Another Look at the Missionary Numbers

[cinepro]

Over at the ex-Mormon subreddit, user "tryintomakesenseofit" posted this interesting observation of the state of the missionary numbers.  It's especially interesting to see the quotes from leaders that would indicate that the decrease to ~70K might not have been expected, as well as the indicators that could let us estimate the number of sister missionaries as part of the surge.

Has anyone seen quotes or stats that would contradict these estimates?

 

Quote

Things don’t look good for the Church’s ability to increase the number of young men who serve missions. The net result of lowering mission age for males appears to have been the addition of about 1300 Elders to the Church’s missionary force, which is in line with (if not significantly lower than) what one would have expected had the Church just left male mission age at 19 Y/O. Growth in the missionary force appears to be coming almost exclusively from more young women choosing to serve missions.

 

I was curious what the real effect of the surge was in terms of capturing males before they could fall away from the Church between ages 18 and 19. Now that the surge is over, I decided to run the numbers. These are just rough calculations, but should be in the ballpark. Also, I invite anyone to improve on this if there’s stuff I’ve missed, etc. I’ll be interested to hear what you all make of this!

The numbers (sources and methodology described below):

 

	FT Mishies	Sisters	Elders	Couples	18 Y/O Mormons	19 Y/O Mormons
2012	58700	8100	44800	5800	167974	165768
2016	70946	19155	46115	5676	180480	182674
% Change 12 to 16	21%	136%	3%	-2%	7%	10%
Raw Change	12246	11055	1315	-124	12506	16906

 

Basically, the age change resulted in the net addition of about 12,000 missionaries. It turns out that about 11,000 of those added missionaries (i.e., 90%) are female. If the goal was to get more young men serving missions then it seems like it was a clear failure. If the goal was to get more young women serving missions then it appears it was mildly successful.

 

It’s also telling how the Church appears to have been quite optimistic on the total increase in missionaries that they’d net from the age lowering. The actual outcome seems lower than they had expected. I’ll be very interested in seeing if number of full-time missionaries goes up next year. For more on the lackluster missionary performance, there’s a great article here.

An important timeline of quotes from Church bigwigs about the Missionary surge:

• July 2014, David F. Evans, then Executive Director of the missionary department, said the church expects the number of missionaries will eventually settle in the high 70,000s.

• February 2015, Jeffrey R. Holland states: “probably within four years, the baseline number for the missionary force will be something around 100,000.” (NOTE: There’s a temptation here to think Holland was also including the ~30k “Church-service missionaries” in his number, but the context of the statement seems to make it clear that he was talking about full-time missionaries.)

• March 2016, Brent Nielson, current director of the missionary department said: “As that surge passed, we're now down to around 75,000 missionaries, which is where we think we'll stay for a period of time as that gradually increases.”

• April 2017, Church announces that as of end of 2016 they had 70,946 full time missionaries in the field.

 

 

Sources:

• I got pre-surge 2012 missionary force breakdown numbers from the graphic shown in this article.

• I used this article to arrive at what I believe is a safe assumption that currently 27% of full time missionaries are young women, 8% of full-time missionaries are senior couples, and 65% of full-time missionaries are young men.

• For the numbers of 18 Y/O and 19 Y/O Mormons, I used the numbers put together by /u/kimballthenom

 

[rongo]

Our patriarch, a former mission president, tells everyone in their patriarchal blessings that they will serve a mission, and discusses details about their missions. My daughter was not planning on a mission, but immediately shifted gears when she received her PB. I don't think that's a bad thing. Prior to that, she had been well-versed in the "it's not a duty or expectation for you, but you are welcome to go" sentiment. I think this is more responsible for the sharp rise in sister missionaries in my stake more than residual excitement about the lowering of mission ages. I remember when that happened, there was a tidal wave of young women swept up in the hysteria of the announcement who wouldn't otherwise have gone. My sense is that this excitement has died down, but that a "new normal" remains for young women.

Do we know that less young men are choosing to go? Or, is it demographics (falling birth rates 15-20 years ago)?

I actually think that we would be better off with "Gideon's army" --- 40,000 or so of those who really want to and are prepared to serve missions. The emphasis is to get all of the young people on missions as a means of keeping them from going inactive, and you kind of get what you pay for then. I don't think the drop in baptisms is much of a surprise, given that and the fact that missionaries do a lot less finding and instead do other time-occupying things that shield them from finding.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do we know that less young men are choosing to go? Or, is it demographics (falling birth rates 15-20 years ago)

Given that Church leaders were expecting the number to be significantly higher than it is now, and that church leaders are the only ones who have access the the required data, I'd say that it is a reasonably safe bet that the number of 19-20 year-old young men is not dropping.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Quote

...capturing males before they could fall away from the Church between ages 18 and 19.

