Missionary Announcement at Church Yesterday

[HappyJackWagon]

Yesterday in Priesthood opening exercises the HPGL announced that ward and stake leadership has been made aware of upcoming changes to the full-time missionary program. This is what he said...

1- In addition to regular 2 year or 18 month missions, Bishops will have the option of recommending missionaries to serve 3 or 6 month missions.

2- If the missionary is doing well and would like to extend after the shorter 3-6 month call, they will be able to.

3- There will be more emphasis on service based missions for the shorter 3-6 month calls

These are some changes I've been hoping for and I think there are some really great implications IF these changes are accurate. Has anyone else heard anything else like this being announced in their local meetings? I thought it was an odd way to announce it. There wasn't a First Presidency letter read introducing the change or anything like it, yet ward leadership seemed totally confident in making the general announcement.

ETA- this announcement was about young Elders and Sisters serving, not Senior couples

Edited October 17, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[cdowis]

Six month service missions are not new.  Back in the day, they were used for such projects as building chapels.

I know there is, right now, a limited number of service missionaries, but the problem has been to find enough service projects for everyone who wanted it.  So I am wondering whether this is the existing program, and the SP just found out about it, or the church have expanded it to additional projects == e.g. disaster cleanup?

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yesterday in Priesthood opening exercises the HPGL announced that ward and stake leadership has been made aware of upcoming changes to the full-time missionary program. This is what he said...

1- In addition to regular 2 year or 18 month missions, Bishops will have the option of recommending missionaries to serve 3 or 6 month missions.

2- If the missionary is doing well and would like to extend after the shorter 3-6 month call, they will be able to.

3- There will be more emphasis on service based missions for the shorter 3-6 month calls

These are some changes I've been hoping for and I think there are some really great implications IF these changes are accurate. Has anyone else heard anything else like this being announced in their local meetings? I thought it was an odd way to announce it. There wasn't a First Presidency letter read introducing the change or anything like it, yet ward leadership seemed totally confident in making the general announcement.

When I served in Sweden in the late 80's there were 3 month missionaries.  16 and up if I remember right.  The call coincided with summer vacation from school.

I imagine this is a local inititive involving the mission president and area/stake leaders where you live.   

Or it could be a pilot program in your mission.

Edited October 17, 2016 by ksfisher

[Rain]

Yes, not new. My nephew just finished something like this.  There was a young man that was doing this in my stake boundaries about 12-13 years ago.  Perhaps that was just a pilot though. 

[HappyJackWagon]

This was definitely mentioned as a new direction for missionary program.

I'm aware of the church service missions but those are extremely limited and this wasn't limited only to service missions. Rather it was more of a "trial period" to see how the missionary would adjust to mission life. So instead of every missionary getting a 2 year call, which has been yielding a lot of disappointment and feelings of failure by those who return early, the missionary would serve and then extend if they wanted to continue. If they didn't continue, no harm, no foul. They honorably served their full time mission. This was definitely NOT one of the mini-missions they do for high school age kids.

Also, it wasn't presented as a local initiative because the missionary and bishop would submit full mission papers and then wait for the call from SLC just like every other mission.

[stemelbow]

huh? I thought this was for old people going on missions.  Can a young man seriously be given a call for 3 or 6 mos with an option to extend?  or is this for young men and women who have mental problems?  I know of a bunch of young missionaries who were not given proselyting mission calls because they were on the autism spectrum and other such things. 

If this is Church-wide and is an option for young and old this would be a huge change.  As such I think I'd wait for something official. 

[Gray]

57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yesterday in Priesthood opening exercises the HPGL announced that ward and stake leadership has been made aware of upcoming changes to the full-time missionary program. This is what he said...

1- In addition to regular 2 year or 18 month missions, Bishops will have the option of recommending missionaries to serve 3 or 6 month missions.

2- If the missionary is doing well and would like to extend after the shorter 3-6 month call, they will be able to.

3- There will be more emphasis on service based missions for the shorter 3-6 month calls

These are some changes I've been hoping for and I think there are some really great implications IF these changes are accurate. Has anyone else heard anything else like this being announced in their local meetings? I thought it was an odd way to announce it. There wasn't a First Presidency letter read introducing the change or anything like it, yet ward leadership seemed totally confident in making the general announcement.

