Hypothetical on reverting to mission age of 19

[rongo]

If the mission age were raised again to 19 for young men (allowing both young men and young women to go at 19), what effect would this have on the ebb and flow of missionaries provided to the missions? Would there be a year with very few elders because we have been relying on mostly 18 year-olds? 

I was thinking about this when our elders told me Sunday that the next transfer will send 16 home, with only three arriving (two sisters, one elder). That is unprecedented for our mission, which was a staging area for Surge missionaries and visa-awaiters. He said that some consolidation will take place, and they didn't know whether there would be one set for the wards in our building, or for the two wards geographically touching our building (ours, and a ward that meets in another building). One of our elders, an outstanding convert from Columbus, Ohio goes home on the 24th. 

It's interesting. My son was always going to go to college for a year before his mission, but we have noticed subtle cultural surprise at this from the top down (stake president on down). Everyone has known in theory that it is fine for them to wait a year or more, but the cultural reality is that it is quite rare. Everyone knows that there is nothing "wrong" with my son (the stake had him go speak in a ward by the Mexico border that is three hours away, and he's 17), but they are still culturally "surprised" that he isn't leaving right after graduation (he turns 18 on the 28th). He still needs to earn the rest of his mission fund, and he's excited for his freshman year of college (honors college, beginning as a sophomore due to AP credit, all costs paid by scholarship and grant). My parents have said that it is a night-and-day difference in maturity and competency between the 18 and 19+ elders in Poland, and we've noticed that as well in Arizona. 

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the logistics of how the Church could revert back to 19 without creating a "year with very few elders."

[Duncan]

They are limiting the amount of missionaries coming here, which TBH I think is good. Our ward literally cannot thrive without the sister missionaries, we have a TON of sisters here that need so much and visits and they do such a great work. I tell the ones when they leave, if you can survive this place, you got life covered!!!! I hope to GOD ABOVE they keep the sisters here, the elders meh, you know! we have APs so they are here, there and everywhere.

I think it would be pretty thin elders wise but I think it would be okay, they would have to wait until they turn 19 but this mission can trim some elders so a year? I think it would be a bit of a stretch but I think it would be allright

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Duncan

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the logistics of how the Church could revert back to 19 without creating a "year with very few elders."

Why are you worried about it?

[Gray]

I think it would be very challenging to have a "reverse surge" year. They probably wouldn't want to close up any missions because the effect would be temporary, but that would leave a lot of leaders and support staff with much less to do for a year. Plus the baptism numbers aren't great to begin with, they would really tank down further.

[CMZ]

President Monson clarified at the time he gave the announcement that the policy change does not mean that boys have to leave on missions right as they turn 18.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Why are you worried about it?

Not worried at all. Just thinking. I like to think about things!   And, I like to think about things of the kingdom.

[rongo]

Just now, CMZ said:

President Monson clarified at the time he gave the announcement that the policy change does not mean that boys have to leave on missions right as they turn 18.

We all know that, but we also all know what the "unwritten" cultural expectation has been as well, for the most part. 

[ksfisher]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's interesting. My son was always going to go to college for a year before his mission, but we have noticed subtle cultural surprise at this from the top down (stake president on down). Everyone has known in theory that it is fine for them to wait a year or more, but the cultural reality is that it is quite rare.

My son turned 19 last month.  He's planning on working for the rest of this year and putting in his mission papers in January.  I'm not aware of any pressure, surprise, or anything of the sort regarding this.

[CMZ]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

We all know that, but we also all know what the "unwritten" cultural expectation has been as well, for the most part. 

Unfortunately we always have to deal with misguided cultural expectations.

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

They are limiting the amount of missionaries coming here, which TBH I think is good. Our ward literally cannot thrive without the sister missionaries, we have a TON of sisters here that need so much and visits and they do such a great work. I tell the ones when they leave, if you can survive this place, you got life covered!!!! I hope to GOD ABOVE they keep the sisters here, the elders meh, you know! we have APs so they are here, there and everywhere.

