Elder Oaks on early returning missionaries

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Absolutely. In some cases, those who return early are honorably returned missionaries in every sense of the word. The converse is also true, though, and it's kind of an 800 lb. gorilla in the room that we're not allowed to talk about. Some of those who return early were duds, or couldn't hack it, or shouldn't have gone. There are also missionaries who are duds, or dead weight, in every sense of the word. 

I think the latter group is of much greater concern. Our culture promotes an ideal where people like the idea of having been a missionary, but there are youth who would like the status but don't want to do the things "in the now" --- and the opportunity cost in their minds makes them seek a release. This is a tremendous drag and drain on missions and the local units. 

What if they are not duds in any other sense of the word if they simply just didn't want to go?  Some of them surely have plans that are dealing with school and career...or they just simply do not want to go?  There are many reasons for this..and I am sure for many here the reasons would come up short.;but a desire to go would make a wonderful missionary whereas if one went on conditional parents and peer pressure sets him up for failure...these guys and gals are not all duds..that is not fair!

[Duncan]

in 2012 there was a new Mission President and he asked all of the ward mission leaders(of which I was one) any changes you wanted made to missionary work being done in the Stake, I sent a multi page list of changes i'd like to see. One of which was the missionaries were being told that the First Presidency was telling them to commit people to baptism on the first visit. I said that's stupid, but when I emailed my list of concerns I didn't see that the email also went to the Stake President. Well, he called me into his office and told me he gets concerned that people are questioning the First Presidency and he told me to keep my concerns to myself . I replied I wasn't questioning the First Presidency but people have been saying all kinds of things in the name of the First Presidency for years now, it happened to me in the mission field and if they did actually say this to show me a letter, email proving they actually said that, he couldn't produce any proof the First Presidency had said that so I didn't believe him and he still hasn't produced anything all these years later. He's released now but , i'll believe stuff comes form the First Presidency if you can actually show they said it, or wrote it or communicated in some manner

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I remember being taught that we were to extend the baptism challenge and get a baptism date at the end of the 2nd lesson no matter what. I thought it was kind of crazy. 

At the end of the 2nd lesson all you covered was the first vision, the BOM, and Jesus Christ. It was so uncomfortable to try to get people to commit to baptism who were living with boyfriends or girlfriends, smoking and drinking and who had no idea yet what changes they would have to make and covenant to live. Most had not even been to church yet.

Ive heard that the church is now allowing missionaries to try to follow the Spirit and to personalize their teaching and commitment timeline to the person they are teaching. That sounds like a much better approach. 

I agree.  But, the pressure needs to be less regarding the baptism numbers (from the leaders).  And, maybe this is the change that is coming.  I do think it's already lessened some....but it's still always on the missionary's mind and they do tend to still rush people into baptism because of that.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

What if they are not duds in any other sense of the word if they simply just didn't want to go?  Some of them surely have plans that are dealing with school and career...or they just simply do not want to go?  There are many reasons for this..and I am sure for many here the reasons would come up short.;but a desire to go would make a wonderful missionary whereas if one went on conditional parents and peer pressure sets him up for failure...these guys and gals are not all duds..that is not fair!

If they just don't want to go, and don't go, I admire them for it! It's better for everyone. It's trickier when they don't want to go, but family and peer pressure compel them to go. 

I think the missionary force, and people all around, are better when only those who really desire it go. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  But, the pressure needs to be less regarding the baptism numbers (from the leaders).  And, maybe this is the change that is coming.  I do think it's already lessened some....but it's still always on the missionary's mind and they do tend to still rush people into baptism because of that.

The nice thing about Europe is that you aren't going to have high baptizing numbers. That's just a fact. So, the approach is to do your best and have good conversations with people and testify as much as you can. 

I think even many parts of the U.S. are like this, now, or increasingly so.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  But, the pressure needs to be less regarding the baptism numbers (from the leaders).  And, maybe this is the change that is coming.  I do think it's already lessened some....but it's still always on the missionary's mind and they do tend to still rush people into baptism because of that.

What about the “not too late” portion of Elder Oaks’s directive? Is there a substantial number who err on the other side?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

If they just don't want to go, and don't go, I admire them for it! It's better for everyone. It's trickier when they don't want to go, but family and peer pressure compel them to go. 

I think the missionary force, and people all around, are better when only those who really desire it go. 

At the same time I think we all have to beware of the human tendency toward indolence which must be overcome if we are to reach our potential. As I look back now, I realize I found the prospect of missionary life very daunting. But my overarching desire was to please the Lord and to do what I knew was right. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At the same time I think we all have to beware of the human tendency toward indolence which must be overcome if we are to reach our potential. As I look back now, I realize I found the prospect of missionary life very daunting. But my overarching desire was to please the Lord and to do what I knew was right. 

The big failing in all of this, I think, is that parents haven't inspired their children to desire a mission, and look forward to it. All of the efforts from the Church in the world can't compensate for this.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What about the “not too late” portion of Elder Oaks’s directive? Is there a substantial number who err on the other side?

Possibly.  I haven't seen that (where a missionary waits too long or is too late in asking an investigator to commit to baptism.)  Maybe others have seen it or have examples of this happening?  I'm not even sure what that would look like.  If a person is truly converted, can that time pass where he desires to be baptized?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Possibly.  I haven't seen that (where a missionary waits too long or is too late in asking an investigator to commit to baptism.)  Maybe others have seen it or have examples of this happening?  I'm not even sure what that would look like.  If a person is truly converted, can that time pass where he desires to be baptized?

“The Spirit will not always strive with man.”

There is a battle going on constantly for souls. 

[CA Steve]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

Thoughts?

Sounds a lot like what was tried back in the late 1990s called "Raise the Bar", which, from my local experience, wasn't successful back then.

If we are going to continue to send them out at 18,  we are going to continue having them return early. 

Frankly a lot of what I have heard so far from the new presidency sounds like a rehash of the past. Refocus on temple work, increased emphasis on reactivating inactive members, and member spirituality. Better prepared missionaries, missionaries who teach baptism and repentance. It all sounds great, but unless they have different methods of approaching these things than past leadership, how can they expect different results?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

The big failing in all of this, I think, is that parents haven't inspired their children to desire a mission, and look forward to it. All of the efforts from the Church in the world can't compensate for this.

And yet from the same family milieu, sometimes, come children who are enthusiastically committed to it and those who have no desire. Beware of laying blame on parents when children are entitled to their agency.  

[Anijen]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

One of which was the missionaries were being told that the First Presidency was telling them to commit people to baptism on the first visit. I said that's stupid, 

Note: Being challenged to be baptised early on is not being baptised. 

I personally do not think the timing of being challenged to be baptised matters that much. Here in Nebraska, most the missionaries will challenge a person to be baptised even before a "First Lesson," if they are prompted to do so.  If the challenge is accepted the missionaries will still continue to teach all lessons that are necessary and here, they require the investigator to attend church 3 times before the ordinance. So having someone commit to baptism on the first visit isn't really the issue and to me is not a problem. I think we all can agree that if committed to be baptised the investigator still needs to have the required lessons, attendance, and interviews needed before baptism.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Sounds a lot like what was tried back in the late 1990s called "Raise the Bar", which, from my local experience, wasn't successful back then.

If we are going to continue to send them out at 18,  we are going to continue having them return early. 

Frankly a lot of what I have heard so far from the new presidency sounds like a rehash of the past. Refocus on temple work, increased emphasis on reactivating inactive members, and member spirituality. Better prepared missionaries, missionaries who teach baptism and repentance. It all sounds great, but unless they have different methods of approaching these things than past leadership, how can they expect different results?

I disagree that raising the bar was not successful. I believe it had some measure of success. Perhaps that approach just needs refining. 

I do believe full-time missionary service must be regarded as a privilege, not an entitlement. 

[USU78]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ll be interested to see them as well. 

I understand there is to be a revision of “Preach My Gospel.” Perhaps the further instructions will come by way of that revision. 

By the way, when I was on my mission, there came a short-lived period where missionaries were encouraged to strive for “three-week baptisms” — baptize the investigator within three weeks after meeting him. 

I tried this on one occasion only, extending the baptismal challenge during the first lesson. I was told in no uncertain that the man would not be pressured or pushed and that if I wanted our meetings to continue that I was to back off. 

Gotta love those Swedes. I think I inherited my stubborn streak from my Swedish ancestry. 

Those of us who served in Europe, who may have seen but one or two or zero baptisms, not per month, but per mission,  ...  is that our White Feather?  I cannot imagine the arrogance implicit in a "three-week baptism" program imposed upon European missionaries.

[CA Steve]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I disagree that raising the bar was not successful. I believe it had some measure of success. Perhaps that approach just needs refining. 

I do believe full-time missionary service must be regarded as a privilege, not an entitlement. 

So the problem as I saw it back then is they spent more time preparing and interviewing prospective missionaries to the extent that some simply did not go. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but as fewer missionaries went out, more perspective candidates, who were not privy to why some were not going, were also deciding not to go. I saw this ripple effect happen a lot especially in families who had multiple sons, where, when the oldest  did not go for good reasons, then his younger brothers also decided not to go.

So fast forward 15 years and they lower the age and get a lot more to serve, but now a lot more are comming back early. So both methods are not very successful, and leadership is caught between making them more prepared and losing them versus sending them out early, just to have them fail.

I don't have answers, but the current talk by Elder Oaks sounds very muck like what was tried earlier that in my experience was not successful.

[cinepro]

It's odd, but understandable, that discussions of missionary work often focus on one half of the equation.

Missionaries are sent to convey a message.  Not to be indelicate, but they are asked to "sell" a "product."

We can focus on the salesmen as much as we want.  Their character, their motivation, their methods, their number.  But at some point, is anyone going to ask if we should also be looking at the "product" they're selling?

 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's odd, but understandable, that discussions of missionary work often focus on one half of the equation.

Missionaries are sent to convey a message.  Not to be indelicate, but they are asked to "sell" a "product."

We can focus on the salesmen as much as we want.  Their character, their motivation, their methods, their number.  But at some point, is anyone going to ask if we should also be looking at the "product" they're selling?

 

Are you asking whether or not lack of success by missionaries says anything about the truthfulness of the gospel as taught by the LDS church?

[rongo]

20 minutes ago, cinepro said:

We can focus on the salesmen as much as we want.  Their character, their motivation, their methods, their number.  But at some point, is anyone going to ask if we should also be looking at the "product" they're selling?

Prophecy, Jesus' parables, and common sense dictate that our "product" will be undesirable for most of the earth's population. We are looking for the elect, to whom it appeals. Largely, finding these elect doesn't depend on the marketing of the product. It depends on finding them and helping them feel something and thus wanting more.

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So the problem as I saw it back then is they spent more time preparing and interviewing prospective missionaries to the extent that some simply did not go. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but as fewer missionaries went out, more perspective candidates, who were not privy to why some were not going, were also deciding not to go. I saw this ripple effect happen a lot especially in families who had multiple sons, where, when the oldest  did not go for good reasons, then his younger brothers also decided not to go.

So fast forward 15 years and they lower the age and get a lot more to serve, but now a lot more are comming back early. So both methods are not very successful, and leadership is caught between making them more prepared and losing them versus sending them out early, just to have them fail.

I don't have answers, but the current talk by Elder Oaks sounds very muck like what was tried earlier that in my experience was not successful.

So the ideal seems to be to get as many to go as we can but not at the cost of sending them out unprepared or unqualified or not committed or not sufficiently ready. I don’t believe that is an unreasonable goal to strive for. 

The recent move of establishing a standard list of set questions and of making the missionary candidate and his or her parents familiar with them well in advance of submitting the mission application papers will prove to be very important in achieving the ideal, I believe. 

Furthermore, missionary materials such as “Preach My Gospel” and “Adjusting to Missionary Life” are freely accessible online and through the Gospel Library app. There is no reason why prospective missionaries and their parents should not be studying them now. (And, if I remember correctly, these did not exist back in the “raising the bar” days.)

Edited January 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

Prophecy, Jesus' parables, and common sense dictate that our "product" will be undesirable for most of the earth's population. We are looking for the elect, to whom it appeals. Largely, finding these elect doesn't depend on the marketing of the product. It depends on finding them and helping them feel something and thus wanting more.

True. But as Elder Nielson suggested (see my earlier report from the seminar) perhaps we can develop more efficient ways of finding the elect. The elect should not have to wait for us to do our wheel spinning. And make no mistake: Door-to-door contacting is largely wheel spinning. 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

I have a hard time seeing people becoming or being very productive with six month missions. It's too short of a time, with learning curve, getting your sea legs, etc. 

I also wonder how popular strictly service missions would be for normal youth (i.e., letting youth choose strictly humanitarian/service over proselyting). I think there would still be an informal 1st class/2nd class stigma within the Church between various mission "smorgasbord flavors" if people can choose mission specifics, a al carte. 

I would have jumped at the chance for a service mission. My daughter, if she feels right about serving a mission some day, would love it. My youngest son could go either way if given the choice. I suspect he would like half and half. I'll have to ask him. 

 

1 hour ago, rongo said:

If they just don't want to go, and don't go, I admire them for it! It's better for everyone. It's trickier when they don't want to go, but family and peer pressure compel them to go. 

I think the missionary force, and people all around, are better when only those who really desire it go. 

Or leader pressure. Our bishop decided my oldest was ready for the Melchizedek priesthood at a time when I felt he was very much not. I feel like he thought if my son was ordained then he would naturally want to go on a mission as well. One of my greatest desires was that he go on that mission, but I knew my son had to have that desire as well.

--------

Having had companions with physical problems, mental/emotional problems and also lack of desire problems I can say there is a big difference for the companion. 

While I was really wanting to hit the road and a little frustrated with being held back by the physical problems of companion I, in no way, felt they were dead weight. They were usually much more frustrated than I was! But, because of their desires we got along well as companions and they touched people in ways that I could not. 

Lack of desire/laziness really was dead weight though. It isn't just a lack of desire for tracting or riding a bike etc. It was the lack of desire for personal and companionship study, for following mission rules like what music you could listen to (not on headphones), for how the Spirit and love wasn't as strong between us as we taught. 

Dead weight for missionaries doesn't mean,  at least to me,  someone who has a lack of capability in some area. We all fit that description. To me, it means lack of trying, lack of motivation or desire, to do the wotk. 

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Rain

[smac97]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I think, like a lot of complaints about "judgmentalness," much of this is self-imposed by the people themselves rather than the members, the culture, etc. In other words, I think a lot of the feelings of shaming, etc. are not due to actual behavior or even attitudes by the members at large, but are instead feelings and doubts by the people who didn't serve instead.

Think about it. We generously have, what, only a third who serve missions, if that? And it's been this way for a long time. The reality is that *most* youth don't serve missions; missions are numerically the minority. My stake was at 12% (this has improved over the last year and a half).

Most of us don't see overt or latent shaming or stigmatizing of those who don't go (who, again, make up most of the youth). Yet, the people who should have gone, but didn't, feel judged, shamed, stigmatized, etc. I think a lot of this in in their heads, and not because members are doing the judging, shaming, and stigmatizing.

You raise some very good points.  And fair.

However, perception can be almost as important as reality.  So feelings being "judged, shamed, stigmatized, etc." may sometimes be a combination of self-inflicted "in their heads" kind of stuff, but also some taking of offense.  So we can and should go out of our way to make sure that we are demonstrating warmth and acceptance for those who, for whatever reason, do not serve.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, Rain said:

Having had companions with physical problems, mental/emotional problems and also lack of desire problems I can say there is a big difference for the companion. 

While I was really wanting to hit the road and a little frustrated with being held back my the physical problems of companion I, in no way, felt they were dead weight. They were usually much more frustrated than I was! But, because of their desires we got along well as companions and they touched people in ways that I could not. 

Lack of desire/laziness really was dead weight though. It isn't just a lack of desire for tracting or riding a bike etc. It was the lack of desire for personal and companionship study, for following mission rules like what music you could listen to (not on headphones), for how the Spirit and love wasn't as strong between us as we taught. 

Dead weight for missionaries doesn't mean,  at least to me,  someone who has a lack of capability in some area. We all fit that description. To me, it means lack of trying, lack of motivation or desire, to do the work. 

That's exactly what it means to me, too. 

In one city, I basically unofficially swapped my junior companion for another trainer's greenie. The trainer never left the apartment, and his greenie was very good. My junior was a hypochondriac (he thought he was always sick, but he wasn't), and was very lazy (he was from a very wealthy family in Kaysville). We started swapping, and worked, and left our "dud" comps to "rot." The MP wanted to try to lift up the trainer by giving him a good greenie, but it didn't work out. My comp here was really my only problem companion in terms of laziness or work ethic. 

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You raise some very good points.  And fair.

However, perception can be almost as important as reality.  So feelings being "judged, shamed, stigmatized, etc." may sometimes be a combination of self-inflicted "in their heads" kind of stuff, but also some taking of offense.  So we can and should go out of our way to make sure that we are demonstrating warmth and acceptance for those who, for whatever reason, do not serve.

This is a big problem in the Church. Outside of missions, we also have members who don't live the gospel program, and feel constantly judged and are very defensive about it --- and members are typically not bringing it up at all or making them feel inferior. It is solely the people's consciences. Where this is a problem, these people reliably and inevitably bring up in any lesson or talk that teaches standards of behavior (Sabbath day observance, tithing, WoW, FHE, HT/VT, etc. etc.) that we are driving people away by making them feel inadequate. To them, we should never, ever bring up standards of behavior, commandments, ideals, etc. --- worlds without end. If these things are taught or discussed, no matter how diplomatically or deftly, they howl like banshees. 

I see the people who feel (whether perceived reality or not) mission shaming is weighing against them in this boat. They feel the community ideal, and they bristle at the frequent mention of the importance and blessings of missions. I think the "mission shaming" is largely in their heads and consciences, even in Utah. If anything, most Mormons err on the side of what Lou Midgley called "Mormon Nice" (they are too loathe to make people uncomfortable), especially in awkward situations when there was an early mission return, or a sealing had to be postponed, or someone was disciplined. 

Edited January 19, 2018 by rongo