The Continued Decline of Young Men Willing to Serve a Mission

[CA Steve]

I wonder if technology and a change in how missions are served is a factor in the youth not wanting to go?  I loved my mission, but it was a lot of hard work. We tracted and tracted and tracted some more. Now I think a lot of time is spent indoors working social media. Tracting was hard work but it was anything but boring. Meeting people face to face has huge advantages over interacting online. Maybe the problem with youth not going is they are hearing how boring it can be. This would also explain why service missions are increasing.

My .02 is that all missions should be service missions in which we are available to teach to anyone who is interested. Let's go out there and build schools, hospitals and churches by day and in the evenings teach about Mormonism.

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Come on, give me a break, not one of them was drafted into military service...they "Chose" military service instead of choosing to serve a mission.  I totally respect their individual choices to serve country over church by NOT serving a mission.  My only hope is that they too will respect the young men who choose NOT to serve a mission as well.

With the armed conflicts going on back then the general attitude for young men was to choose to serve the country first. So that's what they did. 

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The consequences of this meeting and its aftermath have been the final straw for one of my grandsons.  He's a believer, attends church regularly with his family, but just like the members of the First Presidency who chose NOT to serve missions, he too has exercised his agency and has chosen not to go on a mission. But since this meeting he is receiving the full court press from those assigned to apply pressure.  He has received calls or visits from his ward priest leader, his bishop and even a call from his stake president.  He told me this week, that he is feeling so much pressure to serve a mission that he is now questioning how he can even attend church for fear of constant shaming & harassment.  The church is literally driving this wonderful young man away.

I do agree that nobody should be pressured to go on a mission.  First, it increases the chances of the person being a bad or difficult missionary. One wants someone who WANTS to be there.   It is no different than military drafts. Yes the government can force people into the military but that does not mean it will make good soldiers. One can put them in the field but that does not make them work hard. 

Second, agency should always be sustained. We are born into this world because of the issue of agency.  I will never pressure my son go on a mission. That is counter productive

Third, some people just naturally do not make good missionaries. They could be dealing with mental issues or traits that may make it more difficult to focus on missionary work.

Fourth,  Do we really need more missionaries?  The world has changed so much over the decades at least in the US and other developed places.   People are less at home, less likely to open the door to strangers.   If a person has the RING app, they can see who is at the door from their couch.  If they see some missionaries at the door on their phone, they just don't go to the door. 

Fifth,  I suppose COVID has some influence on the numbers both in the restrictions of contact over the past few years and people less likely wanting to visit with strangers who may be asymptomatic carriers.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

With the armed conflicts going on back then the general attitude for young men was to choose to serve the country first. So that's what they did. 

See my post on the previous page.  Missionary work was severely restricted during the Korean War.

[Fair Dinkum]

31 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

See my post on the previous page.  Missionary work was severely restricted during the Korean War.

I completely respect President Nelson's choice not to serve a mission.  He was 20 in 1944 and could have, had he wanted to, gone on a mission following WW2 but instead chose not to go.  Instead he chose to peruse his medical schooling.  Had he chosen to serve the Lord for 2 years that would have greatly delayed his medical career, so I completely understand why he chose not to serve. 

President Oak came of missionary age in 1951 during the Korean war, so it is true his opportunites might have been restricted but I'm guessing that had he really have wanted to go on a mission he could have chosen to...but again i totally respect his choice not to serve one.

President Eyring came of missionary age in 1952 also during the Korean war, so yes he too had somewhat restricted opportunities...but even with serving a mission being a priesthood obligation still chose not to serve...and I respect that choice.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Fair Dinkum

[Fether]

2 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I completely respect President Nelson's choice not to serve a mission.  He was 20 in 1944 and could of, had he wanted to, gone on a mission following WW2 but instead chose not to go.  Instead he chose to peruse his medical schooling.  Had he chosen to serve the Lord for 2 years that would have greatly delayed his medical career, so I completely understand why he chose not to serve. 

Your comment would hold water had there been a declaration that every able young man should serve. 
 

unfortunately, there was none.

[Fether]

35 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Second, agency should always be sustained. We are born into this world because of the issue of agency.  I will never pressure my son go on a mission. That is counter productive

There is this weird war on agency and bastardization of its meaning and purpose.

The principle of agency is not some justification for us to be ok in everything we do. Agency is the ability to know good and evil, and to choose good or evil. We ought to persuade everyone to choose good. Persuading people to choose good is not an affront to agency.

When you are baptized, you make covenants to take upon yourself the name of Christ and join his church. This is more than just “be nice and be happy”. This a commitment to do all that we are asked to do.