I think it would be pretty thin elders wise but I think it would be okay, they would have to wait until they turn 19 but this mission can trim some elders so a year? I think it would be a bit of a stretch but I think it would be allright

 

I agree.  It’s been really great to see more sisters serving missions!

More elders though?  I’m not so sure.  At one time (during the peak) we had SIX elders assigned to our ward (vs. two before or sharing a pair with another ward).  These six were bored and killed time and had little to do ar times.

Now that so much is done online, I believe that for sure there could be less elders out in the field.  Even if they ended up needing more or there being a shortage, it would be temporary, right?

[rongo]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

My son turned 19 last month.  He's planning on working for the rest of this year and putting in his mission papers in January.  I'm not aware of any pressure, surprise, or anything of the sort regarding this.

There isn't pressure, just surprise. Which there really shouldn't be, given President Monson's counsel when it was announced. The euphoria at that announcement launched "The Surge" in every sense of the word, and there was a flurry of mission applications started and submitted that very day in our stake. In some cases, kids who wouldn't have gone, and in others, kids who were always going.

There really wasn't any palpable pressure to begin with. Look at how many youth still don't go on missions. The pressure was in the form of mostly positive cultural peer pressure, although people still seem to react with surprise when kids go to school or work for a while before going. 

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

We all know that, but we also all know what the "unwritten" cultural expectation has been as well, for the most part. 

Correct.  It became expected of young men to leave at 18 (and members seemed to ignore that it was just an option).  There were high even schools in Utah and also in Rexburg where it became a trend to announce where the young man was going as his middle name when they announced his name at high school graduation ceremonies (ie. “David Germany Jones”).  That’s crazy!!! 

I do think many more are now using the option to leave later after so many others had negative experiences from going out too young.

Edited April 10, 2018 by JulieM

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Now that so much is done online, I believe that for sure there could be less elders out in the field.  Even if they ended up needing more or there being a shortage, it would be temporary, right?

That's the thing, though. The real missionary work is still "boots on the ground," and not online. Even with trying new things. There is no substitute for actual, flesh and blood missionaries meeting with people in person, and sharp reductions will really hurt many areas (especially outside the U.S., but within the Mormon Corridor, too).

Our area went through what you described with elders tripping over each other, but that has evened out for some time in our area. 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I do think many more are now using the option to leave later after so many others had negative experiences from going out too young.

Do you? I think it's still very much an outlier to have elders go when they're 19+.

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

If the mission age were raised again to 19 for young men (allowing both young men and young women to go at 19), what effect would this have on the ebb and flow of missionaries provided to the missions? Would there be a year with very few elders because we have been relying on mostly 18 year-olds? 

I was thinking about this when our elders told me Sunday that the next transfer will send 16 home, with only three arriving (two sisters, one elder). That is unprecedented for our mission, which was a staging area for Surge missionaries and visa-awaiters. He said that some consolidation will take place, and they didn't know whether there would be one set for the wards in our building, or for the two wards geographically touching our building (ours, and a ward that meets in another building). One of our elders, an outstanding convert from Columbus, Ohio goes home on the 24th. 

It's interesting. My son was always going to go to college for a year before his mission, but we have noticed subtle cultural surprise at this from the top down (stake president on down). Everyone has known in theory that it is fine for them to wait a year or more, but the cultural reality is that it is quite rare. Everyone knows that there is nothing "wrong" with my son (the stake had him go speak in a ward by the Mexico border that is three hours away, and he's 17), but they are still culturally "surprised" that he isn't leaving right after graduation (he turns 18 on the 28th). He still needs to earn the rest of his mission fund, and he's excited for his freshman year of college (honors college, beginning as a sophomore due to AP credit, all costs paid by scholarship and grant). My parents have said that it is a night-and-day difference in maturity and competency between the 18 and 19+ elders in Poland, and we've noticed that as well in Arizona. 

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the logistics of how the Church could revert back to 19 without creating a "year with very few elders."

