D-News Reports 63,500 Missionaries Are Serving

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Wow.  That Mike Reid fellow really knew what he was talking about 

I'm wondering if @Scott Lloyd will deign us with a reply and an update on his countdown timer.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68491-one-of-my-countdown-timers-will-soon-expire/

 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Depends a little bit upon what year you count. There was an initial drop around 2003 when Hinckley put tighter requirements on missionaries. Numbers went from 61,638 to 56,237 and then 51,067 by 2004. Numbers varied a little and most see 2010 as the last year of that era with 52,225. In 2011 you start to have an increase to 55,410 and then 2012 is generally seen as the beginning of the surge with 58,990 and then 83,035 the next year. Clearly though even if 2013 is the real surge year something changed back in 2011 in the numbers. 

I should note that I've been told by people who had baptism and activity numbers that there was around that time also a rather large cohort of kids. So the increased numbers wasn't all the surge but was partially due to a demographic "bump" as well.

The peak was 2014 with 85,137 and it's been dropping fairly consistently since then. How much of that is demographics and how much reflects other changes I can't say.

 

TO be clear though, the Church in every communication since the decline has started after the surge, had suggested that the number at the time of the communication would only increase, or in some cases might level off for a spell until it increases.  One would think that if demographics were a factor as you suggest, then the Church wouldn't predict increase when decreases came.  It demonstrates what happened was something the Church could not predict and did not anticipate. If more youn women serve now, if more international missionaries, if more senior couples now, which I think is all likely, then we have substantially less North American young men serving missions now.  One ought to ask, why that is.  I'd guess it has plenty to do with people leaving the Church not taking it as seriously/literally.  

You are wise to point out the steep declines that came as a result of the raising the bar campaign though.  

[CA Steve]

48 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm curious: does the total number include older couple missionaries? I assume so, but I don't know. 

From what I understand, the rate of missionaries going home early is much higher than it was before the age change. Does this decline represent a decline in new missionaries entering the field, an increase of missionaries going home early, or a combination of both? 

If what is going on now is a result of raising the bar, I wonder what lowering the bar would look like?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Depends a little bit upon what year you count. There was an initial drop around 2003 when Hinckley put tighter requirements on missionaries. Numbers went from 61,638 to 56,237 and then 51,067 by 2004. Numbers varied a little and most see 2010 as the last year of that era with 52,225. In 2011 you start to have an increase to 55,410 and then 2012 is generally seen as the beginning of the surge with 58,990 and then 83,035 the next year. Clearly though even if 2013 is the real surge year something changed back in 2011 in the numbers. 

I should note that I've been told by people who had baptism and activity numbers that there was around that time also a rather large cohort of kids. So the increased numbers wasn't all the surge but was partially due to a demographic "bump" as well.

The peak was 2014 with 85,137 and it's been dropping fairly consistently since then. How much of that is demographics and how much reflects other changes I can't say.

 

Given Elder Holland's (who has access to all the demographic information) 100,000 missionary remark by 2019, I would think it would be hard to pin this on demographics.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

If what is going on now is a result of raising the bar, I wonder what lowering the bar would look like?

You'd get more people like us.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Given Elder Holland's (who has access to all the demographic information) 100,000 missionary remark by 2019, I would think it would be hard to pin this on demographics.

Apparently, the number (63,597) doesn't include church-service missionaries. I don't have the current number, but as of the end of 2017, there were 36,172 such missionaries, making a total of around 100,000, give or take. I am assuming this total number is what Elder Holland is talking about.

Edited August 23, 2018 by jkwilliams

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Apparently, the number (63,597) doesn't include church-service missionaries. I don't have the current number, but as of the end of 2017, there were 36,172 such missionaries, making a total of around 100,000, give or take. I am assuming this total number is what Elder Holland is talking about.

They were well over 100,000 back when he made his statement if you include Church service missionaries.  It wouldn't make sense to say the number is growing then say in 4 years it would be smaller than it is.  

 

 

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm curious: does the total number include older couple missionaries?

As I understand it, full-time missionaries are those who are serving while not living at home.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They were well over 100,000 back when he made his statement if you include Church service missionaries.  It wouldn't make sense to say the number is growing then say in 4 years it would be smaller than it is.  

That's true. It seems, then, that I have no idea what Elder Holland was talking about. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Apparently, the number (63,597) doesn't include church-service missionaries. I don't have the current number, but as of the end of 2017, there were 36,172 such missionaries, making a total of around 100,000, give or take. I am assuming this total number is what Elder Holland is talking about.