This sounds promising. I look forward to hearing more!

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This was definitely mentioned as a new direction for missionary program.

I'm aware of the church service missions but those are extremely limited and this wasn't limited only to service missions. Rather it was more of a "trial period" to see how the missionary would adjust to mission life. So instead of every missionary getting a 2 year call, which has been yielding a lot of disappointment and feelings of failure by those who return early, the missionary would serve and then extend if they wanted to continue. If they didn't continue, no harm, no foul. They honorably served their full time mission. This was definitely NOT one of the mini-missions they do for high school age kids.

Also, it wasn't presented as a local initiative because the missionary and bishop would submit full mission papers and then wait for the call from SLC just like every other mission.

So, they wouldn't necessarily serve this shorter, service mission in their local area and would maybe be sent out of state?  If so, that's definitely new.  We haven't heard anything about this (at least that I am aware of). I'm all for service missions and for many, a shorter mission is a great alternative.  Please let us know if you hear more!

[Duncan]

never heard of it. I had heard too awhile ago now that missionaries can go home and take breaks for sometime and then come back later, but I haven't heard anything official

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, they wouldn't necessarily serve this shorter, service mission in their local area and would maybe be sent out of state?  If so, that's definitely new.  We haven't heard anything about this (at least that I am aware of). I'm all for service missions and for many, a shorter mission is a great alternative.  Please let us know if you hear more!

Yes, out of state and possibly even out of country though it sounded like foreign missions would be reserved for longer term missionaries for reasons of transportation expense.

IF it's true I think this will be HUGE. I've reached out to my SP to see if he can tell me anything about it but I haven't heard back.

[HappyJackWagon]

I heard back from my Stake President. It sounds like there is a combination of things going on here.

1- for young sister missionaries, the Church Service Mission is a FIRST option. They may choose to serve a service mission whether or not they are "capable" of serving a full-time proselyting mission.

2- Two-year proselyting missions are still the expectation for every worthy, able young man.  However...

3- For worthy young men whose abilities are uncertain due to emotional, mental, or physical limitations, bishops and stake presidents may recommend to the Missionary Department that the call be a "two-transfer" mission. The Church will generally agree with the recommendation and the young person will be called to serve for three months (two transfers). Upon completion, the missionary, parents, mission president, and home stake president confer. . .if agreed, the recommendation to continue for the remainder of the two-year (or 18-month) term is made. If SLC agrees, the missionary's call is extended. 

• If the recommendation is that the missionary not continue, the missionary is released and will have met the expectation to serve a mission (the Church is no longer using the term "honorably released").

4- For worthy young men who are deemed not able to serve full-time proselyting missions, calls may be made to serve Young Church-Service Missions.

 

So there is some old and some new info (at least to me) here. It looks like a move in the right direction.

 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I heard back from my Stake President. It sounds like there is a combination of things going on here.

1- for young sister missionaries, the Church Service Mission is a FIRST option. They may choose to serve a service mission whether or not they are "capable" of serving a full-time proselyting mission.

2- Two-year proselyting missions are still the expectation for every worthy, able young man.  However...

3- For worthy young men whose abilities are uncertain due to emotional, mental, or physical limitations, bishops and stake presidents may recommend to the Missionary Department that the call be a "two-transfer" mission. The Church will generally agree with the recommendation and the young person will be called to serve for three months (two transfers). Upon completion, the missionary, parents, mission president, and home stake president confer. . .if agreed, the recommendation to continue for the remainder of the two-year (or 18-month) term is made. If SLC agrees, the missionary's call is extended. 

• If the recommendation is that the missionary not continue, the missionary is released and will have met the expectation to serve a mission (the Church is no longer using the term "honorably released").

4- For worthy young men who are deemed not able to serve full-time proselyting missions, calls may be made to serve Young Church-Service Missions.

 

So there is some old and some new info (at least to me) here. It looks like a move in the right direction.

 

Will the two-transfer missions be in missions that the elder doesn't live in?

[rockpond]

I'm in a bishopric and have not heard anything to this effect yet.  (But we also didn't have regular meetings yesterday due to the Fort Collins Temple dedication.)

[The Nehor]

Interesting idea if true. Would have helped my little brother who was unable to serve due to social and emotional difficulties.

