Missionary numbers drop more

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I hate to introduce potential discord into this thread, Happy Jack Wagon, but these people aren't "missionaries."  They're missionaries.  Period.  Would you be on board if someone were to refer to young missionaries serving non-proselyting missions (or missions that don't solely involve proselyting)  because of some physical or behavioral health challenge as "missionaries"?  I have such a challenge (or, perhaps better said, both types of challenges). While, thankfully, my first mission president didn't put this threat into action, he told my parents that if the physical demands of missionary work were more than I could handle, perhaps I ought to simply be sent home).  As pleased as I am that I served a full-time proselyting mission, however, I'm glad the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders have begun thinking "more outside the box" about what it means to be a missionary.  That conception was pretty one-dimensional when I was a missionary, and frankly, that one-dimensional conception was to my detriment.  As grateful as I am to have served when I did, for whom and with whom I did, where I did, and how I did, however, I think I would thrive as a missionary today, when the concept of what it means to be a missionary is much broader than it was then.  

If the primary mission of missionaries is to baptize people into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (whether they're converted or not), then I can see your point.  If the primary mission of missionaries is to convert people to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ (which missionaries don't do, anyway; that's the Holy Spirit's job), then I can see your point.  If, however, the primary mission of missionaries is to bring people to Christ, there are myriad ways and means by which that may be done (such as serving as missionaries in the Addiction Recovery Program, as the Guis do, serving as missionaries a couple days a week in the local LDS Employment Resource Center, as my parents did, helping people who need prostheses and ambulatory devices in third-world countries, as the bishop whom I served as his executive secretary and his wife did, and so on), so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't see the "comical" aspects about who is called as a missionary and what s/he is called to do as a result.

Whether the people who are recipients of this service recognize it or not, all of the various forms of service I describe in the foregoing paragraph are ways in which those people have been brought closer to Christ.  Helping someone overcome addiction, helping someone find a job, or otherwise improving his quality of life improves human dignity and helps one come closer to realizing his full potential as a child of God.  Whatever they're called to do, these people are "stand[ing] as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places" (Mosiah 18:9).  As St. Francis of Assisi said, "Preach the gospel at all times.  If necessary, use words." 

That's not a "mission"; that's a mission.  And with all due respect, I'll side with God and with His Servants about whom he calls on a mission, and what He asks that missionary to do.

Every calling in the church is aimed at drawing people to Christ. Am I wrong? So why do some people wear badges and others don't? Like the Gui's my wife and I are "missionaries" as ARP Group leaders. But there seems to be an insinuation that there is something more special about missionaries than other people serving in callings. There seems to be a hierarchy of value which I think is artificial. My original comment was meant to demonstrate that whether someone is considered a missionary or not is merely a matter of policy, but that the service is often the same.

I'm also glad that the church is thinking "outside the box" but think about how this has functionally changed things. Are people now serving where previously they weren't, or is it the only change that they are now called missionaries? People wanted to serve "missions" and so the outside of the box thinking allows them to serve "missions". I've yet to hear a good explanation about why it is better to serve a mission as opposed to serving in any other way in the church.

[hagoth7]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'd agree it was naïve in the extreme.  Makes you wonder why Elder Holland went public with such an extrapolation....holding steady at around 85,000, and the Church expects it to rise further". 

That assessment is one option. Or, mebbe we're the ones being naive by assuming they have no access to inside information...

Whatever the case, something really drastic is taking place if the number of missionaries has dropped off so fast this year. 

If true, yep.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not sure why but you seem to be offended by this....

Sheesh, I know, right?   If only we all weren't so danged thin-skinned ...  

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

That assessment is one option. Or, mebbe we're the ones being naive by assuming they have no access to inside information...

Well, yes, if Elder Holland is going to go public with expectations in terms of numbers, claim to be speaking for the Church, you'd think he'd have more than someone's dart throw with a blindfold on. 

11 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

If true, yep.

Oops.  I guess I jumped the gun or overlooked something.  The number of missionaries is 68,500, so it's not as bad.  But it's still down, which has continued the downward trend for a couple years now. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Every calling in the church is aimed at drawing people to Christ.  Am I wrong?

In the broadest sense, yes, that's true.

Quote

So why do some people wear badges and others don't?