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2249417&itype=CMSID

From context he wasn’t talking about service missionaries. 

Edited August 23, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2249417&itype=CMSID

From context he wasn’t talking about service missionaries. 

Then he was clearly mistaken. I'm reminded of Rodney Stark's projections of church growth (265 million by 2080), or of the old Letterman bit about the incredible growing baby: this kid has grown a lot from birth to age 2; if he continues at that rate until age 50, he'll be 60 feet tall.

[rongo]

The original "raise the bar" initiative didn't raise any bars at all. It was just talk. The current "raise the bar" initiative is indeed working to prevent missionaries with a high likelihood of having problems and going home early because of them. I think everyone agrees that that is a good thing. 

I'll bang on my hobby horse drum a little here. The Surge was accompanied with broad changes to the missionary program as a whole in North America (much less so in foreign countries where missionaries are vital in administering and running the Church in local units. If all North American missionaries were to vanish instantly, it wouldn't affect local wards at all, really. Not so in other countries) that were intended to help millennials with their particular generational problems (electronics addiction, lack of work ethic, lack of resiliency, etc.). These steps included heavy electronics dependency, discouraging or de-emphasis on tracting, encouraging being at the church building when there are no appointments, etc. We were told in our stake by a general authority that it is our duty to see that the missionaries only have positive experiences, and no negative ones, and the approach certainly seems intended to shield them from rejection, ridicule, mockery, persecution, etc. I, and others here, have shared the opinion before that these changes have had the opposite effect: that they have contributed to the visible increase in missionaries going home early (law of unintended consequences). Bored, restless missionaries with even less stories to come home with.

Early returns have been a big problem in our stake, but our stake (well, the stake we just moved from, actually) has had an even bigger problem with boys not going. For two years, only 13% of our priests have gone on missions (with some of them, including a bishop's son, returning very early). As the stake presidency had sought to address this, I pointed out that very few of the kids (boys and girls) in the stake know their parents' mission stories. They may know where they went (and sometimes not even that), but that's it. How do I know this? I went to the full weeks of girls and boys camp every year, and was asked to do a lot of youth conference/EFY things with the youth over the years. They don't know any of their parents' stories about people, events, and places from their missions. I addressed this in my ward with the parents and kids, but I pointed out to the stake presidency that if youth grow up knowing only that a mission is "a thing," but with no personal connection or investment in it, it should surprise no one that many active boys and girls choose other options after graduation. Why would they choose a mission? My children know not only my mission stories, but my dad's (same mission 25 years apart) and my parents' (Warsaw Poland, soon to be Czech Republic). They've grown up as I did, from their earliest memory looking at a mission as a great and exciting adventure. But most parents haven't raised their children this way, and we're reaping the results of that. 

Many of these boys who choose not to go don't have any worthiness or activity issues that anyone knows about, and they have no issues with the Church, by and large. They attend YSA wards (my dad was a YSA bishop for six years), but struggle with a lot of life competency factors (education and career progress, progress towards marriage, etc.). 

[Thinking]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Apparently, the number (63,597) doesn't include church-service missionaries. I don't have the current number, but as of the end of 2017, there were 36,172 such missionaries, making a total of around 100,000, give or take. I am assuming this total number is what Elder Holland is talking about.

I disagree. During the interview (Feb. 27, 2015) in which the 100,000 claim was made, Elder Holland was referring specifically to full-time missionaries. He said that 85,000 were currently serving and that it would grow to 100,000.

Quote

 

HH: 15 million Mormons now, right, Elder?

JH: Right.

HH: And of those, 83, 85,000 are in mission fields right now?

JH: Right, about 85.

HH: All right, now I have had a lot of Mormon interns, two of whom have gone on mission. Marlon is not currently, and never went on a mission. But I would, one went to Zimbabwe.

JH: Yeah.

HH: One stayed in San Antonio, Texas.

JH: Yeah.

HH: The first was a man, the second was a woman. I would wonder what the burden of having all these young people on the road in an era of religious intolerance is like.