This continues and is compounded in in the temple when we covenant to live the gospel, sacrifice, and consecrate all we have to the church.

You also recommit to all these things every time you take the sacrament.

One’s agency is intact, but one cannot cry “agency” and the expect blessings from God and his approval when they are actively choosing evil. That is moral agency. We are morally obligated to obey God and consecrate all we have to his church.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Fether

[Fair Dinkum]

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

Your comment would hold water had there been a declaration that every able young man should serve. 
 

unfortunately, there was none.

So Mission service as a Priesthood Obligation for all worthy male priesthood holders is NEW doctrine?

[Fair Dinkum]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

There is this weird war on agency and bastardization of its meaning and purpose.

When you are baptized, you make covenants to take upon yourself the name of Christ and join his church. This is more than just “be nice and be happy”. This a commitment to do all that we are asked to do.

This continues and is compounded in in the temple when we covenant to live the gospel, sacrifice, and consecrate all we have to the church.

You also recommit to all these things every time you take the sacrament.

One’s agency is intact, but one cannot cry “agency” and the expect blessings from God and his approval when they are going against the covenants they make with him. That is moral agency. We are morally obligated to obey God and consecrate all we have to his church.

 

And this Moral Agency at baptism only went into effect and was not applicable until after the Korean War?  Interesting.

[Fether]

4 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So Mission service as a Priesthood Obligation for all worthy male priesthood holders is NEW doctrine?

It’s not a doctrine, it is a policy, and YES. It started with Spencer W Kimball in the may 1974 general conference.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So Mission service as a Priesthood Obligation for all worthy male priesthood holders is NEW doctrine?

It certainly wasn't emphasized as a responsibility until the days of Spencer W. Kimball. According to my dad, when he was at BYU, the guys who went on missions were generally the "zealots" (his word). 

[Fether]

4 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

And this Moral Agency at baptism only went into effect and was not applicable until after the Korean War?  Interesting.

See me other comment. The declaration that all young men should serve didnt start till 1974

[SkyRock]

My father was the only missionary picked from his ward during the Korean War era.   

Of the 12 active priests of my priest quorum over 30 years ago, only 3 served missions.   Those three are still active today and the other 9 are inactive or mostly inactive. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, SkyRock said:

My father was the only missionary picked from his ward during the Korean War era.   

Of the 12 active priests of my priest quorum over 30 years ago, only 3 served missions.   Those three are still active today and the other 9 are inactive or mostly inactive. 

Most of the young men in my ward when I was in Aaronic Priesthood (40 years ago or so) served missions. A couple of us have thrown in the towel on the church (though we're still members), one is a closet unbeliever, and the other ten or so are still active and very much believing.

[Fair Dinkum]

Quote

“The Lord wants every young man to serve a full-time mission. Currently, only a fifth of the eligible young men in the Church are serving full-time missions. This is not pleasing to the Lord. We can do better. We must do better. Not only should a mission be regarded as a priesthood duty, but every young man should look forward to this experience with great joy and anticipation. What a privilege—what a sacred privilege—to serve the Lord full time for two years with all your heart, might, mind, and strength.

You can do nothing more important. School can wait. Scholarships can be deferred. Occupational goals can be postponed. Yes, even temple marriage should wait until after a young man has served an honorable full-time mission for the Lord.” (Ensign, May 1986, pp. 44–45). - Ezra Taft Benson

I stand corrected, It seems that low mission participation by the so called worthy has been around, hovering at around 20%, for along time. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Come on, give me a break, not one of them was drafted into military service...they "Chose" military service instead of choosing to serve a mission.  I totally respect their individual choices to serve country over church by NOT serving a mission.  My only hope is that they too will respect the young men who choose NOT to serve a mission as well.

The federal government had caps on how many YM could serve a mission at different points when wars were going on.  Usually it was one from each ward.  So it wasn't just about choosing to enlist being the reason someone couldn't serve.  Some chose to enlist because serving a mission wasn't an option.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

The standards were different for them, let’s stop pretending they were the same.

Can you explain how were they different? I can at least say that when I was a teen in the 70s SWK, who pushed missionary service as much as it seems to being pushed now, at least had served a mission.  Could none of the FP members serve when they were 19?  DId we not send missionaries out?  Or was there simply less pressure to serve?  

1 hour ago, Fether said:

 

 

this is the same reason we dont point to the Bible to justify drinking alcohol.

ill also add that a leader’s failure does not justify our failure (and yes, choosing not to serve a mission when you are able is a failure)

No it really is not a failure.  None whatsoever.  

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Can you explain how were they different? I can at least say that when I was a teen in the 70s SWK, who pushed missionary service as much as it seems to being pushed now, at least had served a mission.  Could none of the FP members serve when they were 19?  DId we not send missionaries out?  Or was there simply less pressure to serve?  