............................................

 

1 hour ago, rongo said:

......................................................................

I actually think that we would be better off with "Gideon's army" --- 40,000 or so of those who really want to and are prepared to serve missions. The emphasis is to get all of the young people on missions as a means of keeping them from going inactive, and you kind of get what you pay for then. I don't think the drop in baptisms is much of a surprise, given that and the fact that missionaries do a lot less finding and instead do other time-occupying things that shield them from finding.  

I don't see the dropping of the age as a cynical attempt to keep guys from going inactive.  Everyone should know that the primary focus on sending young men on an LDS mission is to properly initiate them into the Mormon religion, and the attrition rate is acceptable, just as it is for other types of initiations.  That more women are going is all to the good, and for the same reasons.  Of course a much more effective and smaller force of sophisticated theologians could be sent out instead, and mainstream denominations used to do that a lot.  The gist of the Mormon message doesn't require that approach, so it has been jettisoned.

[rongo]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't see the dropping of the age as a cynical attempt to keep guys from going inactive.

I don't think it's cynical. It's an attempt to stop the bleeding.

 Everyone should know that the primary focus on sending young men on an LDS mission is to properly initiate them into the Mormon religion,

I don't agree that that is, or should be, the primary focus. But, I agree that that is one benefit and aspect of missionary service. 

and the attrition rate is acceptable, just as it is for other types of initiations.

I agree that some attrition is to be expected ("can't make omelets without breaking eggs"), and that the benefits outweigh the risks.

 

Of course a much more effective and smaller force of sophisticated theologians could be sent out instead, and mainstream denominations used to do that a lot.  The gist of the Mormon message doesn't require that approach, so it has been jettisoned.

It isn't the lack of sophistication (I agree with you that Mormonism doesn't need that). It is the lack of motivation --- and lack of resiliency when they get there. Coupled with our coddling and "missionary-lite" program now to keep the 90,000 - 70,000 in the field. Strong, hard-working, tough kids who aren't afraid to talk to people and be mocked and rejected and who love the Restoration and the gospel is much more important than theological training. From that perspective, I think that "less is more" (the principle of Gideon's army) and that we would actually see more baptisms and retention with a smaller missionary force if the primary purpose wasn't "initiating," as you say, or maintaining activity of Mormon youth.

[Duncan]

I know though that a lot of RM's blow off the Church once they are done with the mission. I've had this conversation with another brother in the ward and in his day and my day when people went on missions, that was more or less an indication (not always) that you were active and would stay active and so if you weren't active you would have gone inactive prior to a mission. That  to me is generally true, from my own experiences. Now however it seems that you grow up in the Church, do the stuff, serve a mission and then go inactive. The plan for your life ends at a mission so what do you need the Church for anymore? This is generally speaking of course. In our ward since 2013 we've had like 7 or 8 missionaries go inactive. I talked with one the other day and his plan now is to become a marijuana grower in BC and he came home at the end of 2014.

[clarkgoble]

I don't think the goal was to increase numbers of missionaries. I also tend to think that the change is a huge problem and doubt it changes much the real issue which is activity at age 24 or so.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

 I also tend to think that the change is a huge problem 

Could you elaborate on this? I'm interested to hear more of your thoughts along this line. 

Thanks!

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

Could you elaborate on this? I'm interested to hear more of your thoughts along this line. 

I've given them many times so I'll just be brief. I think a significant number of young people mature at a slower rate than others. That means many are socially immature even at 19. By moving the age to 18 you simply have people emotionally unable to do the job they are given. The quality of missionary work has significantly degraded. The choices are to demand less (accomplishing less) which results not only in fewer conversions but less growth for the missionaries themselves relative to what they'd have experienced at 19. 