JH: It is a burden. It is a worry. We proceed with great faith. We say a lot of prayers on behalf of those young people, because they’re your sons and daughters and my sons and daughters, collectively speaking, and they’re someone’s child. And we worry about them a lot. But the miracle is that every indication we have, and we try to be very careful, we try to be very sensitive about where they work and to what locations they’re assigned and so on and so forth, but having said that, the statistics are that they’re safer in the mission field than they were at home. The chances for an accident, the chances for a serious difficulty or a death, are really minimal. We have been very, very blessed. We knock on wood and say our prayer, and don’t want to be arrogant about that, because there is a very high risk. But we’re greatly blessed, and they continue to come They continue to serve. And those numbers will increase. We’re projecting out probably within four years, the baseline number for the missionary force will be something around 100,000.

 

A reference to 85,000 missionaries in early 2015 would certainly not include the service missionaries, so to talk about an increase to 100,000 wouldn't make sense if the service missionaries were suddenly included in the total when they weren't in the first reference.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

The original "raise the bar" initiative didn't raise any bars at all. It was just talk. The current "raise the bar" initiative is indeed working to prevent missionaries with a high likelihood of having problems and going home early because of them. I think everyone agrees that that is a good thing. 

I'll bang on my hobby horse drum a little here. The Surge was accompanied with broad changes to the missionary program as a whole in North America (much less so in foreign countries where missionaries are vital in administering and running the Church in local units. If all North American missionaries were to vanish instantly, it wouldn't affect local wards at all, really. Not so in other countries) that were intended to help millennials with their particular generational problems (electronics addiction, lack of work ethic, lack of resiliency, etc.). These steps included heavy electronics dependency, discouraging or de-emphasis on tracting, encouraging being at the church building when there are no appointments, etc. We were told in our stake by a general authority that it is our duty to see that the missionaries only have positive experiences, and no negative ones, and the approach certainly seems intended to shield them from rejection, ridicule, mockery, persecution, etc. I, and others here, have shared the opinion before that these changes have had the opposite effect: that they have contributed to the visible increase in missionaries going home early (law of unintended consequences). Bored, restless missionaries with even less stories to come home with.

Early returns have been a big problem in our stake, but our stake (well, the stake we just moved from, actually) has had an even bigger problem with boys not going. For two years, only 13% of our priests have gone on missions (with some of them, including a bishop's son, returning very early). As the stake presidency had sought to address this, I pointed out that very few of the kids (boys and girls) in the stake know their parents' mission stories. They may know where they went (and sometimes not even that), but that's it. How do I know this? I went to the full weeks of girls and boys camp every year, and was asked to do a lot of youth conference/EFY things with the youth over the years. They don't know any of their parents' stories about people, events, and places from their missions. I addressed this in my ward with the parents and kids, but I pointed out to the stake presidency that if youth grow up knowing only that a mission is "a thing," but with no personal connection or investment in it, it should surprise no one that many active boys and girls choose other options after graduation. Why would they choose a mission? My children know not only my mission stories, but my dad's (same mission 25 years apart) and my parents' (Warsaw Poland, soon to be Czech Republic). They've grown up as I did, from their earliest memory looking at a mission as a great and exciting adventure. But most parents haven't raised their children this way, and we're reaping the results of that. 

Many of these boys who choose not to go don't have any worthiness or activity issues that anyone knows about, and they have no issues with the Church, by and large. They attend YSA wards (my dad was a YSA bishop for six years), but struggle with a lot of life competency factors (education and career progress, progress towards marriage, etc.). 

I find that really odd. Maybe it's because my wife and I served in the same mission, but my kids know a great deal about our missionary experiences. My parents and grandparents had no missionary stories to share with us, as I'm the only one of my grandparents' descendants to serve a mission. So, I don't believe I had a personal connection or investment, but I went anyway. My dad grilled me before I left to make sure it was what I really wanted to do, and I'm grateful he did that. But I was raised in the days when President Kimball said every young man should serve a mission, even though it wasn't something talked about at home. I know my younger brother was planning on a mission when he was killed, so two of us would have gone.

My boys all threw in the towel on the church before they reached missionary age, even though we had taught them to plan on serving a mission. Two of my daughters expressed interest in serving missions, but they were both married by the time they reached 21 (the age back then). 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I disagree. During the interview (Feb. 27, 2015) in which the 100,000 claim was made, Elder Holland was referring specifically to full-time missionaries. He said that 85,000 were currently serving and that it would grow to 100,000.

A reference to 85,000 missionaries in early 2015 would certainly not include the service missionaries, so to talk about an increase to 100,000 wouldn't make sense if the service missionaries were suddenly included in the total when they weren't in the first reference.

