill fitting clothes in a society that judges women by how they look. 

Is their clothing an issue of funds or is it their stylistic sensibility? Are a couple of women's outfits more expensive than suits, shirts and ties? I honestly don't know.

The awkward style seems like it could simply be a function of having more flexibility in their wardrobe but not knowing how to mix and match. The same thing could be said for hair styles, right? Most of the sisters I see in our area have extremely simply ponytails or something similar. It's not unattractive per se, but it does appear a bit juvenile at times.

[rongo]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

It is, but our youth (and their parents) are also not as resilient as they used to be. We are becoming softer and softer as a people from the younger generations on up.

Quote

 

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.

They are quite different even from the mid 1990s, when I went. My mother is the mission secretary and my father serves in a branch presidency and is over the finances for the Poland Warsaw Mission. There are a lot of differences I see both through them and in my local mission (Arizona Tempe). One of these is that missionaries are never, ever allowed to be alone. On transfer weeks, the entire mission comes to headquarters, whether they and their companion are being transferred or not. On my mission, transfers were a welcome time when you could be on a train all day, or alone at the apartment for a day waiting for a new companion or new venue. That's just one example of coddling that appears to be worldwide. 

The downgrading of tracting in the most recent WWTB is another. I love Elder Perry, but I was very surprised to see him denounce tracting how he did (we have to completely change missionary work because it just doesn't work that way any more --- gotta go internet!).

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-leadership-training/2013/06/missionary-work-in-the-digital-age?lang=eng

That is certainly a big difference between this era and past ones.

Quote

 

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.

Which youth are going to volunteer for the Provo Utah mission? Can you imagine the Wild West nightmare it would be if young missionaries got to choose what kind, where, and how long? We would have lots more early returnees than we do now --- guaranteed (yeah, um, I picked family history and service, but I don't like it any more. Can I go home yet? I can't? Well, see, my back has really been hurting, and I've been really depressed. How about now?).

 

Quote

 

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.

 

I don't think they're doomed to failure, but I think it would help if we got back into missionary work and not simply using the missionary program to keep young people out of trouble and occupied (sort of). I think expecting our young people to actually do missionary work would be really good for them, and for the Church.

 

Quote

 

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.

 

I am amazed at how many "health problems" there are now compared to in the past (and many of these "health problems" end up being the ones who come home early). Most missionaries I knew in the mid 1990s never saw a doctor for any reason. 

They already have weekly email and Facebook contact with their families. How much more family contact do you want? Daily phone calls (or more)? That will make the early return rate go even higher.

I'm going to write weekly paper letters to my kids on their missions, even with the "email." We're old-fashioned that way.

Edited September 13, 2016 by rongo

[rongo]

13 hours ago, rongo said:

It is, but our youth (and their parents) are also not as resilient as they used to be. We are becoming softer and softer as a people from the younger generations on up.

They are quite different even from the mid 1990s, when I went. My mother is the mission secretary and my father serves in a branch presidency and is over the finances for the Poland Warsaw Mission. There are a lot of differences I see both through them and in my local mission (Arizona Tempe). One of these is that missionaries are never, ever allowed to be alone. On transfer weeks, the entire mission comes to headquarters, whether they and their companion are being transferred or not. On my mission, transfers were a welcome time when you could be on a train all day, or alone at the apartment for a day waiting for a new companion or new venue. That's just one example of coddling that appears to be worldwide. 

Forgot to add that my mother has to hammer out the logistics of having every missionary come to Warsaw for every transfer, including arranging the train tickets. It is a logistical nightmare. We used to buy our own train tickets, "back in the day," but the coddled missionaries can't do that anymore, I guess. They might botch it or get lost or something. 

[gopher]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

I'm going to get sexist. I have no interaction with the male missionaries but the women sisters are in RS so I see a lot of them. It seems really odd to me that more attention isn't paid to their apparel in a church that emphasizes you are how you dress. The men just have to wear suits so it isn't fair at all but hey, life.   When so much attention is placed on attractiveness for women in the church, I think there should be a fund for those sisters who don't have the money to buy clothing. They should have at least two outfits that don't cause people to stare. The rules have lightened up enough that they don't look Amish anymore but nobody should have to represent the church in mismatched, shabby or ill fitting clothes in a society that judges women by how they look. 

I haven't noticed that, but I'm a dude so maybe that's not surprising.  However (and since I'm anonymous here), I do wish some of the sister missionaries would learn to sit properly in a skirt/dress.  It's awkward sitting across from a sister sitting with her knees apart like a guy exposing herself.  I can't say anything so I just stare at the ceiling.  Isn't there any training for sisters on these types of things?

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Forgot to add that my mother has to hammer out the logistics of having every missionary come to Warsaw for every transfer, including arranging the train tickets. It is a logistical nightmare. We used to buy our own train tickets, "back in the day," but the coddled missionaries can't do that anymore, I guess. They might botch it or get lost or something. 