Honestly, one thing I'd like to see is the option of men and women over 25 who are single to be able to go on missions somewhat akin to what older couples do. I don't expect that mind you, but I think it'd be a very good thing. We'd get much more mature missionaries with far better skills. The quality of work would go up. We'd also be signaling to people who aren't married that they are still a very important part of the church. I think many people would benefit from that including the people themselves. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I've given them many times so I'll just be brief. I think a significant number of young people mature at a slower rate than others. That means many are socially immature even at 19. By moving the age to 18 you simply have people emotionally unable to do the job they are given. The quality of missionary work has significantly degraded. The choices are to demand less (accomplishing less) which results not only in fewer conversions but less growth for the missionaries themselves relative to what they'd have experienced at 19. 

Honestly, one thing I'd like to see is the option of men and women over 25 who are single to be able to go on missions somewhat akin to what older couples do. I don't expect that mind you, but I think it'd be a very good thing. We'd get much more mature missionaries with far better skills. The quality of work would go up. We'd also be signaling to people who aren't married that they are still a very important part of the church. I think many people would benefit from that including the people themselves. 

As far as i understand, single men may go on missions until they are 27 and single women can serve anytime.  We had a 40 year old single sister in my mission.  

But, this was back in the late 90s so things may have changed since then.

[William Jones]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I've given them many times so I'll just be brief. I think a significant number of young people mature at a slower rate than others. That means many are socially immature even at 19. By moving the age to 18 you simply have people emotionally unable to do the job they are given. The quality of missionary work has significantly degraded. The choices are to demand less (accomplishing less) which results not only in fewer conversions but less growth for the missionaries themselves relative to what they'd have experienced at 19. 

Honestly, one thing I'd like to see is the option of men and women over 25 who are single to be able to go on missions somewhat akin to what older couples do. I don't expect that mind you, but I think it'd be a very good thing. We'd get much more mature missionaries with far better skills. The quality of work would go up. We'd also be signaling to people who aren't married that they are still a very important part of the church. I think many people would benefit from that including the people themselves. 

There was a 26 year old on my mission and he was great. He didn't feel the need to play around because he had waited so long to be there and did it because he truly wanted to. However, I do think the age lowering was to hopefully stanch the bleeding of millenials leaving. Unfortunately for the church, it may backfire due to the immaturity of the missionaries and the lack of a realization that missionary work is sales work and hard work.

[readstoomuch]

I actually don't worry about how much the missionary numbers grow or don't grow.  More of them seem to go inactive than they used to and there are more women going-this is true.  I wish my oldest daughter had gone and I am pretty sure my younger daughter will go.  I think the numbers are what they are.  I just want to know what they are every once in awhile.  Whatever they are, we just make the best of them.  The same with the number of converts or active members.  Even as far as active members, I have met a number of people over the years that don't come to Church but are outspoken believers.  This is all a more complicated narrative than we might think.  

I think the biggest problem I have seen lately, is some information about the number of active men vs women.  It was in Utah as I understand it there were 40 active men per 60 active women.  I read it on Beliefnet the other day.  

I would like to also see more service missionaries and emphasis on service in general as well as more positive interactions with other Christians.  I certainly think there is more disclosure within Mormonism.  You should hear some of the questions I get from 11 year old in primary.  A lot of good things are happening.  Let the chips fall where they may.  I am in for the longhaul and I pray that the Holy Spirit will pour out his influence upon the world and upon us as a people.  

[Duncan]

Just now, readstoomuch said:

I actually don't worry about how much the missionary numbers grow or don't grow.  More of them seem to go inactive than they used to and there are more women going-this is true.  I wish my oldest daughter had gone and I am pretty sure my younger daughter will go.  I think the numbers are what they are.  I just want to know what they are every once in awhile.  Whatever they are, we just make the best of them.  The same with the number of converts or active members.  Even as far as active members, I have met a number of people over the years that don't come to Church but are outspoken believers.  This is all a more complicated narrative than we might think.  

I think the biggest problem I have seen lately, is some information about the number of active men vs women.  It was in Utah as I understand it there were 40 active men per 60 active women.  I read it on Beliefnet the other day.  

I would like to also see more service missionaries and emphasis on service in general as well as more positive interactions with other Christians.  I certainly think there is more disclosure within Mormonism.  You should hear some of the questions I get from 11 year old in primary.  A lot of good things are happening.  Let the chips fall where they may.  I am in for the longhaul and I pray that the Holy Spirit will pour out his influence upon the world and upon us as a people.  

I was thinking the same thing, more active female RM's or not vs. active men RM's or not, in the Church

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think it's cynical. It's an attempt to stop the bleeding.

.................................................