Yes, I've already acknowledged I was wrong about that. 

[Duncan]

Just now, CA Steve said:

If what is going on now is a result of raising the bar, I wonder what lowering the bar would look like?

hey, I already served!

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I find that really odd. Maybe it's because my wife and I served in the same mission, but my kids know a great deal about our missionary experiences.

You ooze love for the experience and people of Bolivia (even with the challenges and hardships you faced). I'm not surprised at all that you and your wife transmitted this to your children.

My parents and grandparents had no missionary stories to share with us, as I'm the only one of my grandparents' descendants to serve a mission. So, I don't believe I had a personal connection or investment, but I went anyway.

I think roughly a third of boys went during your era, many of whom didn't have a special connection to a mission. I think that the "special connection effect" is magnified among this generation of youth.

My dad grilled me before I left to make sure it was what I really wanted to do, and I'm grateful he did that.

I think a much more fruitful approach with this generation is to genuinely encourage our youth to find a solid purpose and work towards that. If it isn't going to be a mission for you, then make solid progress towards a gainful career you enjoy and a family. No more of this treading water endlessly and aimlessly, not making any progress. Become a productive member of society and the Church. 

I'm a radical on this, but I don't know that "more is more." I think that less can be more, like it was with Gideon's army. If we only have 30,000 missionaries, but those missionaries are stellar, I think we could see more numerical and more "real growth" from the smaller number. The fact is that modern North American missionaries don't do very much actual "missionary work," so it should come as no surprise that baptisms are down. The purpose has shifted to retention and activation of young adults, rather than finding and converting people. Converts are icing on the cake, not the cake itself. 

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

The original "raise the bar" initiative didn't raise any bars at all. It was just talk. The current "raise the bar" initiative is indeed working to prevent missionaries with a high likelihood of having problems and going home early because of them. I think everyone agrees that that is a good thing. 

I'll bang on my hobby horse drum a little here. The Surge was accompanied with broad changes to the missionary program as a whole in North America (much less so in foreign countries where missionaries are vital in administering and running the Church in local units. If all North American missionaries were to vanish instantly, it wouldn't affect local wards at all, really. Not so in other countries) that were intended to help millennials with their particular generational problems (electronics addiction, lack of work ethic, lack of resiliency, etc.). These steps included heavy electronics dependency, discouraging or de-emphasis on tracting, encouraging being at the church building when there are no appointments, etc. We were told in our stake by a general authority that it is our duty to see that the missionaries only have positive experiences, and no negative ones, and the approach certainly seems intended to shield them from rejection, ridicule, mockery, persecution, etc. I, and others here, have shared the opinion before that these changes have had the opposite effect: that they have contributed to the visible increase in missionaries going home early (law of unintended consequences). Bored, restless missionaries with even less stories to come home with.

Early returns have been a big problem in our stake, but our stake (well, the stake we just moved from, actually) has had an even bigger problem with boys not going. For two years, only 13% of our priests have gone on missions (with some of them, including a bishop's son, returning very early). As the stake presidency had sought to address this, I pointed out that very few of the kids (boys and girls) in the stake know their parents' mission stories. They may know where they went (and sometimes not even that), but that's it. How do I know this? I went to the full weeks of girls and boys camp every year, and was asked to do a lot of youth conference/EFY things with the youth over the years. They don't know any of their parents' stories about people, events, and places from their missions. I addressed this in my ward with the parents and kids, but I pointed out to the stake presidency that if youth grow up knowing only that a mission is "a thing," but with no personal connection or investment in it, it should surprise no one that many active boys and girls choose other options after graduation. Why would they choose a mission? My children know not only my mission stories, but my dad's (same mission 25 years apart) and my parents' (Warsaw Poland, soon to be Czech Republic). They've grown up as I did, from their earliest memory looking at a mission as a great and exciting adventure. But most parents haven't raised their children this way, and we're reaping the results of that. 

Many of these boys who choose not to go don't have any worthiness or activity issues that anyone knows about, and they have no issues with the Church, by and large. They attend YSA wards (my dad was a YSA bishop for six years), but struggle with a lot of life competency factors (education and career progress, progress towards marriage, etc.). 

Great post, rongo!  It mirrors what I've seen in my own ward and stake.

