Missionary Announcement at Church Yesterday

[HappyJackWagon]

45 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Stigma? From whom? For what reason?

Stigma could come from interactions with family, ward members, church leaders, peers, etc. Basically anyone who didn't value the "trial" mission as a "real" mission. The stigma would come just like it does for early return missionaries now. There sometimes tends to be a judgment of "you couldn't hack it."

I don't think there should be but I think this kind of stigma but there often is within the culture of the church.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Why have you been hoping for this? 

Because I feel like the current mission program is failing many of our young people. So many are coming home early, feeling like failures. I believe missions could be changed in meaningful ways to better accomplish the church's mission as well as be valuable experiences for more of the youth.

[rongo]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Because I feel like the current mission program is failing many of our young people. So many are coming home early . . .

Why do you think "so many are coming home early?" And does this say more about modern resiliency and competency than it does about "the current mission program . . . failing many of our young people?"

 

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, rongo said:

Why do you think "so many are coming home early?" And does this say more about modern resiliency and competency than it does about "the current mission program . . . failing many of our young people?"

 

Regardless of the reason, the mission program is not succeeding in building up young people. So many come home early and many leave the church shortly after returning home (whether or not they served a full length mission). I think blaming it on resiliency is problematic for a couple of reasons.

1- there isn't enough data to make that conclusion, therefore it's merely an assumption

2- It blames the young person for their bad experience as if they are in total control.

3- Regardless of the reasons more missionaries are struggling to complete missions, the church needs to adapt the program  to meet the needs of those serving.

Even if we do decide to blame the increase in mission returns on a lack of resiliency on the current culture and/or generational differences, we need to ask why they aren't so resilient and are there ways the program can mitigate that problem. Are they less resilient just because they are millennials? Is it because in a communication age with ways to easily connect to family and friends that they are prohibited without reasonable cause? Is it because they are going out younger with less life experience to help them meet the expectations of a mission? Are mission presidents instructed to send struggling missionaries home more freely? Are they acculturated to more connection and less isolation?

There are many questions that could be asked, but regardless of the reason, there is a problem. Until the church fixes that problem, the current program is our current young people.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Why do you think "so many are coming home early?" And does this say more about modern resiliency and competency than it does about "the current mission program . . . failing many of our young people?"

 

Without actual statistics, I will give my opinion.  Back in the day when I was on a mission, there was an attitude that "failure is not an option".  If someone came home early, it was for "health issues".

As missionaries come home early today, the reasons are more transparent, the "God's Army" effect that they become disenchanted and are not shy telling the real reason why they came back.  This has a cascade effect and, like so many other things, it becomes socially acceptable.  Rather than toughing it out, just quit and come home no longer carries the shame that it once did.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Without actual statistics, I will give my opinion.  Back in the day when I was on a mission, there was an attitude that "failure is not an option".  If someone came home early, it was for "health issues".

As missionaries come home early today, the reasons are more transparent, the "God's Army" effect that they become disenchanted and are not shy telling the real reason why they came back.  This has a cascade effect and, like so many other things, it becomes socially acceptable.  Rather than toughing it out, just quit and come home no longer carries the shame that it once did.

That's no doubt a factor.  I can think of a few missionaries from my mission some 20 years ago that would probably go home if going today. 

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Why do you think "so many are coming home early?" And does this say more about modern resiliency and competency than it does about "the current mission program . . . failing many of our young people?"

 

IMO...actually it says that they really didn't want to go in the first place.  Too many go to please mom an dad..girlfriends/boyfriends..and for every other reason than they really want to go.

[rongo]

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

IMO...actually it says that they really didn't want to go in the first place.  Too many go to please mom an dad..girlfriends/boyfriends..and for every other reason than they really want to go.

I think so, too.

[rongo]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's no doubt a factor.  I can think of a few missionaries from my mission some 20 years ago that would probably go home if going today. 

The question is whether it's better for missionaries 20+ years ago to have stayed than it is for modern ones to come home early. I definitely think that it's better to tough it out and get through a hard challenge/affliction in your life than it is to get out of it sooner. It's becoming more socially acceptable (and in spades if this "two-transfer" mission thing ever becomes widespread) to not be able to finish a mission, or to have "training wheels" versions of missions, and I don't think that's overall a good thing. Not for the Church, not for the missionary, not for the missionary's current/future family, not for the missionary's employers. 