What you call "coddling" of missionaries, I call controlling.

I was on my mission in the 90's as well and I agree that missionaries almost never saw a doctor...but that was a huge problem. Many people still have lingering effects of mission illnesses that weren't properly treated. I'm an example of that.

The more the missions try to control every aspect of missionary lives through structure and rules, the more missionaries will slip through their fingers (vague Star Wars reference)

[rongo]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is their clothing an issue of funds or is it their stylistic sensibility? Are a couple of women's outfits more expensive than suits, shirts and ties? I honestly don't know.

The awkward style seems like it could simply be a function of having more flexibility in their wardrobe but not knowing how to mix and match. The same thing could be said for hair styles, right? Most of the sisters I see in our area have extremely simply ponytails or something similar. It's not unattractive per se, but it does appear a bit juvenile at times.

 Duncan: 

My Mom has said similar things. She asked me if there was an award for the oldest that the sister missionaries try to look. Mind you she did say that other sisters are very well dressed and not wearing "pioneer women clothing" emails go directly to her! I know we had a Seventy come here maybe 2 years ago now that his wife commented on how skimpy some sisters' clothing was.

 gopher: However (and since I'm anonymous here), I do wish some of the sister missionaries would learn to sit properly in a skirt/dress.  It's awkward sitting across from a sister sitting with her knees apart like a guy exposing herself.  I can't say anything so I just stare at the ceiling.  Isn't there any training for sisters on these types of things?

juliann:  I'm going to get sexist. I have no interaction with the male missionaries but the women sisters are in RS so I see a lot of them. It seems really odd to me that more attention isn't paid to their apparel in a church that emphasizes you are how you dress. The men just have to wear suits so it isn't fair at all but hey, life.   When so much attention is placed on attractiveness for women in the church, I think there should be a fund for those sisters who don't have the money to buy clothing. They should have at least two outfits that don't cause people to stare. The rules have lightened up enough that they don't look Amish anymore but nobody should have to represent the church in mismatched, shabby or ill fitting clothes in a society that judges women by how they look. 

I actually don't find how the sisters dress to be bad at all, and I haven't experienced (or noticed) overly-simple hairdos or obliviousness to decorum. Even in Germany in the mid 1990s, how the sisters looked, presented themselves, and carried themselves seemed just fine to me. Granted, they had to dress warm, and for bikes. 

[rongo]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What you call "coddling" of missionaries, I call controlling.

I was on my mission in the 90's as well and I agree that missionaries almost never saw a doctor...but that was a huge problem. Many people still have lingering effects of mission illnesses that weren't properly treated. I'm an example of that.

The more the missions try to control every aspect of missionary lives through structure and rules, the more missionaries will slip through their fingers (vague Star Wars reference)

I don't understand. Do you think that "controlling" missionaries is a good thing with respect to medical treatment? That we should be "controlling" them more in that area than we are?

I know a lot of missionaries from the 90s to the present (as do you), and I don't know anyone who still has "lingering effects of mission illnesses that weren't properly treated." My uncle got worms in Honduras, but he was de-wormed when he got home and has been fine. I honestly think that we are overly-attuned to aches, pains, discomfort, etc. now, and that this has a negative effect on the mission and beyond. As a society (LDS and non), we miss more work, church, etc. due to "not feeling well" than previous generations. I think this is going to get worse.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't understand. Do you think that "controlling" missionaries is a good thing with respect to medical treatment? That we should be "controlling" them more in that area than we are?

I know a lot of missionaries from the 90s to the present (as do you), and I don't know anyone who still has "lingering effects of mission illnesses that weren't properly treated." My uncle got worms in Honduras, but he was de-wormed when he got home and has been fine. I honestly think that we are overly-attuned to aches, pains, discomfort, etc. now, and that this has a negative effect on the mission and beyond. As a society (LDS and non), we miss more work, church, etc. due to "not feeling well" than previous generations. I think this is going to get worse.

Those are separate paragraphs.

When I was on my mission I didn't have access to medical treatment, or at least didn't realize I did as a dumb young kid. The mission office knew I was sick and they had to authorize doctors visits. They didn't. So I stayed in my apartment for 2 weeks with pneumonia and lost 25 pounds. I got blessings to heal me but those didn't work so I was in misery for a couple of weeks before the mission office finally allowed me to go to the doctor. With an antibiotic I got better quickly. Today I still get pneumonia/bronchitis every year because my lungs were severely weakened. I'm not bitter about it, seriously, I'm not. But I see it as a very unnecessary problem. Missionaries should have access to quality medical and mental health care. I think it's getting better in that regard, however, one of the problems now is that missionaries don't want to access that or let the mission office know of their illness or medical problems out of fear of being sent home for treatment and recovery.