[Jeanne]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Interesting idea if true. Would have helped my little brother who was unable to serve due to social and emotional difficulties.

That was my brother too..it was a rough go and affected his life even to today.

[cdowis]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Interesting idea if true. Would have helped my little brother who was unable to serve due to social and emotional difficulties.

Exactly.  We had someone in the ward who served honorably in the Family History Center mission.  But, again, it is very limited.

In my case, the church sent me where there was only one baptism per missionary for the entire two years. I spent all my time knocking on doors, and didn't do much harm except to annoy the members and my companions.  
I got transferred alot.

Edited October 17, 2016 by cdowis

[The Nehor]

I realized my gut reaction to this announcement was to complain about how these kids are going to have it easier these days. Must resist normal aging superiority complex.

I am growing older................I really need to get a lawn so I can yell at kids to get off of it.

[Jeanne]

I am hoping that this all brings out the best of all things for young men and women that would like to serve in any capacity.  To have available short term missions..this gives them a chance to serve honorably and still have a better chance (earlier) to achieve other goals.  I had a brother in law who served to years with the Indians.  Loved his mission, but he had gone to college back east for year before he served.  Once he was back, he had to start all over in his field of interest and lost some scholarship there also.  So, although mission ages have since changed, I believe this will give young people the best of all worlds.  My younger brother came home early..he has yet to forgive himself and move on..hopefully, this change will lighten the stress and yet give better opportunities for growing up and learning in all areas of their world.  Yet...I wish that there was not a stigma attached to those who skip missions and move on.  It is, afterall, their decision and I don't think they make those decisions lightly.  I don't believe a church/God should make judgement on those decisions.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I heard back from my Stake President. It sounds like there is a combination of things going on here.

1- for young sister missionaries, the Church Service Mission is a FIRST option. They may choose to serve a service mission whether or not they are "capable" of serving a full-time proselyting mission.

2- Two-year proselyting missions are still the expectation for every worthy, able young man.  However...

3- For worthy young men whose abilities are uncertain due to emotional, mental, or physical limitations, bishops and stake presidents may recommend to the Missionary Department that the call be a "two-transfer" mission. The Church will generally agree with the recommendation and the young person will be called to serve for three months (two transfers). Upon completion, the missionary, parents, mission president, and home stake president confer. . .if agreed, the recommendation to continue for the remainder of the two-year (or 18-month) term is made. If SLC agrees, the missionary's call is extended. 

• If the recommendation is that the missionary not continue, the missionary is released and will have met the expectation to serve a mission (the Church is no longer using the term "honorably released").

4- For worthy young men who are deemed not able to serve full-time proselyting missions, calls may be made to serve Young Church-Service Missions.

 

So there is some old and some new info (at least to me) here. It looks like a move in the right direction.

 

That's all very interesting and I feel it's a step in the right direction for many of the youth.

I do wonder what guidelines will be used to determine whether a young man's "abilities are uncertain due to emotional, mental or physical limitations".  I think physical limitations (and mental disabilities) will be more easily to determine, but we just had a young man return home early from his mission because he absolutely could not be without his cell phone (I know this has been a problem for others as well).  His parents immediately took him out and bought him the newest iphone on the market and he is now seeing a counselor because of the emotional pain he went through.  I have to believe there's more to it than that (at least I hope so), but this is all I know right now.  

I know I should not judge, but this is the type of thing I wonder about.  I do know that for many young men and women, shorter missions will be a wonderful solution and will enable them to serve a mission when they may not have been able to otherwise . I just hope it won't be abused.

On the other hand (and thinking more about it), this would have probably been a great solution for the young man I mentioned above.  He could have felt that he served a mission and maybe wouldn't be dealing with what he's going through now.  Thoughts?

.

Edited October 17, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

3- For worthy young men whose abilities are uncertain due to emotional, mental, or physical limitations, bishops and stake presidents may recommend to the Missionary Department that the call be a "two-transfer" mission. The Church will generally agree with the recommendation and the young person will be called to serve for three months (two transfers). Upon completion, the missionary, parents, mission president, and home stake president confer. . .if agreed, the recommendation to continue for the remainder of the two-year (or 18-month) term is made. If SLC agrees, the missionary's call is extended. 