My parents are on a mission in Poland right now. I asked my dad about his thought on this, and here is what he said:

We've seen this coming for quite a while. I do not agree with this philosophy at all. What our stake started to do with the Mission Prep program was a forerunner. They had a sickening, PC inspired psychologist meet with our group once a month to give a rah rah "I'm okay, you're okay" touchy- feely session to tell them how they can alleviate their stress on a mission when it gets too hard. I always had to restrain myself on those days. John Taylor, Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff would roll over in their graves. It devalues the purpose of a mission !  When I hear about what our milennial generation is becoming with all of their "Safe" zones etc,, it makes me think of General Patton in the infirmary when he found out there were soldiers in there that were suffering with frayed nerves. He pulled out his gloves and slapped them and told them to get the hell out of the same hospital as the brave wounded men.

I would definitely phrase it more diplomatically than that, but I agree that we should be encouraging and fostering more fortitude and resiliency, not lowering or removing the bar so that everyone can say they served a mission. 

Edited October 19, 2016 by rongo

[rongo]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It blames the young person for their bad experience as if they are in total control.

Very thoughtful response (rep points granted)! I have a few thoughts:

Regarding the above, we are ostensibly talking about adults. If we absolve them of any responsibility for their experience, then we should drop the pretense of regarding young people as adults.

Regardless of the reasons more missionaries are struggling to complete missions, the church needs to adapt the program  to meet the needs of those serving.

I prefer the Gideon's Army approach. Instead of trying to get all young people on "missions" in an attempt to try to staunch the hemorrhaging of young single adults from activity and attendance, put back in place the former high bar of missionary service. This will result in missionary numbers dropping back to pre-surge levels, but like Gideon's army, the missionary force is actually stronger for it --- and members' interactions with and experiences with missionaries (even though fewer in number) are better.

Even if we do decide to blame the increase in mission returns on a lack of resiliency on the current culture and/or generational differences, we need to ask why they aren't so resilient and are there ways the program can mitigate that problem.

I agree that the problem is that modern LDS are becoming (overall) much less peculiar and more and more mirror societal trends. This is on the families and upbringing, and no programs can compensate for failure of parenting (and we have a widespread, overall failure of the millennial parenting cadre in the Church that is the direct cause of the lack of resiliency). It's not just in missionary resiliency --- school, work ethic, addictions, you name it. 

Is it because they are going out younger with less life experience to help them meet the expectations of a mission?

I think the strong missionaries would be strong at 18, and the weak missionaries would still be weak if they had left at 19. That is, I don't see the age change as a factor in this, to be honest. The Church's 19 year-olds are just as immature and resiliency-deficient as the recent grads.

Are mission presidents instructed to send struggling missionaries home more freely?

I think, if anything, the opposite is true. The problem is that there is such a tidal wave of incompetent, addicted missionaries that you have to send some home --- and there are some on missions who are going home, one way or another, despite MP's best efforts to keep them out.

[stemelbow]

39 minutes ago, rongo said:

The question is whether it's better for missionaries 20+ years ago to have stayed than it is for modern ones to come home early. I definitely think that it's better to tough it out and get through a hard challenge/affliction in your life than it is to get out of it sooner. It's becoming more socially acceptable (and in spades if this "two-transfer" mission thing ever becomes widespread) to not be able to finish a mission, or to have "training wheels" versions of missions, and I don't think that's overall a good thing. Not for the Church, not for the missionary, not for the missionary's current/future family, not for the missionary's employers. 
 

I'd say that takes an individual, case by case assessment.  You may be in right in that in most cases it's best to tough it out.  But that may not always be the case.  I had a companion who attempted suicide by jumping off a bridge into muddy water.  he was fine, physically, but his mindset was not.  he had to visit a sanctioned therapist once a month (it started out as a once a week as I recall) but I don't think that was the best course of action.  he stayed, I'd wager, largely because he simply couldn't go home for the embarrassment. 

39 minutes ago, rongo said:

My parents are on a mission in Poland right now. I asked my dad about his thought on this, and here is what he said:

 

 

I would definitely phrase it more diplomatically than that, but I agree that we should be encouraging and fostering more fortitude and resiliency, not lowering or removing the bar so that everyone can say they served a mission. 