 

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't understand. Do you think that "controlling" missionaries is a good thing with respect to medical treatment? That we should be "controlling" them more in that area than we are?

I know a lot of missionaries from the 90s to the present (as do you), and I don't know anyone who still has "lingering effects of mission illnesses that weren't properly treated." My uncle got worms in Honduras, but he was de-wormed when he got home and has been fine. I honestly think that we are overly-attuned to aches, pains, discomfort, etc. now, and that this has a negative effect on the mission and beyond. As a society (LDS and non), we miss more work, church, etc. due to "not feeling well" than previous generations. I think this is going to get worse.

What are you basing this opinion on?

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

What are you basing this opinion on?

Observation and experience with others. 

 

[Gray]

On 9/12/2016 at 9:45 AM, 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. 

We had a regional conference yesterday and Elder Rasband spoke. He mentioned that 72,000 missionaries are currently serving. 

[stemelbow]

22 hours ago, Gray said:

We had a regional conference yesterday and Elder Rasband spoke. He mentioned that 72,000 missionaries are currently serving. 

Thanks for saying.  I'm curious if their number is gathered monthly, or how frequently.  Meaning I wonder if Elder Rasband used the same reported figure, rounded number, as was used a couple of months ago, or if the number is holding steady at the lower number. 

Also, I'm glad you bumped this, I had already forgotten the point that we had more missionaries in the mid-90s than we ever had after the surge, in terms of percent of the Church.  The surge was a good attempt to get us back up to the previous rate but it failed in that sense.  We never reached the same rate even at the height of the surge.  We may never see as many missionaries as we did in that era.  We may never see such a success of the Church reaching out to others as we did then.  Of course, unless we change. 

[Jane_Doe]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Also, I'm glad you bumped this, I had already forgotten the point that we had more missionaries in the mid-90s than we ever had after the surge, in terms of percent of the Church.  The surge was a good attempt to get us back up to the previous rate but it failed in that sense.  We never reached the same rate even at the height of the surge.  We may never see as many missionaries as we did in that era.  We may never see such a success of the Church reaching out to others as we did then.  Of course, unless we change. 

I'm not sure I agree with this.

A)  It is erroneous to look at (number of missionaries) / (total LDS population)*100 = (% of the LDS population that is a missionary).    Rather it would be better to look at (number of missionaries) / (to LDS population which meets the proper requirements such as age)*100 = (% of the LDS population that is a missionary).   Much of the population is simply not qualified for a mission, and with extended lifespan aging the population, the portion would be much smaller today.

B) The "Raising the Bar" movement in the 90's drastically reduced the qualified pool of potential missionaries.  The bar has not lowered since then, naturally eliminating a percentage of the age-eligible pool.  

C) You talk about "success".  Success is measured in far moe than number of missionaries or number of people dunked. 

 

 

 

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm not sure I agree with this.

A)  It is erroneous to look at (number of missionaries) / (total LDS population)*100 = (% of the LDS population that is a missionary).    Rather it would be better to look at (number of missionaries) / (to LDS population which meets the proper requirements such as age)*100 = (% of the LDS population that is a missionary).   Much of the population is simply not qualified for a mission, and with extended lifespan aging the population, the portion would be much smaller today.

Really?  Today we have an older population than we did in the 90s?  that might be part of the problem.  I'm curious if you would be so kind as to supply us with those numbers? 

I can't imagine the much lower rate of missionary to member today being all because of an older population in general.  Also, I find it fascinating that the numbers we've been given indicate clearly that the percent of young men serving is much lower than it was int he past, meaning for your concern to have merit we'd have to know that there are far more young women than young men today than there used to be. 

7 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

B) The "Raising the Bar" movement in the 90's drastically reduced the qualified pool of potential missionaries.  The bar has not lowered since then, naturally eliminating a percentage of the age-eligible pool.

Agreed.  Brings into question was the raising the bar thing necessary, useful or beneficial? 

7 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

 

C) You talk about "success".  Success is measured in far moe than number of missionaries or number of people dunked. 

 

 

 

Sure.  But it is one measure and I don't think hiding from it is a good thing.  Pretending that our lowest rates we've seen in a century are good isn't doing us any good. 

[Jane_Doe]

Really?  Today we have an older population than we did in the 90s?  that might be part of the problem.  I'm curious if you would be so kind as to supply us with those numbers? 

Unfortunately I don't have time right now.  To get specific you'd have to look up number of people in age bract at this time, current time, in each country over time.  Speaking more in general, there is a great aging of populations internationally, particularly in developing countries.

Agreed.  Brings into question was the raising the bar thing necessary, useful or beneficial? 

That would be a very subjective answer, depending what you're defining as "success".  I'm personally a huge fan of it. 

[Calm]

Birth rate of LDS has lowered over the past decades, thus leading to a greater percentage being older.