....................................... I think that "less is more" (the principle of Gideon's army) and that we would actually see more baptisms and retention with a smaller missionary force if the primary purpose wasn't "initiating," as you say, or maintaining activity of Mormon youth.

I agree that less is more, as you say, but you miss my point about why young men are sent on LDS missions, and I see no evidence that they are being sent earlier in order to stop the bleeding.  William Jones makes the same cynical assumption, but with no real evidence.

I think far more mileage can be gotten by analyzing the Mormon community by means of its social anthropology, i.e., phenomenologically.  Surface impressions and structures tell us one thing, while deep socio-psychological behavior tells us something else.

Reminds me of the deep misunderstanding in reaction to anti-Mormon activity:  Even though most Mormons perceive the anti-Mormons as the enemies of the LDS Church, their activities have actually strengthened the Church over time.  They pose no real threat, and are an essential part of learning via the Law of Opposition.  As Mike Quinn said:  "The unexamined faith is not worth having."  One might add that the untested faith is not real faith.

So too, the LDS mission experience and its aftermath have as powerful an effect on young Mormons as the few years spent as monks by young Buddhists.  God does not need mealy-mouthed adherents who follow the herd-instinct.  He needs tried and tested disciples, few though they may be.

We need to see the LDS mission experience as merely one part of a long developmental sequence into manhood, which includes becoming married with children, accepting demanding callings, and loving the neighbors.  It means putting the Gospel of Jesus Christ into everyday practice, as difficult as that might be.  That transformational process may or may not be successful for all.  Certainly not in this life.  But we try . . .

[stemelbow]

19 hours ago, cinepro said:

Over at the ex-Mormon subreddit, user "tryintomakesenseofit" posted this interesting observation of the state of the missionary numbers.  It's especially interesting to see the quotes from leaders that would indicate that the decrease to ~70K might not have been expected, as well as the indicators that could let us estimate the number of sister missionaries as part of the surge.

Has anyone seen quotes or stats that would contradict these estimates?

 

 

Kimballthenom's page was awesome.  Tons to get out of that. 

But on to missioanries.  yes, I figured that there was probably a failure from the age change as per young men going.  What I wasn't able to account for was how many members are ages 18-21 ish, male and female. 

My guess is the Church has hard numbers on such a break down.  That fewer and fewer missionaries are going these days it seems like the age change was a failure.  With all the talk of how high the number of missionaries had gone (up to almost 88,000 at one point) it's hard to not see the age changes purpose, at least in part, as increasing the missionary force, or getting more young men and women going on missions.  That all the predictions that have come since the age change have not foreseen a dip to 70,000 (someone kept telling us the bottoming out was reached and it was only going to grow), I'd say we have less young men as a percentage of the population of that age range going now. 

A couple of years ago my SP told us about the huge problem of young men going home early and added to that the problem of those who finish their missions going inactive at an increasing rate.  This may lead to more leaders being more cautious with young men and women who might otherwise have gone.  Meaning in counseling them, they might be showing less confidence in them and less inclination to recommend they run off after high school graduation to missions (Indeed my own 18 year old son hasn't really been asked by anyone about going on a mission, besides from his parents).  This may mean some kids want to attend school for a year and try to go after that.  But since they didn't go at the age they were supposed to they might end up thinking the time is past.  I wouldn't doubt if something like that has become a factor.

[stemelbow]

19 hours ago, rongo said:

Our patriarch, a former mission president, tells everyone in their patriarchal blessings that they will serve a mission, and discusses details about their missions.

Without discrimination everyone is going, huh?  I wonder what would happen if he applied the Spirit to the blessing process? 

19 hours ago, rongo said:

My daughter was not planning on a mission, but immediately shifted gears when she received her PB. I don't think that's a bad thing. Prior to that, she had been well-versed in the "it's not a duty or expectation for you, but you are welcome to go" sentiment. I think this is more responsible for the sharp rise in sister missionaries in my stake more than residual excitement about the lowering of mission ages. I remember when that happened, there was a tidal wave of young women swept up in the hysteria of the announcement who wouldn't otherwise have gone. My sense is that this excitement has died down, but that a "new normal" remains for young women.

Perhaps.  or the age change brought on a greater excitement for young women then men.  the problem it seems to be that young men are opting out at an increasing rate, and young men are leaving early at an increasing rate.  I think the tendency is the blame the young men, but it might be wise to wonder if the program is failing us. 

19 hours ago, rongo said:

Do we know that less young men are choosing to go? Or, is it demographics (falling birth rates 15-20 years ago)?