That's ok, I think for the most part.  But there are always cases out there where an individual is not best served and I think the Church is really trying to cater to those individuals as the expense of hurting others who need to stick it out.  When I hear people complain about touchy feely I wonder if they have a problem opening up.  But I'm not expert.  I think open and honest is good.  To pressure people based on fear and authority reminds me too much of failed movements that we shouldn't even mention. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I see a whole lot of assumin' goin' on in this thread. Starting with the assumption about an alleged "tidal wave" of early returns of missionaries.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd say that takes an individual, case by case assessment.  You may be in right in that in most cases it's best to tough it out.  But that may not always be the case. 

Absolutely agree. There are definitely cases where one should go home. It's best to screen that out before sending them, but sometimes people snap on the mission and it wasn't foreseeable or detectable. 

But there are always cases out there where an individual is not best served and I think the Church is really trying to cater to those individuals at the expense of hurting others who need to stick it out.

I agree. I think an overall softening of expectations for missionary work because of problems of the few is sad. I've mentioned this before, but we had a Seventy tell us in stake conference that we are supposed to do everything we can to see that our missionaries in our wards have only positive experiences and no negative ones --- that the members' duty is to shield them from negative experiences and rejection. This was at a time when they were supposed to be all social media, with no tracting, and all downtime was supposed to be spent at the Church. That has since been changed back to more traditional, but I found the counsel to shield missionaries from any rejection or challenges to be very sad. Ironically (not so ironic, in my view --- I could have told them that!), there was more depression when missionaries didn't --- do traditional missionary work. Sitting around playing on the Ipads actually causes guilt and depression. Duncan mentioned once here that he had an elder who was encouraged to do indexing on his full-time mission to Canada, and he said, "I could have stayed home and done this and saved $10,000." 

In my experience, the coddling and lowering or eliminating of the bar actually causes more depression and anxiety than it prevents or ameliorates, despite the good intentions. 

[cdowis]

I was in a very tough mission, where the average missionary had only one baptism for the ENTIRE two year mission.  I remember at a mission conference where one of the missionaries basically said, "Well, if we can't baptize them, at least we can warn them."  OK, so my mission changed from baptizing to warning them.  Each shut door represented another person who had the opportunity to be warned.  

I came home with many thousand warnings!  I was among top warners in the entire mission.  Knocking on door after door, day and night, though snow, rain, hot or cold weather.  I focused especially on high rises == bam bam bam -- slam.  I got down to about 120 seconds per warning.  

Sometimes I had to carry my companion to each door and prop him up.  His eyes were glazed over.

Edited October 19, 2016 by cdowis

[thatjimguy]

My first thought is it is a great thing. Why does it have to be two years anyway? Tradition?

If they want to add months to the mission, or go again later. Cool! Maybe some will go every summer after college lets out.

I also see this being good for kid so they can get a taste of it and see how it goes and how they feel about it.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I was in a very tough mission, where the average missionary had only one baptism for the ENTIRE two year mission.  I remember at a mission conference where one of the missionaries basically said, "Well, if we can't baptize them, at least we can warn them."  OK, so my mission changed from baptizing to warning them.  Each shut door represented another person who had the opportunity to be warned.  

I came home with many thousand warnings!  I was among top warners in the entire mission.  Knocking on door after door, day and night, though snow, rain, hot or cold weather.  I focused especially on high rises == bam bam bam -- slam.  I got down to about 120 seconds per warning.  

Sometimes I had to drag my companion to each door.

What kind of an approach did you have when it came to these warnings? 

"Hey, we're the Church....we warn you that you need to repent"  Or something.

[cdowis]

58 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What kind of an approach did you have when it came to these warnings? 

"Hey, we're the Church....we warn you that you need to repent"  Or something.

It was very simple. "Hi, my name is....."  Slam  Sometimes, "We are th....."  Slam

They were very aware of who we are because we cover the entire city every couple of years.  Our tracting records go back to John the Revelator.

A very easy mission == no scriptures to memorize, no discussions to practice, we took a bath once a week in the bath house.  

I remember one day my companion objected to go tracting in this one neighborhood because the people were POOR.  I stared at him as if he had two heads.  Anyway, I dragged him to each door and propped him up.

"Hello, I am Elder Dowis and this is my companion Elder Jones.  We are from...." Slam.  Can you imagine my joy!  Success, I gave both our names.   This is a golden neighborhood.

Basically the warning was my presence, our shining countenances at their door.  Can you give a testimony in less than one second?

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, thatjimguy said:

My first thought is it is a great thing. Why does it have to be two years anyway? Tradition?
 

Tradition?  Yeah.

Back in the day, foreign speaking missions were two and a half years, with a month off for vacation.  (just joking about the vacation)  Back back back in the day, four to five years, even if you had a wife and children at home, without purse or script.