Your mileage likely varies, but, for one thing, I like Calm's idea that such identification serves to facilitate the planting, and potentially the harvesting, of seeds.  And I think there's a mantle that comes with missionary service, in particular.  I'm sure you probably disagree, but, ah, well: Vive le difference!

Quote

Like the Gui's my wife and I are "missionaries" as ARP Group leaders.

There are those bothersome quotation marks again!  

Quote

But there seems to be an insinuation that there is something more special about missionaries than other people serving in callings.

Insinuation by whom? Insinuations don't simply come into being on their own.  An insinuator has to be doing the insinuating.  

Quote

There seems to be a hierarchy of value which I think is artificial.

Hierarchy created by whom?

Quote

My original comment was meant to demonstrate that whether someone is considered a missionary or not is merely a matter of policy, but that the service is often the same.

Well, it is, but at the same time, it isn't.  I believe the scripture from Doctrine & Covenants 4 that says that anyone who has a desire to serve is called to the work.  But I also believe that it means something to have someone who holds keys lay his hands upon my head and set me apart for a specific calling as a missionary.  Perhaps it behooves each missionary called to do a particular thing as a missionary to ponder why s/he would be called, not only to do that thing, but also do to do that thing as a missionary.  Perhaps many of the reasons are the same for one missionary who is called to do that particular thing as they are for every other missionary who is called to do that same thing, and perhaps many of those reasons, notwithstanding the similarity in calling, vary from missionary to missionary.  I think those matters are worthy of serious contemplation. 

Quote

I'm also glad that the church is thinking "outside the box" but think about how this has functionally changed things. Are people now serving where previously they weren't, or is it the only change that they are now called missionaries?

That is not, of course, an either-or proposition.  All service is laudable and is worth in God's eyes.  You obviously disagree, but I think the question of why that service would be performed by missionaries is worthy of serious consideration.  

Quote

People wanted to serve "missions" and so the outside of the box thinking allows them to serve "missions". I've yet to hear a good explanation about why it is better to serve a mission as opposed to serving in any other way in the church.

I wouldn't hold your breath.  The only one I've seen espousing that sort of hierarchical thinking is you.  And I think a lot more contemplation and prayer goes into the decision to call someone on a mission than simply saying, "S/he wants to serve a mission, does s/he?  Sounds good to us! Presto!  S/he's a missionary."  If I were in your position, wondering "Why am I doing this ... as a missionary?  I could be released, and could show up next week fulfilling the same function in the ARP group [or as fill-in-the-blank here], and nothing would change ... would it?"  I would talk to the person who issued me the calling, and/or think about what was said when I was set apart. The bottom line is, is there a mantle that comes with missionary service, whatever the mission?  Your mileage may vary, but I earnestly believe that there is.

Edited June 5, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Pete Ahlstrom]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well, yes, if Elder Holland is going to go public with expectations in terms of numbers, claim to be speaking for the Church, you'd think he'd have more than someone's dart throw with a blindfold on. 

Oops.  I guess I jumped the gun or overlooked something.  The number of missionaries is 68,500, so it's not as bad.  But it's still down, which has continued the downward trend for a couple years now. 

One would think the numbers will continue to go down to a number that is a little more than the pre-surge levels if everything remains as it was prior to the surge.  My guess is that during the surge there were a lot of missionaries in their early 20's as well as ones under 19.  This would account for the higher numbers, right?  So, one would expect less missionaries now to be in the 20 to 21 range and more in the 18 to 19 range along with lower numbers.  If it dips below pre-surge numbers, then one has to believe that the millennial leaving religion secular trend is obviously hitting mormonism as some posit now.  

[hagoth7]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Oops.  I guess I jumped the gun or overlooked something.  The number of missionaries is 68,500, so it's not as bad.  But it's still down, which has continued the downward trend for a couple years now. 

That factors in some of the church militant.

Doesn't necessarily factor in all of the church triumphant.

[HappyJackWagon]

40 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Sheesh, I know, right?   If only we all weren't so danged thin-skinned ...  

You're good at making snarky comments but I haven't seen you try to answer my question.  I just saw your post where you answered my question. Thank you.

Does a person's service become more important because he is a missionary instead of simply serving in a calling?