My only quibble (and it's slight) is that I do think that part of the problem is that many youth expect their mission to be just a "great and exciting adventure" (and I know you didn't mean or say "just").  That's part of it, of course.....but so many are not prepared for how extremely difficult and challenging a mission really is as well (physically, mentally and emotionally).  I think the leaders are trying to give more help in the preparation process, but we are still having a number of missionaries coming home because it was just "too hard and not much fun", etc.

Edited August 23, 2018 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Great post, rongo!  It mirrors what I've seen in my own ward and stake.

My only quibble (and it's slight) is that I do think that part of the problem is that many youth expect their mission to be just a "great and exciting adventure" (and I know you didn't mean or say "just").  That's part of it, of course.....but so many are not prepared for how extremely difficult and challenging a mission really is as well (physically, mentally and emotionally).  I think the leaders are trying to give more help in the preparation process, but we are still having a number of missionaries coming home because it was just "too hard and not much fun", etc.

I presented a paper at Sunstone a few years ago on what I see as the unwritten law that you must never say anything negative about your missionary experience to other members of the church, particularly the youth. One of my friends, who had been my zone leader in Cochabamba, told me that after he returned home from Bolivia he was asked to spend the priesthood hour talking to the Aaronic Priesthood about his mission. He showed slides and told faith-promoting stories, but he also said they needed to be prepared for difficult living conditions, health issues, and hostility from the people (all of which were major aspects of our mission). He said he thought they should know it wasn't all peaches and cream. After the meeting, he said he was "hustled" into his bishop's office and berated for saying things that might discourage the young men from wanting to serve a mission. He just stopped talking about his mission after that. 

ETA: the exception, of course, is that you can tell stories of bad things happening if they led to something positive.

Edited August 23, 2018 by jkwilliams

[rongo]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Great post, rongo!  It mirrors what I've seen in my own ward and stake.

My only quibble (and it's slight) is that I do think that part of the problem is that many youth expect their mission to be just a "great and exciting adventure" (and I know you didn't mean or say "just").  That's part of it, of course.....but so many are not prepared for how extremely difficult and challenging a mission really is as well (physically, mentally and emotionally).  I think the leaders are trying to give more help in the preparation process, but we are still having a number of missionaries coming home because it was just "too hard and not much fun", etc.

I think current youth expect it to be an adventure, simply so, with nothing on their part. They also (many) get hung up on the call letter opening theatrics and the ballyhoo about going, and then the actual mission itself is a letdown that isn't as stimulating as the stuff they post on Instagram and Facebook to garner likes (which are also often contrived and give a less-than-accurate picture of their real life). I've seen some whose purpose on their mission is to maintain or exceed this "likes" need, and this creates dissonance with the realities of the mission and knowledge of how they should be. 

I think a lot could be improved by simply getting rid of the devices and getting them off of social media altogether. I'm unconvinced that we're getting our bang for the buck with the social media, "smarter, not harder" electronics focus. The numbers speak for themselves, don't they? 

[rongo]

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I presented a paper at Sunstone a few years ago on what I see as the unwritten law that you must never say anything negative about your missionary experience to other members of the church, particularly the youth. One of my friends, who had been my zone leader in Cochabamba, told me that after he returned home from Bolivia he was asked to spend the priesthood hour talking to the Aaronic Priesthood about his mission. He showed slides and told faith-promoting stories, but he also said they needed to be prepared for difficult living conditions, health issues, and hostility from the people (all of which were major aspects of our mission). He said he thought they should know it wasn't all peaches and cream. After the meeting, he said he was "hustled" into his bishop's office and berated for saying things that might discourage the young men from wanting to serve a mission. He just stopped talking about his mission after that. 

That's crazy! People can see through a Polyanna, sugar-coated version of things. Plus, the gritty, "deprivation" and hardship/adversity details are some of the things that would appeal to the Gideon's Army type. The bishop's response was hand-in-hand with the GA counsel we had to shield them from adversity and ensure only good experiences. That doesn't work, and it doesn't work that way. 

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's crazy! People can see through a Polyanna, sugar-coated version of things. Plus, the gritty, "deprivation" and hardship/adversity details are some of the things that would appeal to the Gideon's Army type. The bishop's response was hand-in-hand with the GA counsel we had to shield them from adversity and ensure only good experiences. That doesn't work, and it doesn't work that way. 

Just for reference, here's the original draft of my Sunstone paper: https://runtu.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/spinning-the-mission-experience/

And if you're too lazy to read, here's the audio: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/sins-of-omission-spinning-the-missionary-experience/

The conclusion:

Quote

 

What can we do to change this situation? Realistically, the church is not going to change its approach to missions, and it is not up to me to tell them what I think they should do. So, I’m going to limit my suggestions to things that parents and families can do.