Edited October 19, 2016 by cdowis

[Guest]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Because I feel like the current mission program is failing many of our young people. So many are coming home early, feeling like failures. I believe missions could be changed in meaningful ways to better accomplish the church's mission as well as be valuable experiences for more of the youth.

What is the % of those that remain and those who are sent home? Is short how bad is the problem? 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

What is the % of those that remain and those who are sent home? Is short how bad is the problem? 

Well, that's the thing. I don't think they have any clear idea.

That's why I say there's a whole lotta assumin' goin' on.

[rongo]

All any of us have is our own anecdotal experience. I've never had an early-returning missionary that I sent out myself, but my current ward has a couple who returned early, and our stake has a big problem with early-returnees. Other stakes in our coordinating council do, too, from what the stake president says. And, when you look at counsel and program changes from Salt Lake, it isn't a far-off assumption at all that larger-than-historical early-returnees is a big problem that is a concern to the Brethren. 

Edited October 20, 2016 by rongo

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, rongo said:

All any of us have is our own anecdotal experience. I've never had an early-returning missionary that I sent out myself, but my current ward has a couple who returned early, and our stake has a big problem with early-returnees. Other stakes in our coordinating council do, too, from what the stake president says. And, when you look at counsel and program changes from Salt Lake, it isn't a far-off assumption at all that larger-than-historical early-returnees is a big problem that is a concern to the Brethren. 

Anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable because it is subject to cherry picking and confirmation bias. Moreover, it can easily be countered with contrary anecdotal evidence  -- which itself is subject to the same weakness.

There are a dozen elders in my son's missionary group. Within the first year, there have been two early returns from that group. One went AWOL; the other, through no fault of his own, developed a physical malady and went home for treatment. Last I heard, there was hope that he might be able to return and finish his mission.

Furthermore, since 2012, the total number of missionaries at any given time has been highly volatile, with a dramatic and almost immediate surge followed by a gradual trailing off. Have the early returns within the past four years been commensurate with the number of missionaries serving at any given time, more or less amounting to a fixed percentage of the whole? I'm not sure anyone knows. We've had a few early returns in our ward, but this was during the surge. We have fewer missionaries serving from our ward now, but the early returns seem to have ceased.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Stigma could come from interactions with family, ward members, church leaders, peers, etc. Basically anyone who didn't value the "trial" mission as a "real" mission.

You seem to take a very dim view of the Saints. Regarding our first Elder, the only reason anyone knew he was serving a three-month trial mission is because he told everyone, and I think we all just loved him more because of it. He ended up serving in three of the four wards in our city, so most members here know him, and I can assure you that admiration was the universal response.

In the case of our second Elder, the only people in the ward who knew his situation were his companion and I. When he left, everyone just assumed that he'd been transferred. When people asked where he'd transferred to and I said, 'California', the reaction was sadness at losing him, followed by expressions of hopefulness that he'd be well. I still have members regularly ask me how he's going since they know I'm in frequent contact with him.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Gray]

On 10/19/2016 at 8:45 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Because I feel like the current mission program is failing many of our young people. So many are coming home early, feeling like failures. I believe missions could be changed in meaningful ways to better accomplish the church's mission as well as be valuable experiences for more of the youth.

I think another thing that needs to change is the culture of perfectionism. People can't feel the spirit when they're made to feel like failures for not obeying all 3000 mission rules robotically. I noticed that my ability to feel the spirit was curtailed dramatically on my mission, compared to the year leading up to my mission. I was too worried about keeping the correct prescribed hours to be able to interact with the Spirit very often. 

I would guess that pressure cooker of perfectionism also drives a lot of people to go home early due to anxiety. 

Edited October 20, 2016 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

I think another thing that needs to change is the culture of perfectionism. People can't feel the spirit when they're made to feel like failures for not obeying all 3000 mission rules robotically. I noticed that my ability to feel the spirit was curtailed dramatically on my mission, compared to the year leading up to my mission. I was too worried about keeping the correct prescribed hours to be able to interact with the Spirit very often. 

I would guess that pressure cooker of perfectionism also drives a lot of people to go home early due to anxiety. 

There really aren't that many mission rules, and it's not all that difficult to follow them once one makes up one's mind to be obedient, part of the consecration of time, talents and energies that any mission requires.

What takes energy and causes frustration is rebelliously flinging oneself against the wall. As Paul said, it is hard to kick against the pricks.