We don't have hard numbers, but all signs point to yes. 

19 hours ago, rongo said:

I actually think that we would be better off with "Gideon's army" --- 40,000 or so of those who really want to and are prepared to serve missions. The emphasis is to get all of the young people on missions as a means of keeping them from going inactive, and you kind of get what you pay for then. I don't think the drop in baptisms is much of a surprise, given that and the fact that missionaries do a lot less finding and instead do other time-occupying things that shield them from finding.  

I'd still say a huge revamp is in order.  If we changed to more service oriented, less time would be dedicated to finding but more finding would be achieved, I'd guess.  Less missionaries doesn't work.  Remember the raising the bar campaign?  It came, brought less but more "valiant" missionaries and our growth rate dropped, our conversions dropped (almost fell to as low as we are now, just after that move).  So I'm not sure the Church's last two efforts to make it work are helping.  It may be that if the Church made no changes since I went on a mission, we'd have far more missionaries (because as a percentage we did then, by nearly 10%) and we'd have far more conversions (which obviously we did then), and overall a more healthy org.   But there's hope.  Coming changes might actually work. 

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

It isn't the lack of sophistication (I agree with you that Mormonism doesn't need that). It is the lack of motivation --- and lack of resiliency when they get there. Coupled with our coddling and "missionary-lite" program now to keep the 90,000 - 70,000 in the field. Strong, hard-working, tough kids who aren't afraid to talk to people and be mocked and rejected and who love the Restoration and the gospel is much more important than theological training. From that perspective, I think that "less is more" (the principle of Gideon's army) and that we would actually see more baptisms and retention with a smaller missionary force if the primary purpose wasn't "initiating," as you say, or maintaining activity of Mormon youth.

I think your memory is short.  We already did the less missionaries whom we consider to be better route and it failed miserably.  That's why this change brought such excitement, but again, likely has failed us.  I'm looking forward to the next change. One of these changes is going to work.  Maybe if we're lucky enough we'll get some inspiration moving the change and things will go better for us. 

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think your memory is short.  We already did the less missionaries whom we consider to be better route and it failed miserably.  That's why this change brought such excitement, but again, likely has failed us.  I'm looking forward to the next change. One of these changes is going to work.  Maybe if we're lucky enough we'll get some inspiration moving the change and things will go better for us. 

Are you talking about the raising the bar initiative?  If so, why do you say that it failed miserably?  I've never heard that before.

[rongo]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you talking about the raising the bar initiative?  If so, why do you say that it failed miserably?  I've never heard that before.

I don't think it failed miserably, but I also didn't see an actual bar having been raised. There was talk of raising the bar, but it remained talk. "The days of the repent-and-go missionary are over," but missionaries continued to . . .repent and go. I am aware of very few missionaries who wanted to go who were prevented from going because of LoC violations. 

And, of course, with more missionaries than ever in the last several years, the bar has actually been lowered. 

[rongo]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The quality of missionary work has significantly degraded. The choices are to demand less (accomplishing less) which results not only in fewer conversions but less growth for the missionaries themselves relative to what they'd have experienced at 19. 

I don't see this as a function of young age, but of the program that changed. I think had the 18 year-olds been expected to do what 19 year-olds used to, they would have. 

I'm interested in what the reaction will be when my son (who is one of the stalwarts in my stake) goes to a year of college before going on his mission at 19. It simply isn't done, despite the rhetoric that 18 is just an option. He is definitely going on a mission, and is excited and prepared, but he's not leaving right after graduation (he turns 18 on graduation day). 

We're a prominent family in the stake, and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that he will go on a mission, but not leaving right after graduation will be . . . confusing to a lot of people.

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't see this as a function of young age, but of the program that changed. I think had the 18 year-olds been expected to do what 19 year-olds used to, they would have. 

I'm interested in what the reaction will be when my son (who is one of the stalwarts in my stake) goes to a year of college before going on his mission at 19. It simply isn't done, despite the rhetoric that 18 is just an option. He is definitely going on a mission, and is excited and prepared, but he's not leaving right after graduation (he turns 18 on graduation day). 

We're a prominent family in the stake, and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that he will go on a mission, but not leaving right after graduation will be . . . confusing to a lot of people.

I don't know enough of changes to program with the shift to comment there. I'm skeptical had they demanded the same things that 18 year olds could do it. My guess is that the changes are due to the limits of 18 year olds rather than vice versa.