If person A is an ARP Group leader, does it matter if he is a missionary or has a calling? If there is a difference, can you explain why one is better than the other? If one is not better than the other, why do some people wear their name badges as some kind of prestigious accomplishment or status symbol? I'm not saying BG is doing that, but I'm trying to understand why one is more important than the other. The part that I find comical is the pride with which some people wear the name badge to church simply so people know they are a missionary. Some of the missionaries I know that I've referred to in previous comments don't wear their name badges in public, they only wear it to church like it's an accessory that proclaims their specialness.

But all of that is missing the original point of my post, which is, the church can make any calling a mission if they choose. That doesn't make it more or less special. The service is the same, so why try to add a level of importance with a name badge or calling the missionary "Elder". I think a lot of it is simply about  trying to make people feel more special than others because they have a name badge, are called Elder, and are a missionary, and not some average ward member volunteering in a calling.

Edited June 5, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Every calling in the church is aimed at drawing people to Christ. Am I wrong? So why do some people wear badges and others don't? Like the Gui's my wife and I are "missionaries" as ARP Group leaders. But there seems to be an insinuation that there is something more special about missionaries than other people serving in callings. There seems to be a hierarchy of value which I think is artificial. My original comment was meant to demonstrate that whether someone is considered a missionary or not is merely a matter of policy, but that the service is often the same.

I'm also glad that the church is thinking "outside the box" but think about how this has functionally changed things. Are people now serving where previously they weren't, or is it the only change that they are now called missionaries? People wanted to serve "missions" and so the outside of the box thinking allows them to serve "missions". I've yet to hear a good explanation about why it is better to serve a mission as opposed to serving in any other way in the church.

I don't necessarily think it's better than other callings the name badge is simply to ID them to people that may want to speak to them. I think this is a mountain out of a molehill.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In the broadest sense, yes, that's true.

Your mileage likely varies, but, for one thing, I like Calm's idea that such identification serves to facilitate the planting, and potentially the harvesting, of seeds.  And I think there's a mantle that comes with missionary service, in particular.  I'm sure you probably disagree, but, ah, well: Vive le difference!

There are those bothersome quotation marks again!  

Insinuation by whom? Insinuations don't simply come into being on their own.  An insinuator has to be doing the insinuating.  

Hierarchy created by whom?

Well, it is, but at the same time, it isn't.  I believe the scripture from Doctrine & Covenants 4 that says that anyone who has a desire to serve is called to the work.  But I also believe that it means something to have someone who holds keys lay his hands upon my head and set me apart for a specific calling as a missionary.  Perhaps it behooves each missionary called to do a particular thing as a missionary to ponder why s/he would be called, not only to do that thing, but also do to do that thing as a missionary.  Perhaps many of the reasons are the same for one missionary who is called to do that particular thing as they are for every other missionary who is called to do that same thing, and perhaps many of those reasons, notwithstanding the similarity in calling, vary from missionary to missionary.  I think those matters are worthy of serious contemplation. 

That is not, of course, an either-or proposition.  All service is laudable and is worth in God's eyes.  You obviously disagree, but *I think the question of why that service would be performed by missionaries is worthy of serious consideration.  

I wouldn't hold your breath.  The only one I've seen espousing that sort of hierarchical thinking is you.  And I think a lot more contemplation and prayer goes into the decision to call someone on a mission than simply saying, "S/he wants to serve a mission, does s/he?  Sounds good to us! Presto!  S/he's a missionary."  If I were in your position, wondering "Why am I doing this ... as a missionary?  I could be released, and could show up next week fulfilling the same function in the ARP group [or as fill-in-the-blank here], and nothing would change ... would it?"  I would talk to the person who issued me the calling, and/or think about what was said when I was set apart. The bottom line is, is there a mantle that comes with missionary service, whatever the mission?  Your mileage may vary, but I earnestly believe that there is.

Everyone gets set apart to serve whether they are a missionary or not. Is the setting apart as a missionary an extra powerful setting apart and better than the setting apart in a calling? I say, no. You seem to be suggesting otherwise.

Insinuation by whom? Well, you sure seem to advocating that there is something special about missionaries versus the average person in a calling.

WHy do I "obviously disagree" since that is the point I was making. Come on, man.