1. Talk to your children about what to expect realistically from a mission. Yes, you can tell them what a great experience it can be and encourage them to go, but they need to know what to expect. At this point in the church’s history, the vast majority of young men and women serving missions will have at least one parent who served a mission (in my family it’s both parents). I am certain that there are things you wish you had known before your mission that you could share with your kids.
2. Encourage them to communicate in their letters home. Ask specific questions, and let them know that it’s OK to be brutally honest. If my parents had been there for me to talk to—honestly and nonjudgmentally—they would have been much more of a support to me. They sent me encouragement and care packages, but I never really shared my mission with them, and we all lost out.
3. Have them spend an hour with a counselor or therapist as part of their re-entry into normal life. Every missionary is required to have a physical exam by a doctor when they get home, but no one thinks to ask about their emotional or mental health. Most missionaries will come home just fine, but having a safe place to talk about things, even for just an hour, could do wonders. And of course, such an exit exam might help families spot problems before they get serious.

I believe that a mission can and should be a wonderful, life-changing experience for young LDS men and women, but we must approach missions with honesty and candor. Our children deserve at least that from us.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, I've already acknowledged I was wrong about that. 

I think there were some posts being written simultaneously. It's all good.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

The original "raise the bar" initiative didn't raise any bars at all. It was just talk. The current "raise the bar" initiative is indeed working to prevent missionaries with a high likelihood of having problems and going home early because of them. I think everyone agrees that that is a good thing. 

I'll bang on my hobby horse drum a little here. The Surge was accompanied with broad changes to the missionary program as a whole in North America (much less so in foreign countries where missionaries are vital in administering and running the Church in local units. If all North American missionaries were to vanish instantly, it wouldn't affect local wards at all, really. Not so in other countries) that were intended to help millennials with their particular generational problems (electronics addiction, lack of work ethic, lack of resiliency, etc.). These steps included heavy electronics dependency, discouraging or de-emphasis on tracting, encouraging being at the church building when there are no appointments, etc. We were told in our stake by a general authority that it is our duty to see that the missionaries only have positive experiences, and no negative ones, and the approach certainly seems intended to shield them from rejection, ridicule, mockery, persecution, etc. I, and others here, have shared the opinion before that these changes have had the opposite effect: that they have contributed to the visible increase in missionaries going home early (law of unintended consequences). Bored, restless missionaries with even less stories to come home with.

Early returns have been a big problem in our stake, but our stake (well, the stake we just moved from, actually) has had an even bigger problem with boys not going. For two years, only 13% of our priests have gone on missions (with some of them, including a bishop's son, returning very early). As the stake presidency had sought to address this, I pointed out that very few of the kids (boys and girls) in the stake know their parents' mission stories. They may know where they went (and sometimes not even that), but that's it. How do I know this? I went to the full weeks of girls and boys camp every year, and was asked to do a lot of youth conference/EFY things with the youth over the years. They don't know any of their parents' stories about people, events, and places from their missions. I addressed this in my ward with the parents and kids, but I pointed out to the stake presidency that if youth grow up knowing only that a mission is "a thing," but with no personal connection or investment in it, it should surprise no one that many active boys and girls choose other options after graduation. Why would they choose a mission? My children know not only my mission stories, but my dad's (same mission 25 years apart) and my parents' (Warsaw Poland, soon to be Czech Republic). They've grown up as I did, from their earliest memory looking at a mission as a great and exciting adventure. But most parents haven't raised their children this way, and we're reaping the results of that. 

Many of these boys who choose not to go don't have any worthiness or activity issues that anyone knows about, and they have no issues with the Church, by and large. They attend YSA wards (my dad was a YSA bishop for six years), but struggle with a lot of life competency factors (education and career progress, progress towards marriage, etc.). 

Ive seen something similar in my area--most simply don't go anymore.  Many seem to be coming home early.  I've found that most I've known who have come home, come home because they simply don't believe it anymore.  I haven't seen the "they simply weren't ready stuff" as much.  In my experience in general 18 year olds are just as ready as 19 year olds.  I just feel the dominant narriatve they learn growing up isn't true.  They are faced with far more than we were, in terms of challenge to the faith.  We always had "they're just anti" type of stuff to fall back on.   Nearly each time I went out with the missionaries over the past couple of years up until last year, which was a ton, they were faced with questions and challenges to the religion that they simply could not in any sense deal with.  They pretended to know, re-bore their testimonies and tried their best to escape.  We certainly had challenges, but I think the info is so far more prevalent to the point of it's not even close.  