"Whereas LDS families two generations ago often had four to six kids, Perlich said, this new generation is often choosing to have two or three."

It is also possible that the current birth rate is being affected by earlier missionary age due to the increase of women going.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3362824-155/utah-birthrate-reaches-historic-low-

 

[Calm]

"AGE. Church membership statistics are reported separately for children under twelve, youth aged twelve to eighteen, and adults. The ratio of children to adults gives some indication of age structure (Fig. 12). This ratio ranges from more than sixty children per one hundred adults in the South Pacific to about thirty children per one hundred adults in Europe. Ratios for young children (under twelve) are particularly high in Utah and the South Pacific, where fertility contributes a larger share of growth, but relatively low in areas where conversion rates are highest. On the other hand, ratios of children aged twelve to eighteen to adults are greater in areas where conversion rates are high. This is probably because a substantial number of converts join in late adolescence. Thus, the overall ratio is lowest in Europe because of relatively low fertility and conversion rates. Differences in ratios suggest substantial variability in the types of activities and programs that would be most beneficial to the membership in each locale.

More detailed age categorization is possible where membership records have been computerized. The age-sex structure of the U.S. membership reflects several trends (Fig. 13). Smaller numbers in the two youngest age groups are a consequence of declining fertility in the 1980s. Smaller numbers in successive age groups over age fifteen are created by (1) the past history of high birthrates, which result in greater numbers at each younger age; (2) new converts, who tend to join in the late teens and twenties; and (3) mortality, which creates declining numbers at older ages. The shape of the age pyramid also suggests that the near future will bring declining numbers of young children, temporarily growing numbers who may serve missions or want to enroll in Church universities, a larger number available for marriage, and possibly a high fertility "echo" when the large ten-to-fifteen age group reaches childbearing age."

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Vital_Statistics

These would be over 20 years out of date, having been published in 92.

[Calm]

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/07/24/a-portrait-of-mormons-in-the-us/#2

There is a table I can't insert with age breakdowns for 2007 for the US, might be different in other countries.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Calm

[stemelbow]

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 8:30 PM, Calm said:

Birth rate of LDS has lowered over the past decades, thus leading to a greater percentage being older.

"Whereas LDS families two generations ago often had four to six kids, Perlich said, this new generation is often choosing to have two or three."

It is also possible that the current birth rate is being affected by earlier missionary age due to the increase of women going.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3362824-155/utah-birthrate-reaches-historic-low-

 

That's Utah, not the Church.  Mormons in Utah make up about 1/10th of the Church's population.

 

[stemelbow]

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 8:35 PM, Calm said:

"AGE. Church membership statistics are reported separately for children under twelve, youth aged twelve to eighteen, and adults. The ratio of children to adults gives some indication of age structure (Fig. 12). This ratio ranges from more than sixty children per one hundred adults in the South Pacific to about thirty children per one hundred adults in Europe. Ratios for young children (under twelve) are particularly high in Utah and the South Pacific, where fertility contributes a larger share of growth, but relatively low in areas where conversion rates are highest. On the other hand, ratios of children aged twelve to eighteen to adults are greater in areas where conversion rates are high. This is probably because a substantial number of converts join in late adolescence. Thus, the overall ratio is lowest in Europe because of relatively low fertility and conversion rates. Differences in ratios suggest substantial variability in the types of activities and programs that would be most beneficial to the membership in each locale.

More detailed age categorization is possible where membership records have been computerized. The age-sex structure of the U.S. membership reflects several trends (Fig. 13). Smaller numbers in the two youngest age groups are a consequence of declining fertility in the 1980s. Smaller numbers in successive age groups over age fifteen are created by (1) the past history of high birthrates, which result in greater numbers at each younger age; (2) new converts, who tend to join in the late teens and twenties; and (3) mortality, which creates declining numbers at older ages. The shape of the age pyramid also suggests that the near future will bring declining numbers of young children, temporarily growing numbers who may serve missions or want to enroll in Church universities, a larger number available for marriage, and possibly a high fertility "echo" when the large ten-to-fifteen age group reaches childbearing age."

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Vital_Statistics

These would be over 20 years out of date, having been published in 92.

Thanks.  We're in a difficult era, I'd say.  Though we have far more missionaries than we have had, even if our percent of young men serving missions has declined drastically over the years, we have far less converts, as a ratio of the whole and as a total number.  So our conversion rate is most likely not positively effected by more missionaries.  It may be that the more missionaries we send out the lower our rates and total numbers will be, as it seems to be a trend the past couple of years.  Also, as noted by my SP, missionaries coming home early is a big problem in the Church these days.  So it's a question if missions are necessarily good for the young men and women in the church.  We used to assume that's where members become strong.  Going forward I'm curious if it's an avenue wherein more and more members leave the church or become a part of the disaffected members group.