Hypothetical on reverting to mission age of 19

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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???

I knew what you meant.  But it was more fun to assume the worst.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

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 would love to see statistics on the #s of missionaries that don't serve because they have to wait until 19.  Some people turn 19 shortly after they graduate from HS, others turn 19 over a year after.  I imagine there are some statistics about likelihood to serve based on the amount of time between graduation and turning 19.  I personally can't imagine it being that significant, but it would be interesting to see.  

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Quote

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. 

Possibly, but what does that tell us about the reason's for missionary service and the reasons people commit to doing things religiously.  There are some negative social costs to motivation through a sense of obligation, and I think this influences the cultural maturity of Mormonism, as this ideal is perceived as a virtue in contemporary Mormonism.  

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think that's how most people already understand it. As a volunteer act of service that's your duty.

That is the tension, something that is volunteer can't also be a duty in a strict sense.  

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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).

Assuming its true that it takes longer than 6 months to be an effective proselytizing missionary, have the requirements for that type of mission be longer than 6 months.  Also, how about letting people change mid mission if they feel like they don't fit the mold?

I agree that the culture would need to change, but this is the amazing thing about Mormonism, as exemplified in the most recent conference.  All it takes to change the culture is some leadership from the top, communicating directly during a general conference and it shifts everything around.  Just announce the changes and implement them.  Mormons are excellent organizers and can get in line behind the new policies quickly. 

If classes start to be established for more legitimate kinds of missions, then leaders can quickly give more talks about the evils of comparisons.  We already have this idea that no matter what calling you have in the church, all callings are of equal value in the eyes of God.  I don't see why this would be any different.  

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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

We probably just disagree about what it means to be worthy, as I didn't say zero standards should apply, but I definitely would change the standards.  

[Senator]

....and unhasten the hastening?  whaaa?

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

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. 

I'm not sure how anyone but God can judge whether or not a person is eligible to be guided by the spirit or able to teach effectively.  In practice I saw many missionaries who were highly effective, more effective than I was by a mile who were in some cases rampant rule breakers on my mission.  In practice I don't think its possible to screen for spiritual worthiness through an interview process.  I also find problems with the whole concept of worthiness as it is currently taught in contemporary Mormonism, and I think we need a reformation of sorts on this topic.  

[Jeanne]

I knew you knew..and it was more fun pretending that I didn't..

Edited April 10, 2018 by Jeanne

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours 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. 

I'm assuming that's an exclusive 'we'? What you've written about simply doesn't exist here. I can't think of a single young man in our stake who has left on a mission at age 18. I think median age would probably be close to 20.

As for the Elders who serve in our ward, we seem to have an almost even split of those who started when they were 18 and those who were much older (around 21 to 24). With very few exceptions, our most effective Elders are those who started their missions at 18.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm assuming that's an exclusive 'we'? What you've written about simply doesn't exist here. I can't think of a single young man in our stake who has left on a mission at age 18. I think median age would probably be close to 20.

As for the Elders who serve in our ward, we seem to have an almost even split of those who started when they were 18 and those who were much older (around 21 to 24). With very few exceptions, our most effective Elders are those who started their missions at 18.

I know. Your missionaries in Oceania are always the best, and never have any issues. No maturity, commitment, or cultural problems.

That isn't what many other people experience outside of your area, though. Which isn't to say that there aren't outstanding missionaries (there are). I think most people would acknowledge a drop in missionary quality over the last couple of decades, mostly societal bleeding over into Church culture and families in the United States (which continues to supply most of the world's missionaries).

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Your missionaries ... are always the best, and never have any issues. No maturity, commitment, or cultural problems.

Is this honestly what you want to misread into my simple statement that what you have observed in your local area may not be universal?

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

in the summer of 2012 this mission had 56 missionaries and there was this big push for us to house the missionaries. The standards for having them were ree-donk-cue-luss. Like, who has a house with basically two homes inside with no interaction between the two? two bathrooms, two seperate entrances, two fridges, like nobody here has a house like Suzanne Somers or Mr. Wayne Newton. Then the Oct. 2012 announcement came of lowering the age and the mission like tripled in missionaries and this whole idea of saving money, have the missionaries in your house business was all but forgotten.

[clarkgoble]

5 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? 

Yup there'd be a dip. The age isn't the only issue of course. While I've not written a post yet on it due to difficulty of writing long texts right now, it is interesting that the baptisms/missionary have stabilized. I think that'd go up if they reverted to 19. However there are other issues in the missionary program too.

[filovirus]

I'm not too surprised that few missionaries are leaving for their mission at this time of the year. Once school lets out, be it high school or college, there will be a massive influx of missionaries. Two months before school lets out is just an odd time for people to be leaving on their mission.

It's like the housing market. More homes are sold in the summer months than the rest of the year combined.

[Rain]

That cultural expectation of going when you are 18 is oh so very real. I have wondered if my oldest would have gone if he hadn't turned 18 the year it was announced and then suddenly had a ton of cultural pressure to go - which pressure always has him going completely against it. I begged for people to quit asking him, but so many couldn't understand why. 

[Thinking]

The minimum age could be raised slowly.

• 18 years and four months the first year
• 18 years and eight months the second year
• 19 years the third year

[Rain]

11 hours ago, 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.

Yes, I caught that, but that year there were several people I talked to about my son, letting them know he was trying to figure out when he should go and they said things like, "18 of course". To that I answered about what President Monson said and they seemed almost disappointed and said things like, "oh. Yes. I forgot about that."

I even had to correct people in RS or SS and let them know, "no, according to President Monson, they can go later than 18 if they are not ready for whatever reason."

I imagine that this is one of those places where Utah does differ from other parts of the world (I believe it is usually pretty similar). My son's high school had 3000 kids. The last 3 months he came home and told me at least 3 times a week and sometimes every day that so and so got his call. There were even girls who were a little older getting their calls. 

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Rain

[Marginal Gains]

Why do you want the age to be reverted upwards? What are you trying to fix?

 

[cinepro]

15 hours ago, Thinking said:

The minimum age could be raised slowly.

• 18 years and four months the first year
• 18 years and eight months the second year
• 19 years the third year

The answer to the question is simply "imagine how a smart person or company would do it if it weren't a Church."

If you want to avoid a shock to the system, then, as Thinking points out, you simply graduate the change.  Do it by age.  Do it by geography.  Give plenty of time for people to get used to the idea.  Give the missions time to adjust.  Phase it in over two or three years.   Make 18-year-olds apply for special permission and then limit the number that can go at that age.

As others have mentioned, during the surge, a lot of the wards got stacked up with missionaries.  That happened in my suburban ward.  We went from having one pair to three pairs.  And when we had one pair, they were struggling to stay busy.

Looking back, it's just an odd footnote in the history of my ward.  "Hey, remember when we used to have to feed six missionaries instead of two?"

But I can't imagine what those poor missionaries experienced.  I served in some slow areas on my mission, but I can't imagine what it would have been like to be sharing those slow areas with four other missionaries! 

Edited April 11, 2018 by cinepro