Statistically you'd see a short term impact, but that would likely be just in the first year.  Just like we saw a short term boost with the lowering of the age.  

I think we'd see a slight decline in the # of missionaries that would serve, but I also think there would be a decrease in the # of missionaries going home.  

Honestly, the church needs to continue to revamp the missionary program.  I've said this many times, but they ought to take away the stigma that this is a duty to serve, and make the rhetoric around missionary service as a volunteer act of service.  They should also change time requirements, 2 yrs could be an option, but 1 yr, 6 months, and other options should exist.  Various different kinds of missions could be created for young people, including family history, service, humanitarian work, etc.  Revise the really poorly crafted new missionary worthiness interview questions, and open this up to people who want to serve and give them lots of options to serve.   

All my recommendations seem like no-brainers to me.  Orthodox members can even call them revelation when leaders announce them.  The rest of us can just call them good sense administrative changes.  But whatever your perspective, when systems are broken its easy to be supportive of changes that attempt to address glaring problems.  

 

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do you? I think it's still very much an outlier to have elders go when they're 19+.

My son is in a carpool for college.  He's now 23 years old, but two of the other boys are just out of high school (18 years old).   They are both waiting until they complete at least their first year of college before they go on their missions (they will be 19 at that time).  One of them is even considering waiting longer. 

So, I do think some are at least feeling it's ok to wait until they're 19.....but the "+" is probably still more uncommon to see (just like before the change). 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Statistically you'd see a short term impact, but that would likely be just in the first year.  Just like we saw a short term boost with the lowering of the age.  

That's what I was wondering. Maybe the impact wouldn't be that much at all. 

I think we'd see a slight decline in the # of missionaries that would serve, but I also think there would be a decrease in the # of missionaries going home. 

It would be really interesting to see. Why do you think the decline in missionaries would only be slight? That would be wonderful if that's true! I think the reason behind the change (does anyone disagree?) was to try to stop the bleeding of boys losing their drive after graduation. I definitely think it would help a lot with early returns and anxiety/depression issues on missions.

I've said this many times, but they ought to take away the stigma that this is a duty to serve,

I think this would really lead to a decline in missionaries going. 

and make the rhetoric around missionary service as a volunteer act of service.

I think that's how most people already understand it. As a volunteer act of service that's your duty.   And that you get to pay for.

[side question: what percentage of missionaries would you guys estimate actually save up and pay for themselves, versus the percentage that mom and dad pay for, versus the percentage that ward members donate to send? I would put this at 10/50/40).

They should also change time requirements, 2 yrs could be an option, but 1 yr, 6 months, and other options should exist.  Various different kinds of missions could be created for young people, including family history, service, humanitarian work, etc.

Proselyting missionaries aren't going to be able to get their "sea legs" and in their groove in only six months (foreign language not at all), but short missions could be fine on strictly service/humanitarian missions. I don't disagree in theory, but I think in practice the "a la carte" mission term of service wouldn't work well. 

Even more important would be the cultural, family, and church expectations. You can emphasize all you want that it really doesn't matter what type of mission you serve, they're all the same, but they wouldn't be perceived as such. There would definitely be a subtle/not so subtle tiering of "real missions" vs. "missions lite" for those who could have done "real missions," but chose not to (i.e., not those for whom service missions are currently designed).

Revise the really poorly crafted new missionary worthiness interview questions, and open this up to people who want to serve and give them lots of options to serve. 

You mean jettison any standard of worthiness? I disagree strongly on that.  

 

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

You mean jettison any standard of worthiness? I disagree strongly on that.  

 

+1

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Revise the really poorly crafted new missionary worthiness interview questions, and open this up to people who want to serve and give them lots of options to serve.   

 

I'm not sure how we could expect our missionaries to be guided by the Spirit, or teach others to follow the promptings of the Spirit, if they are not worthy to have the companionship of that Spirit themselves. 