*Did you know that ARP group leaders can be either set apart in a stake calling, or as a missionary? It could work either way. The exact same assignment, duties, calling. Is one better than another? IOW- there doesn't seem to be a need that something like the function of an ARP group leader must be filled by a missionary. The same is obviously true for Family History missionaries and FH callings. They often do the exact same thing but one person gets to say they are a missionary and the other doesn't. Why is that? Why would it matter? Why do it? I continue to maintain that the missionary label is often used as a kind of status.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I don't necessarily think it's better than other callings the name badge is simply to ID them to people that may want to speak to them. I think this is a mountain out of a molehill.

I agree. It's really not important. I got my hackles up because a few people tried to misconstrue my comment, so I got a little defensive about it.

However, I think it is an interesting illustration of a problem of hierarchy, status, and pride, in the church.

[Kenngo1969]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. It's really not important. I got my hackles up because a few people tried to misconstrue my comment, so I got a little defensive about it.

However, I think it is an interesting illustration of a problem of hierarchy, status, and pride, in the church.

Okey-doke.  Happy Jack has dismissed those of us who disagree with him as guilty of one of the Seven Deadly Sins of Pride.  What more needs to be said?  You got it!  I'm out!  See ya in the funny papers!  

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Or the number of sister missionaries has dropped to more expected figures. The DesNews story doesn't give gender break down.

Reality is quite something different...

**REMEMBER YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST**

For the first time in church history...the church will pass a gender milestone....for the first time in history...Female missionary candidates will out number Male missionary candidates at the Provo MTC.  This will happen within the next couple of weeks according to my source.

Quote

I have a close family member currently in the MTC. Per this person's letters, in the next couple of weeks, the MTC will for the first time have more women than men in residence. I cannot confirm the statement and the only evidence I have is the word of a family member who is a current missionary. I am interested in anyone out there who can confirm or refute this statement.

My family has been discussing it as a neat little fact and how great it is that women are serving missions. I on the other hand only heard it as confirmation that the church has horrible retention of young men and that the already existing demographic disaster in Utah is going to get worse. The number of missionaries are already at below levels they were at when the age was lowered; if half those missionaries are women the church is in big trouble.

For comparison, in my mission of 200+ missionaries in 1997 there were at one point a total of 9 sisters and never more than 15 during my entire two year tenure (admittedly I was in a Latin American country just barely emerging from a decade of civil war and non-host nation sisters were not being sent to the missions there). However, even when I was in the MTC there is no way that women represented more than 10% of missionaries. I realize a big culture shift has occurred with expectations of women serving missions, but it is still a major problem if the church is back down to pre-change total numbers yet the percent of males is now at or near 50%.

Thought you'd all like to here it before it hits the newspapers

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

For the first time in church history...the church will pass a gender milestone....for the first time in history...Female missionary candidates will out number Male missionary candidates at the Provo MTC.  This will happen within the next couple of weeks according to my source.

Thought you'd all like to here it before it hits the newspapers

Really, really, really skeptical.

The figures Cinepro put up a few months ago was 19155 sisters and 46115 elders. To catch up we'd have to have to have 27,000 more sisters out this year. 

Now I don't think the figures he quoted were ever confirmed. I believe they were calculated using a 27% sister figure that came from this March 2016 Newsroom story. Just going by the crowds I see when I drive by the MTC on my way to work though elders still significantly outnumber sisters.

 

 

[Lemuel]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I gotcha.  So you still support President Nelson's claim of this age change coming about due to revelation through the Church?

It is every bit as much of a revelation as the "children of gay parents policy" is, also claimed by President Nelson.

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, USU78 said:

Two big thumbs up for your service and your perseverance.

My next older brother and his wife just accepted a 2-year call to be ESL missionaries in so. Cache Valley area.  He retired as a middle school Spanish and Music teacher a couple of years ago and his wife just retired from teaching a year ago, if I'm remembering right.

I'm hoping our health holds up as we draw ever closer to retirement age.  I'm hoping I can keep working until she's ready for early retirement (another 5-6 years).

Does your brother live up here?  Should he need anything,,,let me know!

[Lemuel]

I'll throw out a possible explanation for how the numbers could drop a bit in 5 months--

Suppose that sister missionaries who have Sep-Dec birthdays tend to begin their missions after a full year of college--they don't leave on their birthdays or at the end of fall semester, but they wait to go until the summer.  These sisters will come home somewhere around Dec-January, and hence the total missionary numbers will be lower in the first half of the year than the second.

Don't know if my assumption is true--sisters probably prefer to time their missions so they get home in time for Christmas.

