Missionary numbers drop more

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's a good point. Although now that I look closely your figures seem off. On my spreadsheet it's 46% from '93 onward. So I don't think he's doing curve fitting there although he appears to be before.

You are looking at year born, I was reporting year eligible. It is true that for elders he leaves it alone from 2012-2016. That's because he is fitting the data by changing the sisters percentage which changes during that time frame from 15% to 17.5% to 20% to 23%. 

Data gleaned elsewhere does show a marked increase in sisters serving, but it doesn't match what his spreadsheet shows (because he isn't matching what is being reported, he is just changing sisters serving until he gets his curve to fit). See:

 

 

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This makes the question of what in the world Elder Holland and brethren were thinking back when they told us the numbers would only rise after they reached 85,000. 

I think that's easy to answer. Someone gave him a linear projection based upon the prior two or three years. It never made sense even just glancing at the graph.

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

He's not doing any adjusting, but instead assuming they are equivalent. They are not. I replaced the baptized members of record data with increase children of record and then refitted his seminary data and came up with the following (a much different picture no?):

Not really. Only difference is the past two years.

19 hours ago, cinepro said:

Ultimately, a huge part of the concern could be the falling number of converts per missionary:

I think this is definitely a concern and have written on it several times. But it's not the only concern and likely not the major concern. 

[clarkgoble]

45 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are looking at year born, I was reporting year eligible. It is true that for elders he leaves it alone from 2012-2016. That's because he is fitting the data by changing the sisters percentage which changes during that time frame from 15% to 17.5% to 20% to 23%. 

Not sure what tab you mean. There's "the %YM who serve" tab and the "the %YW who serve" tab that have the percentages. The "Elder Births" and "Sister Births" tabs have the year eligible info but there's no fitting there. He just uses the percentages off of the %YM/%YW who serve tabs. The projections are then just the sum of the Elder/Sister births for the appropriate period.

But I agree he's curve fitting with the sisters in a somewhat problematic way as he's clearly getting the percent of actual sisters loosely from other info. Although I think the Reddit person had a 27% figure -- although I think that's somewhat off as well. So his estimate is too low.

Anyway, when you remove the changing sisters % and just put in a single fixed amount of 14% you get the following which still captures a lot of the qualitative features. (Red is actual, blue prediction -- sorry I didn't spend the time to make Excel make it look nice)

I think though that showcases that we're actually above trend due to the higher number of sister missionaries than trend.

Edited June 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[SeekingUnderstanding]

43 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 

Not really. Only difference is the past two years.

The difference is huge in future projections. Look again. 

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The difference is huge in future projections. Look again. 

I wasn't really trusting the model out very far. I was more interested in whether it got recent trends thereby explaining something about them. Since the rate of sister missionaries is changing there's no way a static model would capture that. The question is whether the rate of women going on missions continues to increase and I don't think there's a model that'd given any prediction to that I'd trust.

To me the model is helpful in that it explains that most of the recent changes can be explained primarily by demographics. When you put in the static sister numbers though that secondary hump in the actual data is that much more interesting. While some of that is undoubtedly due to baby boomers going on senior missions the big story is this unexpected surge in sister missionaries perhaps due to the age drop for them. In terms of the convert question the drop in age for women seems much more defensible than the drop in age for men. It seems likely that it's simply much more of a live choice for young women at the current age than the older age. I suspect many women are choosing to go on missions first rather than get married. That happened of course even when I was in my early 20's. But I bet the age drop makes it much more attractive. That in turn might have interesting social effects after say a decade of it being so normal.

Edited June 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that's easy to answer. Someone gave him a linear projection based upon the prior two or three years. It never made sense even just glancing at the graph.

 

I don't think that makes sense based on what was reported back then.  But, I've heard your opinion and will leave it at that.

[theplains]

On 2017-6-5 at 11:38 AM, stemelbow said:

Remember the expectation from the leadership was in less than 2 years from nownow we'd reach 100,000 missionaries.  Something seems to have gone terrible wrong. 

Thoughts?

Ideas?

 

 

There is a lot of competition from Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, and others. Less converts will
mean less future missionaries.  Don't focus on quantity. Quality matters.

Jim

[Kenngo1969]

13 hours ago, theplains said:

There is a lot of competition from Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, and others. Less converts will
mean less future missionaries.  Don't focus on quantity. Quality matters.

Jim

Oh, Sunny Jim!  If only your posting history gave us any reason to believe that you think that!  Alas!  

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, theplains said:

There is a lot of competition from Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, and others. Less converts will
mean less future missionaries.  Don't focus on quantity. Quality matters.

Jim

There's no reason to think quality is better when the actual number goes down.  That seems silly.  JWs and SDAs have been around for decades.  They've always been competition in that sense. 

[Meerkat]

On 6/5/2017 at 2:27 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

 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.

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.

My experience is that it takes a certain amount of courage to wear a name tag, rather than arrogance.  I like the identification aspect, especially when introducing a friend to a missionary.   It communicates a certain amount of credibility, such as training, etc. in the subject matter of their calling.  It also may help explain the special feeling many identify when in the presence of missionaries.

[Meerkat]

Not meaning that Happy Jack was implying arrogance.  I think it has more to do with identification than conferring specialness. I just don't see a name tag as somehow elevating status above other members.  It certainly didn't feel that way when I wore one in my ward calling.  I did it because it was part of the calling at the time.

[Meerkat]

First

I haven't seen any comment in this thread about the rapid opposition to the Church on the internet.  Many young people, especially Millenials, seem to be leaving the Church.  Among those is a vocal and organized group complaining the Church shames people.  Some families, perhaps many, have become estranged.  

I believe one effect may be a trickle down to younger potential missionaries.