[Jeanne]

May I say something that may disagree with so many??  But I think they should have two years out of high school and two years of college (if they choose)..to decide.  That way they can weigh their own pros and cons and the decision is really theirs.  Do I stay in school???  Do I stay in a good work force while working for school?  Or do I go on a mission??  This way..you get the cream of the crop...and those who go other ways aren't ridden with a guilt that interrupts a good path in life.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Jeanne

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

May I say something that may disagree with so many??  But I think they should have two years out of high school and two years of college (if they choose)..to decide.  That way they can weigh their own pros and cons and the decision is really theirs.  Do I stay in school???  Do I stay in a good work force while working for school?  Or do I go on a mission??  This way..you get the cream of the crop...and those who go other ways aren't ridden with a guilt that interrupts a good path in life.

The problem is that they would then be leaving college half way through to serve a mission.  If you think kids forget a lot over summer vacation...  By serving after high school it allows a young man or woman to fulfill a mission and then return home and get on with school, work, marriage, etc. 

I don't think you'd get the "cream of the crop."  I think you'd get those who really weren't committed to receiving an education or had nothing else to do.

This current arrangement is well thought out and allows the young people of the church to serve the Lord and, following that, focus on education, careers, and family.

Edited April 10, 2018 by ksfisher

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The problem is that they would then be leaving college half way through to serve a mission.  If you think kids forget a lot over summer vacation...  By serving after high school it allows a young man or woman to fulfill a mission and then return home and get on with school, work, marriage, etc. 

I don't think you'd get the "cream of the crop."  I think you'd get those who really weren't committed to receiving an education or had nothing else to do.

This current arrangement is well thought out and allows the young people of the church to serve the Lord and, following that, focus on education, careers, and family.

I respect your position on this.  It was just an idea.  The idea being that fewer missionaries would return home.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

  The idea being that fewer missionaries would return home.

I would hope that all  missionaries would return home.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

If the mission age were raised again to 19 for young men (allowing both young men and young women to go at 19), what effect would this have on the ebb and flow of missionaries provided to the missions? Would there be a year with very few elders because we have been relying on mostly 18 year-olds? 

I was thinking about this when our elders told me Sunday that the next transfer will send 16 home, with only three arriving (two sisters, one elder). That is unprecedented for our mission, which was a staging area for Surge missionaries and visa-awaiters. He said that some consolidation will take place, and they didn't know whether there would be one set for the wards in our building, or for the two wards geographically touching our building (ours, and a ward that meets in another building). One of our elders, an outstanding convert from Columbus, Ohio goes home on the 24th. 

It's interesting. My son was always going to go to college for a year before his mission, but we have noticed subtle cultural surprise at this from the top down (stake president on down). Everyone has known in theory that it is fine for them to wait a year or more, but the cultural reality is that it is quite rare. Everyone knows that there is nothing "wrong" with my son (the stake had him go speak in a ward by the Mexico border that is three hours away, and he's 17), but they are still culturally "surprised" that he isn't leaving right after graduation (he turns 18 on the 28th). He still needs to earn the rest of his mission fund, and he's excited for his freshman year of college (honors college, beginning as a sophomore due to AP credit, all costs paid by scholarship and grant). My parents have said that it is a night-and-day difference in maturity and competency between the 18 and 19+ elders in Poland, and we've noticed that as well in Arizona. 

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the logistics of how the Church could revert back to 19 without creating a "year with very few elders."

I've stopped guessing how missions will assign the missionaries but I think you're right that if they change the age to 19 there would be a lag year.

In 3 years my ward went from 1 set of Elders, to no missionaries, to two sets of sisters, 1 set of elders and 1 sisters, 1 elder, no missionaries, back to two sets, back to 1. While I understand the flux of changing numbers they can assign, it becomes EXTREMELY disruptive to continually be changing missionaries, often double transferring them in or out. What makes it worse is when the mission expects the ward to supply the housing. I'm shaking my head just thinking of it. Seriously, bad management can really squelch the missionary spirit in a ward.

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I would hope that all  missionaries would return home.

Oh..whoops...me, too.  I meant come home early...heya...wouldn't it be something if they didn't come home??? Like...where would they be???