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think it failed miserably, but I also didn't see an actual bar having been raised. There was talk of raising the bar, but it remained talk. "The days of the repent-and-go missionary are over," but missionaries continued to . . .repent and go. I am aware of very few missionaries who wanted to go who were prevented from going because of LoC violations. 

And, of course, with more missionaries than ever in the last several years, the bar has actually been lowered. 

While I can't speak to current practice, when Hinkley tightened requirements for worthiness and health there was an immediate drop in the number of missionaries. While those may well have been relaxed over the years since, I don't think we can say the bar wasn't raised at the time.

[Rain]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I've given them many times so I'll just be brief. I think a significant number of young people mature at a slower rate than others. That means many are socially immature even at 19. By moving the age to 18 you simply have people emotionally unable to do the job they are given. The quality of missionary work has significantly degraded. The choices are to demand less (accomplishing less) which results not only in fewer conversions but less growth for the missionaries themselves relative to what they'd have experienced at 19. 

Honestly, one thing I'd like to see is the option of men and women over 25 who are single to be able to go on missions somewhat akin to what older couples do. I don't expect that mind you, but I think it'd be a very good thing. We'd get much more mature missionaries with far better skills. The quality of work would go up. We'd also be signaling to people who aren't married that they are still a very important part of the church. I think many people would benefit from that including the people themselves. 

I think the maturity thing is huge. I wish members would have paid more attention to President Monson when he announced it. 

My son was a senior that year. We were helping run a marching band competition in Utah. A number of us were listening to conference on our headphones as we waited to direct bands where they needed to go etc. It was announced and within minutes, many of those boys were feeling pressure - not because Utah people pressure, but because the abundance of LDS talking about it. 

That year instantly became different than it had been. August and September were full of graduation talk, plans for the furure etc. Suddenly the missions were way ahead on what was talked about. I dont think people realize what a huge, emotional change it was unless you had a boy as a senior and maybe a girl who was a senior in high school/freshman in college. And maybe that really only applied where there are a lot of LDS. So many people were expecting my son to go on a mission as soon as graduation was over. A lot of his friends were getting calls that spring. And when he feels pressure he runs the other way.

I talked with people about this. Most of those that didn't have sons close to that age heard President Monson say you should go on a mission when you are 18. But he didn't say that. He said that if you were ready you could now go at 18, but that some would need to mature before going (paraphrased).

So some were probrably too immature when they went and some fought against going at all because of the change. It will be interesting to see what happens 10 years after it was announced when some of these things have settled more. My daughter is going to be 19 this week and is still getting some pressure, but it is much less than it was a year ago. I don't think we have seen the end of the initial results just yet. 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Rain

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

We don't have hard numbers, but all signs point to yes. 

Could you clarify this? Part of the problem is of course we don't know demographic numbers. While a very imperfect number, looking at the ratio of missionaries to population can give a very rough estimate. Up until 2002 it was roughly slightly more than .5%. (There were some variance in the 80's but I think part of that was due to the large number of baptisms in the mid 80s) Most of the time the figures were 0.54% - 0.55%. In 2002-3 you have a significant drop to around .4%. During the "surge" due to the 18 year old change the figure when back up to 0.55% and has since dropped but to a level between the old figures and the figure in the naughts at around .45-.47%. So if anything the number of missionaries has increased not decreased.

The drop in the naughts that persisted until the surge was due to Hinkley's "raising the bar" that started in 2002. Because the figures now that the surge are over are higher than the 2002-2012 figures it is possible that requirements have been relaxed. It's also possible that leaving on a mission prior to doing a year of college simply mean fewer young people are being kept from missions.

[Rain]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't see this as a function of young age, but of the program that changed. I think had the 18 year-olds been expected to do what 19 year-olds used to, they would have. 

I'm interested in what the reaction will be when my son (who is one of the stalwarts in my stake) goes to a year of college before going on his mission at 19. It simply isn't done, despite the rhetoric that 18 is just an option. He is definitely going on a mission, and is excited and prepared, but he's not leaving right after graduation (he turns 18 on graduation day). 

We're a prominent family in the stake, and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that he will go on a mission, but not leaving right after graduation will be . . . confusing to a lot of people.

There may be more than you know. I have seen much more of a change this year than last year with my daughter's friends. Some only did one semester, but she has several friends that are finishing up their freshman year at ASU and now have their calls.