• If the recommendation is that the missionary not continue, the missionary is released and will have met the expectation to serve a mission (the Church is no longer using the term "honorably released").

 

 

That rings a bell.  We had a missionary like this serving in our stake a couple of years ago.  If remember right everything went well and he continued to serve, but was sent to a mission out of state as he was fairly close to home in our stake.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Will the two-transfer missions be in missions that the elder doesn't live in?

It's unclear but I made the assumption that the missionary would serve out of his/her home area. Whether or not it's in the home mission is a good question.

It was specifically stated that church service missionaries will serve in their home area so a missionary from Provo wouldn't be called to serve 3 months in India to build schools or something like that.

[halconero]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I heard back from my Stake President. It sounds like there is a combination of things going on here.

1- for young sister missionaries, the Church Service Mission is a FIRST option. They may choose to serve a service mission whether or not they are "capable" of serving a full-time proselyting mission.

2- Two-year proselyting missions are still the expectation for every worthy, able young man.  However...

3- For worthy young men whose abilities are uncertain due to emotional, mental, or physical limitations, bishops and stake presidents may recommend to the Missionary Department that the call be a "two-transfer" mission. The Church will generally agree with the recommendation and the young person will be called to serve for three months (two transfers). Upon completion, the missionary, parents, mission president, and home stake president confer. . .if agreed, the recommendation to continue for the remainder of the two-year (or 18-month) term is made. If SLC agrees, the missionary's call is extended. 

• If the recommendation is that the missionary not continue, the missionary is released and will have met the expectation to serve a mission (the Church is no longer using the term "honorably released").

4- For worthy young men who are deemed not able to serve full-time proselyting missions, calls may be made to serve Young Church-Service Missions.

 

So there is some old and some new info (at least to me) here. It looks like a move in the right direction.

 

I'm curious if for number 3 and 4 the endowment will still be required/recommended. Not really related, but I found out recently that Brigham Young at one point thought about only calling Aaronic priesthood holders to go on missions and that only the Aaronic Priesthood portion of the endowment would be provided at that point.

Also, just for your note on 3, I'm wondering if the "honourably released" thing was ever actually an official Church thing. I served from 2010-2012 and my 2nd Mission President emphasized over and over again that there was no "honourably" adverb on Church documents. It was just released for medical reasons, full-time release, and release related to Church discipline. Perhaps this was just the first time your Stake President had heard of that fact.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

That's all very interesting and I feel it's a step in the right direction for many of the youth.

I do wonder what guidelines will be used to determine whether a young man's "abilities are uncertain due to emotional, mental or physical limitations".  I think physical limitations (and mental disabilities) will be more easily to determine, but we just had a young man return home early from his mission because he absolutely could not be without his cell phone (I know this has been a problem for others as well).  His parents immediately took him out and bought him the newest iphone on the market and he is now seeing a counselor because of the emotional pain he went through.  I have to believe there's more to it than that (at least I hope so), but this is all I know right now.  

I know I should not judge, but this is the type of thing I wonder about.  I do know that for many young men and women, shorter missions will be a wonderful solution and will enable them to serve a mission when they may not have been able to otherwise . I just hope it won't be abused.

On the other hand (and thinking more about it), this would have probably been a great solution for the young man I mentioned above.  He could have felt that he served a mission and maybe wouldn't be dealing with what he's going through now.  Thoughts?

.

I too would be interested in seeing the guidelines. Many missionaries return home for homesickness and high anxiety. If they worry about these things while completing their mission applications it seems like it would be very reasonable for the prospective missionary to essentially be able to choose the length of mission. Who else besides the missionary could possibly know if they may have emotional issues (that term can mean just about anything).

I'm curious how you think this might be abused. If every prospective missionary who preferred a 3 month mission opted for that, is that an abuse? Or is their personal choice? I wouldn't see anything wrong with this. Personally, I'd prefer for prospective missionaries to have a whole range of choices just like senior missionaries. Let them choose 3,6,12,18, 24 months. Let them keep their options open so they don't feel like failures when a full 2 years isn't in the cards.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I wish I knew about these shorter missions before. I only served a really short time because of depression and was sad I couldn't make it 2 years.

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I wish I knew about these shorter missions before. I only served a really short time because of depression and was sad I couldn't make it 2 years.

Just cheer yourself up then. Here, this should help: