Elder Oaks on early returning missionaries

[Vanguard]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think the reason I did and would care most about a man having gone on a mission for the full time prior to marriage is that it showed he probably could be very close roommates with someone he hadn't grown up with without going insane.  Living with roommates usually where you can take off whenever you care to just isn't even close to marriage.  Being locked into a companionship is closer.

Everything else that a mission could probably tell me about would also probably be evident over time as I talked to him (whether or not he was committed to his covenants, how comfortable he was with scripture study, how he approached doctrine and history, how comfortable he was with variations on the theme of faithfulness).  And given how I have always been aware that a mission doesn't guarantee those attributes and skills I would like to see in my spouse or the spouses of my children and grandchildren, friends, and neighbours, total strangers, at best a mission tells me there is a greater likelihood at seeing such...but in no way should looking for them and other desirables be skipped just because "mission" is present on a resume.

Agreed. This one litmus experience must be considered in concert with so many other important variables - variables that could well override the fact that the young man did not serve a mission. And I too would rest easier knowing my two daughters were dating RMs. I recognize, however, this is reduced to a game of behavioral statistics & probabilities - hardly the highest standard for picking a mate.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

But that's the problem. Crucial indicators go relatively unaddressed. I remember speaking with a bishop at BYU when I attended way back when. I had questions about a girl I was very interested in though she had a "checkered" past. His advice was to dispense with investigating her past and instead focus on my impressions about her "present". He commented that were his past to be scrutinized obsessively to the exclusion of his "present", his wife wouldn't have married him. He challenged me to take a look at the woman now. In her words & actions does she evidence a desire to serve Christ? Her fellowman? Was she kind? Did she attend church? You'll never hear the YW's program say in casual conversation, "If he doesn't evidence a love for his fellowman then he's out". IMO, that's one of the reasons why our own divorce stats sometimes rival that of the non-Mormon pop. It's too much about form over substance as an indicator of a successful marriage.

Right. Which is why I had the talk I mentioned above with my daughter and said that the problem is when people use it as the only dictator that matters.

[cinepro]

22 hours ago, rchorse said:

That said, I don't know how it could be changed. The church doesn't teach or encourage that, in my experience. But I think I agree with smac, that there are areas we could do better.

It's my hope that with current trends, returned Elders will start to limit their searches for eternal mates only to returned sister missionaries. 

That would seem to be the most logical (and just) end result in all this.

[kiwi57]

On 1/20/2018 at 6:01 AM, stemelbow said:

Unfortunately, it's quite possible that humanitarian missions might be more productive in getting solid converts than the usual missionary work, but apparently we'd never know that.  The scriptural mandate isn't about making missionaries follow the Church's current rules, policies and regulations for missionaries.  It is about converting people.  If the Church sent them out to work for others, we might see far more benefit, and a much more productive means to follow the scriptural mandate.  

Well, given that the Church has both proselyting and service missionaries working at the same time, I think we might get a chance to find out.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

It's my hope that with current trends, returned Elders will start to limit their searches for eternal mates only to returned sister missionaries. 

That would seem to be the most logical (and just) end result in all this.

The Brethren have specifically told men searching with that standard to knock it off.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Brethren have specifically told men searching with that standard to knock it off.  

Not that I would vigorously object if they did, but here is a friendly CFR. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not that I would vigorously object if they did, but here is a friendly CFR. 

I cannot source it. Got it from a BYU bishop who asked an Apostle about it in a Q&A and a girl I knew whose Bishop passed along similar counsel when demanding a returned sister missionary in their student ward. That also came from an Apostle.

This was a few years back so it may be different now. I know it is not much beyond hearsay with that explanation.

[stemelbow]

On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 2:05 AM, kiwi57 said:

Well, given that the Church has both proselyting and service missionaries working at the same time, I think we might get a chance to find out.

I hate to sound like I don't applaud the Church's humanitarian work, nor the missionaries who give of their time, money and energy, but I will say, I don't think the comparison will produce valid results here.  The humanitarian effort by the Church in terms of missionaries dedicated to it, pails in comparison to the missionary work.  I would suggest if the Church spent all of it's missionary hours and people now, doing humanitarian work, it would produce converts, particularly committed ones, moreso than missionary work does now.  But it will take the whole of the focus for it to work.  The great producer of interest is not that the Church will do some humanitarian work with some giving of their time, but the church becomes ten times more attractive if it gives humanitarian focus with all of it's missionaries and most of its moneys.  It'd take a more all in approach in order to garner the type of interest I'm thinking of.  

 

[rockpond]

On 1/19/2018 at 6:56 AM, rongo said:

This seems to bear out a lot of what I have been saying for years about sending out way too many youth --- even youth who aren't ready or shouldn't go on a mission:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865695173/President-Oaks-shares-the-two-most-important-duties-of-missionary-work-with-MTC-presidents.html

I was struck with his statement that, if kids are going to go home early, then do it ASAP and spare companions, presidents, missions, and units the dead weight of dud missionaries (my words, not his, obviously). He also said that we need to to a better job of screening missionaries beforehand, which indicates to me that we are going to continue to see missionary numbers drop (a good thing, in my view. I think "Gideon's Army" is a better approach than "send all youth, whether they want to go or should go or not, to try to keep them from going inactive or missing").

Thoughts?

I've spent almost my entire adult life in youth oriented callings (YM, seminary, bishop's counselor) and I have and will continue to take seriously the responsibility to help prepare them for successful missionary service.  Like you, I'm troubled by what seems like an increasing number of missionaries returning early.  So, while I agree with what you've written here - the issue is that we still are telling YM that it is their priesthood responsibility to serve a mission.  If we start telling more and more of them that they aren't fit to serve, what is the message that we're sending?

[Investigator]

Alma didn’t send Corianton home just because he went after the harlot Isabel.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I've spent almost my entire adult life in youth oriented callings (YM, seminary, bishop's counselor) and I have and will continue to take seriously the responsibility to help prepare them for successful missionary service.  Like you, I'm troubled by what seems like an increasing number of missionaries returning early.  So, while I agree with what you've written here - the issue is that we still are telling YM that it is their priesthood responsibility to serve a mission.  If we start telling more and more of them that they aren't fit to serve, what is the message that we're sending?

There is much love here in your perspective of things.  I had never looked at it this way.

[Jeanne]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I hate to sound like I don't applaud the Church's humanitarian work, nor the missionaries who give of their time, money and energy, but I will say, I don't think the comparison will produce valid results here.  The humanitarian effort by the Church in terms of missionaries dedicated to it, pails in comparison to the missionary work.  I would suggest if the Church spent all of it's missionary hours and people now, doing humanitarian work, it would produce converts, particularly committed ones, moreso than missionary work does now.  But it will take the whole of the focus for it to work.  The great producer of interest is not that the Church will do some humanitarian work with some giving of their time, but the church becomes ten times more attractive if it gives humanitarian focus with all of it's missionaries and most of its moneys.  It'd take a more all in approach in order to garner the type of interest I'm thinking of.  

 

I believe that your take here will also reap greater character in the young people.  Preaching and teaching are two separate things.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I hate to sound like I don't applaud the Church's humanitarian work, nor the missionaries who give of their time, money and energy, but I will say, I don't think the comparison will produce valid results here.  The humanitarian effort by the Church in terms of missionaries dedicated to it, pails in comparison to the missionary work.  I would suggest if the Church spent all of it's missionary hours and people now, doing humanitarian work, it would produce converts, particularly committed ones, moreso than missionary work does now.  But it will take the whole of the focus for it to work.  The great producer of interest is not that the Church will do some humanitarian work with some giving of their time, but the church becomes ten times more attractive if it gives humanitarian focus with all of it's missionaries and most of its moneys.  It'd take a more all in approach in order to garner the type of interest I'm thinking of.  

 

I love this.

And, I think something needs to change.  At least in certain missions.

I know I'll probably face criticism* for saying this, but the full-time missionaries are becoming a bit of a burden on wards here in Colorado.  Each week the members have to sign up to have the missionaries come teach lessons in our homes.  They need a dinner and two lessons each night.  That means two to three families are being asked to host the missionaries each night.  That gets tough.  So I think it would be great to go all in on humanitarian aid.  And I think they'd find themselves with a ton of teaching appointments by getting involved in the community.

*And YES, I know that it is my responsibility to provide people to teach for the missionaries.  But that becomes a tall order when everything we do is with other church members.  And, in my life right now, church is just too painful a place for me to invite friends.  It takes everything I have to keep me and my family there.  Bringing others isn't really something we can do... tough to bring neighbors when it is so often that someone in my family comes home from church heartbroken and in tears.

Edited January 22, 2018 by rockpond

[rongo]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I've spent almost my entire adult life in youth oriented callings (YM, seminary, bishop's counselor) and I have and will continue to take seriously the responsibility to help prepare them for successful missionary service.  Like you, I'm troubled by what seems like an increasing number of missionaries returning early.  So, while I agree with what you've written here - the issue is that we still are telling YM that it is their priesthood responsibility to serve a mission.  If we start telling more and more of them that they aren't fit to serve, what is the message that we're sending?

There is a balance between encouraging young people to serve who are completely capable of "becoming fit to serve," and not making missionaries feel bad who are not completely capable to serve. I'm talking specifically about those with infirmities that honorably excuse them from full-time service. For those who are capable of serving, but choose not to go, we should be kind and do everything we can to help them feel valued and of worth. To a great extent, I think this is how most LDS actually are with those who don't go or who return early. 

But, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't emphasize the ideal or try to encourage those who could serve but are resistant to it, does it? By far, overwhelmingly most of who don't go or who return early were capable of going or doing better. Yes, there are those who have bona fide health conditions, but I'm not talking about them. 

As far as "telling more and more of them that they aren't fit to serve," I don't think that will ever really happen. When Elder Ballard gave his "raise the bar" talks, the bar wasn't raised at all. It was just talk. And after "the days of the repent-and-go-missionaries-are-over," missionaries continued to . . .repent and go, just like before. Often with little repentance required. The Surge led to standards being quite low, as boys and girls for a period of a few years got caught up in the spirit of the times and positive peer pressure (many went who would not otherwise have gone without The Surge and the Zeitgeist). This was followed by the new initiatives like downgrading tracting, encouraging downtime at the church, and electronic missionary work to help these tens of thousands of missionaries who wouldn't normally have gone to stay and not get depressed or anxious. 

I would actually support much more stringent standards for sending full-time proselyting missionaries (i.e., only sending those who are excited, prepared, and willing), but I would be stunned if it ever came to pass. We're using the missionary program as largely a millennial babysitting and "keep 'em connected and engaged" program, and trimming it down to a Gideon's Army would be for an altogether different purpose. And yet, I am very encouraged and excited about President Oaks talking about getting back to the original purpose of missionary work and trying to improve the quality of our missionary force overall.

I think the message continues to be (or should continue to be): All who can should serve! Get ready, and get yourself fit! with service or humanitarian options for those who can't, or for those who do not want to do a proselyting mission.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I know I'll probably face criticism* for saying this, but the full-time missionaries are becoming a bit of a burden on wards here in Colorado.  Each week the members have to sign up to have the missionaries come teach lessons in our homes.  They need a dinner and two lessons each night.  That means two to three families are being asked to host the missionaries each night.  That gets tough.  So I think it would be great to go all in on humanitarian aid.  And I think they'd find themselves with a ton of teaching appointments by getting involved in the community.

*And YES, I know that it is my responsibility to provide people to teach for the missionaries.  But that becomes a tall order when everything we do is with other church members.  And, in my life right now, church is just too painful a place for me to invite friends.  It takes everything I have to keep me and my family there.  Bringing others isn't really something we can do... tough to bring neighbors when it is so often that someone in my family comes home from church heartbroken and in tears.

You don't get any criticism from me. I hate these "the beatings will continue until morale improves" approaches. As you point out, one of the bad things about most of The Surge being quartered in North America is trying to keep missionaries busy. If they don't have appointments, then they'll teach member families so they're teaching. It leaves a bad taste in members' and missionaries' mouths. 

I know you know this, because you have bishopric experience, but missionaries in North America can visit everyone on the ward list, and it will keep them busy for months. In fact, with the flux of members being sent into wards constantly (which may or may not actually be in those wards), there is an almost unlimited amount of work for them to do helping wards reactivate people --- and they find people to teach and baptize through that. But, in many areas, they are told to sit at the Church and "find" people on their iPads, and then teach active members at night. 

Of course, I would throw a healthy amount of tracting in the mix, too, if it were up to me . . .  

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

You don't get any criticism from me. I hate these "the beatings will continue until morale improves" approaches. As you point out, one of the bad things about most of The Surge being quartered in North America is trying to keep missionaries busy. If they don't have appointments, then they'll teach member families so they're teaching. It leaves a bad taste in members' and missionaries' mouths. 

I know you know this, because you have bishopric experience, but missionaries in North America can visit everyone on the ward list, and it will keep them busy for months. In fact, with the flux of members being sent into wards constantly (which may or may not actually be in those wards), there is an almost unlimited amount of work for them to do helping wards reactivate people --- and they find people to teach and baptize through that. But, in many areas, they are told to sit at the Church and "find" people on their iPads, and then teach active members at night. 

Of course, I would throw a healthy amount of tracting in the mix, too, if it were up to me . . .  

Good posts and thoughts (both this one and the one immediately above it).

The one exception... my ward has about an 80% activity rate.  I believe that's on the high side (at least outside of the mor cor).  And of the 20% of ward members who are not active, I'd guess about half probably should not have their names on the records (I can't even tell you how many times we had to sit in ward council and say:  that family attends a different church or that family will not accept any contact from the church whatsoever).  So our missionaries can't actually visit inactives as a way to keep themselves busy for months on end. 

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Good posts and thoughts (both this one and the one immediately above it).

The one exception... my ward has about an 80% activity rate.  I believe that's on the high side (at least outside of the mor cor).  And of the 20% of ward members who are not active, I'd guess about half probably should not have their names on the records (I can't even tell you how many times we had to sit in ward council and say:  that family attends a different church or that family will not accept any contact from the church whatsoever).  So our missionaries can't actually visit inactives as a way to keep themselves busy for months on end. 

Then your mission's policy is even more brutal. Yikes. 

And missionary morale has to be tough, too. Does that sound like a great experience to teach active member families every night? 

Are your missionaries allowed to tract? That's what I would be doing! For all the people who talk about how ineffective it is, it is tons more effective than teaching member families because you don't have actual appointments. People are found that way all the time, even though you do go through a lot of rejections to get to them. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Then your mission's policy is even more brutal. Yikes. 

And missionary morale has to be tough, too. Does that sound like a great experience to teach active member families every night? 

Are your missionaries allowed to tract? That's what I would be doing! For all the people who talk about how ineffective it is, it is tons more effective than teaching member families because you don't have actual appointments. People are found that way all the time, even though you do go through a lot of rejections to get to them. 

They do tract but this is a high-density LDS area -- we aren't Utah but we have enough Mormons here that two stakes support four full-time CES employees teaching released-time seminary.  (Just to give you an idea of the LDS ratio.)  So, there just aren't enough houses to tract everyday... they all get knocked pretty quickly.  We have one apartment complex in ward boundaries but they mission office was told by management to stop tracting there.   

[cdowis]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

we had to sit in ward council and say:  that family attends a different church 

I understand that the Handbook states it is sufficient to remove them from the church records for apostasy. 

Edited January 23, 2018 by cdowis

[rongo]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

They do tract but this is a high-density LDS area -- we aren't Utah but we have enough Mormons here that two stakes support four full-time CES employees teaching released-time seminary.  (Just to give you an idea of the LDS ratio.)  So, there just aren't enough houses to tract everyday... they all get knocked pretty quickly.  We have one apartment complex in ward boundaries but they mission office was told by management to stop tracting there.   

Even worse than that: in the height of The Surge, my father-in-law was a WML in a wealthy ward in Sandy, Utah. This area was almost 100% LDS, and encompassed literally a neighborhood block. Every single inactive member (of which there weren't very many) was a very well-known quantity. Non-members were practically nil. Tracting is out of the question (absolutely no point, in this setting). Trying to keep the missionaries busy with meaningful things was insanity. I wondered why, oh why, have missionaries in areas like this? Any missionary work could be done by ward missionaries, priesthood quorums, etc. Put missionaries where they are needed and where there is work to do. Feelings of uselessness and purposelessness are hard to combat in settings like that, and there are lots of places that don't have missionaries where they would be of use. 

The fact is that The Surge led to the problem of needing an established place to put many of these boys and girls, and that meant Salt Lake missions, Arizona missions, etc. Our mission president told us that he got calls every month asking if he could take on 30 more missionaries. Every month! Since each ward already had a set or two, this meant that wards began having multiple sets --- just because these extra missionaries needed to be put somewhere. 

Why weren't they put in areas like Mississippi or North Dakota or Finland, where they would not be pulling their hair out trying to find meaningful things to do? Because doing so would have exposed many of them to pressures of really hard areas, and it was deemed best to keep many of them in solidly LDS areas. Hence, having them at the church all the time, "finding" people on iPads. 

Your area doesn't sound as bad as certain parts of the Wasatch Front, but it still sounds like a real challenge for the bishopric and WML (and missionaries).

[Meerkat]

On 1/19/2018 at 8:58 AM, stemelbow said:

Each one, as far as I recall, have claimed to have to learn to deal with the "judgmentalness" you claim doesn't exist.  I suppose in each case they could have made up the judgmentalness and created this inferiority.  But if it happens to them all, then one must wonder if that which they are making up is coming from somewhere.  

I think much is self imposed.  I've had at least one Stake President and several bishops who didn't serve missions.  

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, rongo said:

Even worse than that: in the height of The Surge, my father-in-law was a WML in a wealthy ward in Sandy, Utah. This area was almost 100% LDS, and encompassed literally a neighborhood block. Every single inactive member (of which there weren't very many) was a very well-known quantity. Non-members were practically nil. Tracting is out of the question (absolutely no point, in this setting). Trying to keep the missionaries busy with meaningful things was insanity. I wondered why, oh why, have missionaries in areas like this? Any missionary work could be done by ward missionaries, priesthood quorums, etc. Put missionaries where they are needed and where there is work to do. Feelings of uselessness and purposelessness are hard to combat in settings like that, and there are lots of places that don't have missionaries where they would be of use. 

The fact is that The Surge led to the problem of needing an established place to put many of these boys and girls, and that meant Salt Lake missions, Arizona missions, etc. Our mission president told us that he got calls every month asking if he could take on 30 more missionaries. Every month! Since each ward already had a set or two, this meant that wards began having multiple sets --- just because these extra missionaries needed to be put somewhere. 

Why weren't they put in areas like Mississippi or North Dakota or Finland, where they would not be pulling their hair out trying to find meaningful things to do? Because doing so would have exposed many of them to pressures of really hard areas, and it was deemed best to keep many of them in solidly LDS areas. Hence, having them at the church all the time, "finding" people on iPads. 

Your area doesn't sound as bad as certain parts of the Wasatch Front, but it still sounds like a real challenge for the bishopric and WML (and missionaries).

I lived in North Dakota during the surge and believe me, they were put there.  Our two wards in Bismarck had 7 missionaries and when we moved (in 2013), they were planning to add more.  It was kind of a mess for a while because the wards couldn't really support that many, and about half of them didn't even have a car (which isn't doable when it -40 degrees is a pretty normal temperature during the winter months).

[rongo]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I lived in North Dakota during the surge and believe me, they were put there.  Our two wards in Bismarck had 7 missionaries and when we moved (in 2013), they were planning to add more.  It was kind of a mess for a while because the wards couldn't really support that many, and about half of them didn't even have a car (which isn't doable when it -40 degrees is a pretty normal temperature during the winter months).