[USU78]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Does your brother live up here?  Should he need anything,,,let me know!

Yeah  ...  Hyrum.  

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Yeah  ...  Hyrum.  

Hyrum...he is good to go. I love Hyrum...I am in Providence.  Tell them to stop at the south Walmart and I will treat them to some doughnuts..discount for a group if they have some discussions going..!!

[carbon dioxide]

11 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This may be unprecedented. 

Deseret News reported the number of missionaries is down to around 62,000 today (well this past weekend when a survey was sent out). 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865681342/Mormon-missionaries-being-surveyed-online-regarding-personal-safety-risks.html

With all of our past years' talks of the peak of the surge being over, the claimed surprise of not as much of a drop as previously thought, and the huge benefit of the age change and how inspired it was.  This may come as really tough news.  This suggests we netted a 9,000 person loss in the missionary force in 5 months' time.  This past conference it was reported at year's end 2016 we had under 71,000 missionaries https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/statistical-report-2016?lang=eng.

Perhaps they are not including missionaries in the MTC,.  There is no reason to give a survey to that group.

Edited June 6, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Really, really, really skeptical.

The figures Cinepro put up a few months ago was 19155 sisters and 46115 elders. To catch up we'd have to have to have 27,000 more sisters out this year. 

Now I don't think the figures he quoted were ever confirmed. I believe they were calculated using a 27% sister figure that came from this March 2016 Newsroom story. Just going by the crowds I see when I drive by the MTC on my way to work though elders still significantly outnumber sisters.

 

 

Note my qualifier..."at the Provo MTC". I am not suggesting that females will eclipse males...at least any time soon in the field.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Duncan]

I wonder if finances play a part in this. With that year gone from 18-19 I wonder who is footing the bill for a mission, how much cash could a youth save up while in High School? Our Stake has a youth out now and I saw on FB his family making an appeal for finances to help pay for it. Missions cost money and I wonder if people just can't afford it, temporarily or permanently 

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not sure why but you seem to be offended by this. I also wear a name tag and I'm doing the same mission you are, but to be honest, I don't see the purpose in wearing name badges. Every person who serves in any kind of position could be considered as if serving a mission. Should a bishop wear a name badge as a missionary? How about ward missionaries? Young Women's President? If you read my post clearly you will see that I never called one type of mission "legitimate" and others not so you are reading into that. My only point is that calling something a mission and giving it a name badge is more a matter of policy but it often seems to be worn as a badge of honor as if the "mission" is higher than a "calling" in the ward or stake.

For example, I have a couple in my ward who like to talk about how they have served 4 full time missions. It sounds very impressive and they are very proud of their service. That's fine. But to me, there is absolutely ZERO difference between this retired couple serving 4 missions (6 months to 1 year each) in family history when they live at home, and every other person serving in their callings in the church. In addition to the full time Elders in our ward we have about 7 other people who wear missionary name badges each week to church.

What is comical to me is the status some people seem to take from the name badge as if a mission is real service and a sign of righteousness and sacrifice whereas callings are for the average person.

Yes, I found it offensive and I explained why. We are not "missionaries." 

I have absolutely no interest in debating it with you. I don't care if someone wears a badge or not. None of my business. Why would I want to laugh at someone for such a silly reason? Or any reason, unless they were trying to be funny.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

They really need to start pushing waiting as an equally appropriate choice.  It was a big thing growing up in my areas (No. California and Illinois in 60s and 70s) encouraging kids to earn enough to pay for their own missions (in my family theidea was earn for the mission and then Dad would help with the first year or so of college after the mission), the whole bank for tithing/mission/other given at baptism.

Wonder what it was like elsewhere.

They have kept the price down.  It is the same, I believe, now as it was in 2001 when my son went.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

According to here, even the least expensive missions are much more than $400 a month, but these are based on senior couple mission costs (which are not equalized across the board based on where you come from, not where you are going).  It would suggest even for the lower costs of younger missionaries (less cars needed, housing is probably not as nice), the Church is subsidizing mission costs so that families don't completely cover their child's cost themselves (though they of course contribute in other ways, to the greater tithing fund and may give to the missionary fund as well).

http://www.moronichannel.org/missionaries/top-10-most-expensive-and-least-expensive-lds-mission

Edited June 6, 2017 by Calm