No it really is not a failure.  None whatsoever.  

Reminds me of when I was YM president years ago. We had a couple in our ward who were the most controlling parents I have ever known. One of their sons completely rebelled, whereas the other did everything exactly the way they wanted. About a week before he was supposed to enter the MTC, the obedient kid realized that he didn’t want to serve a mission but was only going because his parents expected it. They and the bishop demanded that I sit down with him and convince him to go, but I wouldn’t do it. I didn’t think a kid should serve a mission if he really didn’t want to go. The family kicked him out, and they haven’t spoken to him since. Needless to say, they hate me. 

[rpn]

Willing?   or Able?   The porn issue is swallowing our kids.

[Fether]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Can you explain how were they different? I can at least say that when I was a teen in the 70s SWK, who pushed missionary service as much as it seems to being pushed now, at least had served a mission.  Could none of the FP members serve when they were 19?  DId we not send missionaries out?  Or was there simply less pressure to serve?  

1 hour ago, Fether said:

 Did you read my other posts? The push didn’t start till the 70s

 

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No it really is not a failure.  None whatsoever.  

If I sign a contract to pay rent, and I choose not to pay rent, am I failing the terms of the contract?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Reminds me of when I was YM president years ago. We had a couple in our ward who were the most controlling parents I have ever known. One of their sons completely rebelled, whereas the other did everything exactly the way they wanted. About a week before he was supposed to enter the MTC, the obedient kid realized that he didn’t want to serve a mission but was only going because his parents expected it. They and the bishop demanded that I sit down with him and convince him to go, but I wouldn’t do it. I didn’t think a kid should serve a mission if he really didn’t want to go. The family kicked him out, and they haven’t spoken to him since. Needless to say, they hate me. 

That's horrible.

[Fair Dinkum]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Reminds me of when I was YM president years ago. We had a couple in our ward who were the most controlling parents I have ever known. One of their sons completely rebelled, whereas the other did everything exactly the way they wanted. About a week before he was supposed to enter the MTC, the obedient kid realized that he didn’t want to serve a mission but was only going because his parents expected it. They and the bishop demanded that I sit down with him and convince him to go, but I wouldn’t do it. I didn’t think a kid should serve a mission if he really didn’t want to go. The family kicked him out, and they haven’t spoken to him since. Needless to say, they hate me. 

While I sadly can completely identify with “why” the parents wanted their son to serve it breaks my heart to hear how a mission destroyed this family relationship. So sad

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

That's horrible.

Frankly, I was proud of him for standing up for himself. He never had before. Really good kid, smart and kind. Awful parents. 

[Teancum]

Just now, Fether said:

 Did you read my other posts? The push didn’t start till the 70s

 

If I sign a contract to pay rent, and I choose not to pay rent, am I failing the terms of the contract?

I you sign the contract with the full disclosure and the ability to consent then yes. If not no. 8 year olds being baptized do not have full disclosure nor are they able to consent to the baptismal covenants of their own free will.  Nor do boys ordained at 11 years old.  So yo use that as a club to shame them into serving a mission is wrong, manipulative, mind control techniques and so on. As a teen I did not want to serve a mission.  I was harangued CONTSTANTLY about it by bishops, YM presidents, ward members, seminary teachers, RMs in my ward and so on. It was quite frankly over the top and the anxiety of trying to decide to go on one or not was pretty heavy on me as an 18 and then 19 year old.  I did  end up going by they way because I thought it was God telling me to go.  But it was really conceding the the pressure and feeling relief over not having the guilt and shame over not going.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Teancum said:

I you sign the contract with the full disclosure and the ability to consent then yes. If not no. 8 year olds being baptized do not have full disclosure nor are they able to consent to the baptismal covenants of their own free will.  Nor do boys ordained at 11 years old.  So yo use that as a club to shame them into serving a mission is wrong, manipulative, mind control techniques and so on. As a teen I did not want to serve a mission.  I was harangued CONTSTANTLY about it by bishops, YM presidents, ward members, seminary teachers, RMs in my ward and so on. It was quite frankly over the top and the anxiety of trying to decide to go on one or not was pretty heavy on me as an 18 and then 19 year old.  I did  end up going by they way because I thought it was God telling me to go.  But it was really conceding the the pressure and feeling relief over not having the guilt and shame over not going.

I was fortunate in that my parents never put any pressure on me to serve a mission. Halfway through my mission, they changed from 18 months to two years. I called home to ask my parents if it was ok for me to stay 6 extra months (I only had enough money of my own for 18 months), and my dad said, “Why would you want to do that?” 😂