Obviously, ability to cope with the challenges of language and culture is a factor, but couldn't many of the Surge statesiders have been sent foreign? I'm just thinking out loud, here, but what would the effect of 20,000 - 30,000 extra missionaries have been in many foreign countries? I'm wondering how that might have affected membership decline abroad. At the very least, it would have improved missionary visibility for a few years, and there is curiosity in seeing missionaries where they've never been seen before. Think of increasing missions of 80 missionaries to 300 for a few years!

Then again, the costs of such a move would have been high --- and the costs of having thousands of early-returnees or kids with profound problems are also much easier to avoid by keeping The Surge stateside. Plus, there is the cost for members in countries where the Church is small when there are an inordinate number of missionaries behaving badly, or having major problems, etc. 

It is an interesting thought exercise to put The Surge in foreign countries rather than the Intermountain West and North Dakota . . .  

It is a little sad to me to hear that many missionaries were simply crammed into stateside missions because there was no other place to put them. The hope is that each mission call is inspired, but it seems that many of these calls were made by expediency. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Obviously, ability to cope with the challenges of language and culture is a factor, but couldn't many of the Surge statesiders have been sent foreign? I'm just thinking out loud, here, but what would the effect of 20,000 - 30,000 extra missionaries have been in many foreign countries? I'm wondering how that might have affected membership decline abroad. At the very least, it would have improved missionary visibility for a few years, and there is curiosity in seeing missionaries where they've never been seen before. Think of increasing missions of 80 missionaries to 300 for a few years!

Then again, the costs of such a move would have been high --- and the costs of having thousands of early-returnees or kids with profound problems are also much easier to avoid by keeping The Surge stateside. Plus, there is the cost for members in countries where the Church is small when there are an inordinate number of missionaries behaving badly, or having major problems, etc. 

It is an interesting thought exercise to put The Surge in foreign countries rather than the Intermountain West and North Dakota . . .  

It is a little sad to me to hear that many missionaries were simply crammed into stateside missions because there was no other place to put them. The hope is that each mission call is inspired, but it seems that many of these calls were made by expediency. 

Ability to get visas might be limited to a certain number a year.  (Having had Visa trouble in Russia and to some extent in Canada, I am obsessed with them.)

Edited January 23, 2018 by Calm

[CA Steve]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Obviously, ability to cope with the challenges of language and culture is a factor, but couldn't many of the Surge statesiders have been sent foreign? I'm just thinking out loud, here, but what would the effect of 20,000 - 30,000 extra missionaries have been in many foreign countries? I'm wondering how that might have affected membership decline abroad. At the very least, it would have improved missionary visibility for a few years, and there is curiosity in seeing missionaries where they've never been seen before. Think of increasing missions of 80 missionaries to 300 for a few years!

Then again, the costs of such a move would have been high --- and the costs of having thousands of early-returnees or kids with profound problems are also much easier to avoid by keeping The Surge stateside. Plus, there is the cost for members in countries where the Church is small when there are an inordinate number of missionaries behaving badly, or having major problems, etc. 

It is an interesting thought exercise to put The Surge in foreign countries rather than the Intermountain West and North Dakota . . .  

It is a little sad to me to hear that many missionaries were simply crammed into stateside missions because there was no other place to put them. The hope is that each mission call is inspired, but it seems that many of these calls were made by expediency. 

This is all conjecture on my part but I would guess that the logistics  of placing the bubble missionaries in foreign countries would be a lot more than stateside. In addition to having to gear up for more language instructors, classroom, and MTC longer term housing, you also have to provide the same additional housing in foreign countries. I know when I opened new areas in my SA mission we would go into that area and look for suitable housing, cooks and meeting places well in advance of actually stationing anyone there. And the reverse is also true, it seems like it would be a lot easier to downsize locally than abroad. So I bet that when the number of missionaries available exceeded the number needed throughout the world, the excess was just sent stateside with the expectation that it would be easier to handle here than abroad.