Second

Another possible reason is that raising the bar encouraged sending only strong, converted missionaries out into the field. Back in the day, I wish my antennas had been up regarding sending converted missionaries out versus sending missionaries out to get converted.  I know of a few who may have served better and been better served to stay home.

Third

I know of a young man with a pornography problem who lied on his interview questions and served anyway due to family and social pressure.  He couldn't handle the likely present and future family disappointment and discomfort.  So he went. Upon return, he acknowledging his pornography obsession that had gotten worse while serving in the mission office with another elder who was also affected.  He complained that the Church must not be inspired because the Church wasn't able to help him and Priesthood blessings didn't do it for him.

Fourth

Just as the boy Christ grew from grace to grace, we aren't given all the answers well in advance.  We as individuals learn line upon line.  Revelation comes through confronting a new issue, studying it out in our minds individually and as a Church. Sometimes, probably often, it comes slowly.  That doesn't mean the Church isn't true.  There must be a reason we need to gain our understanding here a little and there a little rather than one massive data dump.

[Duncan]

I was just talking to the Elders and they say that at least in North America there are caps on how many missionaries can serve in each mission and this mission has around 106 and they are at the limit. It can go up or down, so like 8 missionaries will go home and then 5 will come out and that kind of thing but they haven't been getting 20 coming in every month or going home anymore so it's back to what it was pre 2012.

[carbon dioxide]

According to this article http://www.sltrib.com/news/5381411-155/mormon-growth-rate-falls-to-lowest the growth rate of the church has fallen to its lowest point in 80 years.  This despite the fact that the missionary numbers have increased number of missionaries since the age change.  Perhaps it really does not matter how many missionaries the Church has.  There is only so many fish in the sea that are willing to join the Church.  Perhaps we have well past the saturation point of missionaries to potential converts to the church at least in Europe and America.  Perhaps we do not need more missionaries but  the church just need them to "fish" in the right fishing spots where they currently exist in the Pacific Islands and Africa.

Edited June 10, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Meerkat said:

First

I haven't seen any comment in this thread about the rapid opposition to the Church on the internet.  Many young people, especially Millenials, seem to be leaving the Church.  Among those is a vocal and organized group complaining the Church shames people.  Some families, perhaps many, have become estranged.  

 

I would be willing to predict that most of the younger adults who leave are not leaving due to opposition of the Church on the internet.  Many don't have strong testimonies and they just rather have a personal relationship with their Apple devices and give Mark Zuckerberg their personal information over having a negative views towards the Church.  People just need to be constantly entertained these days and Church can be boring.  Especially if they are most likely to hear the same things over and over again every week in Church. 

Edited June 10, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[Gray]

On 6/6/2017 at 1:05 AM, MormonVideoGame said:

A drop in missionary numbers doesn't disprove the LDS church 

The grammar of your sentence makes my head asplode

[hagoth7]

On 6/7/2017 at 1:49 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The difference is huge in future projections. Look again. 

Hmm.

[Meerkat]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would be willing to predict that most of the younger adults who leave are not leaving due to opposition of the Church on the internet.  Many don't have strong testimonies and they just rather have a personal relationship with their Apple devices and give Mark Zuckerberg their personal information over having a negative views towards the Church.  People just need to be constantly entertained these days and Church can be boring.  Especially if they are most likely to hear the same things over and over again every week in Church. 

You could be right.  The new emphasis on Teaching in the Saviors Way should help strengthen their testimonies and make Church more interesting.  But we still need to deal with the cultural shift to negative aspects of the internet and technology. It's concerning, isn't it!

[cinepro]

19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would be willing to predict that most of the younger adults who leave are not leaving due to opposition of the Church on the internet.  Many don't have strong testimonies and they just rather have a personal relationship with their Apple devices and give Mark Zuckerberg their personal information over having a negative views towards the Church.  People just need to be constantly entertained these days and Church can be boring.  Especially if they are most likely to hear the same things over and over again every week in Church. 

I would distinguish between younger adults who "leave" the Church, and younger adults who just "stop going" to Church.

[readstoomuch]

May or early June might not be the best time to measure what the missionary number is.  Most missionaries leave between graduation/end of school year and early September.  There will be a large number leaving this summer.  The end of the summer might be a more true measure.  It might still be the same, but the flux of missionaries during the summer raises questions for me.  

[hagoth7]

On 6/7/2017 at 1:49 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The difference is huge in future projections. Look again. 

That clarification doesn't raise an eyebrow for anyone else?

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

The grammar of your sentence makes my head asplode

Okay Ricki Ricardo!

[carbon dioxide]

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

I would distinguish between younger adults who "leave" the Church, and younger adults who just "stop going" to Church.

I would bet that for most who leave, they don't formally put in a membership removal request, they just stop going.   So there may not be a lot of distance between those who formally leave and those that just stop going.  I would not place those who stop going with inactives.  Many inactives don't go to church regularly for a lot of reasons but still have a testimony.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would bet that for most who leave, they don't formally put in a membership removal request, they just stop going.   So there may not be a lot of distance between those who formally leave and those that just stop going.  I would not place those who stop going with inactives.  Many inactives don't go to church regularly for a lot of reasons but still have a testimony.

So inactives "don't go to church", but you wouldn't say they have stopped going to church?

[carbon dioxide]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So inactives "don't go to church", but you wouldn't say they have stopped going to church?

Depends on the issue of why they don't go or have stopped going to church.  My point is a person who has left the church is different than a person who has stopped going to church.   Also inactives might still go to church, just not that often.  If a person goes to church 10 times a year, they would be considered inactive but they have not stopped going to church. 

Edited June 12, 2017 by carbon dioxide