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ive seen something similar in my area--most simply don't go anymore.  Many seem to be coming home early.  I've found that most I've known who have come home, come home because they simply don't believe it anymore. 

There could be pockets where this is true, but most haven't given it enough deep thought to be able to say "they simply don't believe it any more," in my experience. It isn't even so much how "hard" a mission is, either. I think for most early-returnees, it isn't the type of fun and stimulation they want, they are easily bored, and they aren't studiers. The daily 3+ hours of daily study expected in my time, plus the downtime study (whole districts are studying on their tablets all day long in areas I have been in, because that's what they are told to do when they don't have appointments). 

I haven't seen the "they simply weren't ready stuff" as much.  In my experience in general 18 year olds are just as ready as 19 year olds.

Anecdotally, my parents reported when they got back from Warsaw that there is a night and day difference between those with college and full-time work experience and those who leave right after graduation. Yes, there are some very mature 18 year-olds, but they are an exception.

It's been really interesting to experience people's reaction to my son and nephew going to school for a year first, before their missions. People know, knowing them and knowing their parents, that they are going, that they aren't going to fizzle out and drop off the radar after a year. But, there is still a very real awkwardness and shock for them in talking to us, because of an ingrained cultural expectation that boys leave immediately (despite President Monson's words in announcing the age change). The reality is that very few go to school for a year, first. We ask them, "Well, he still has to save up the rest of his mission money. How did Tanner pay for his?", and they uncomfortably say that they paid for his mission. Both my son and nephew have full ride scholarships, so the money they made this summer and the money they make during the school year will pay for their missions. It is an invaluable experience for them. 

I seriously have the impression that almost no missionaries pay for their missions, any more. They are either completely paid for by family, or have a token contribution from the missionary, or are paid for by ward donors. 

I just feel the dominant narrative they learn growing up isn't true.  They are faced with far more than we were, in terms of challenge to the faith.  We always had "they're just anti" type of stuff to fall back on.   Nearly each time I went out with the missionaries over the past couple of years up until last year, which was a ton, they were faced with questions and challenges to the religion that they simply could not in any sense deal with.

This is true. Most missionaries know people they can a) ask, b) refer the person to, or c) try to bring to appointments for concerns. I haven't seen very many missionaries whom I feel are losing or have lost their faith as a result of the Church's answers vis a vis critical answers. It does happen, though. 

They pretended to know, re-bore their testimonies and tried their best to escape.  We certainly had challenges, but I think the info is so far more prevalent to the point of it's not even close. 

That's the critical perception, but it's not even the universal perception outside of the Church. I meet with a man (at the mission presidency's request) who is fascinated by Mormonism and Mormons, and who goes to every conference he can. He is agnostic and has no interest in joining the Church (and is upfront about it), but loves discussing all things Mormon, modern and ancient. He took his non-member wife to Palmyra on a trip (they are wealthy), but she drew the line at Nauvoo ("you can go to that one by yourself"). This year, he went to Sunstone and the Mormon Historical Association conferences. He was referred to me, and has been very impressed that I know what he knows and can talk about it. He is really Mormon-friendly and defends Mormons from critics, and bristles at the behavior of ex-Mormons and internal critics. It's been interesting to get his perspective, as an outsider without a "salvation" dog in the race. We're going to have him and his wife over for dinner, now that we've moved up near him (he lives in our new stake). Prior to that, he took me out to eat at different restaurants and brought his notes.

He enjoys meeting with the missionaries, and is very careful not to plant doubts. He loves it when he occasionally finds some who can intelligently discuss his advanced topics (he says there has only been one, a sister, who was familiar with the gospel topics essays). Yet, with all that, he places a higher value on them and their testimonies than simply "re-bear your testimony and try to escape." He also doesn't want to waste their time, but would love to have good discussions. I told him it would depend on the missionaries; on my mission, I also craved good discussion, even if they were never going to be baptized. He doesn't want to tie them up if they could be teaching investigators with conversion potential. I told him they would best know their calendar and their people, and to let them decide.  

It's too bad he can't garner the faith to take the leap and consider the possibility that God and the supernatural are possible.