Getting lost in Statistics in retaining membership


Rob Osborn
 Share

Recommended Posts

In a recent meeting at my ward the meeting focused on a certain statistic. A member of the stake presidency said that 71% of LDS men who served missions remained active at the age of 40. The flip side was that only 9% of LDS men remained active at 40 who didnt serve missions. Another statistic showed that in our stake, amongst LDS youth, only 10% are serving missions. Later that night a stake youth fireside was held to go over the new missionary qualification questions and these same statistics were brought up in an effort by the stake presidency to committ to serve a mission in hopes you would remain active in the church. I think thats a great objective for most YM and YW to aspire to- serve a mission and should be an area of focus especially for YM leaders such as myself to prepare YM for.

That said, I dont think that preparing YM to serve missions should be our focal point and that perhaps a different view must be looked at. Take myself for instance- when I was a youth I fell away from the church, got involved with all manner of devious behavior- sex, drugs, criminal activity, etc. I even got to a point where I hated my religion and all the hypocrits that belonged. By todays missionary qualifications I would have been the poster child for who NOT to send on a mission. I married, had a child, my wife joined the church and slowly I got reinvolved with the church. Now, Im over 40, active as ever in the church and one of those 9%. After the fireside I was talking about that paradox with my bishop on the way home as to what possibly could I do seeing how all my experience as a youth was going the wrong direction. He said something profound. He said "those of the 90% who dont serve missions, they still need saving". The next day I was speaking to my brother about those statistics and he said something also profound. He basically said those who serve missions more than likely have a good home environment and the real reason they remained active at 40 was because of their upbringing and testimonies not necessarily because they served missions and that lowly 9% who didnt serve are probably the rest that, like myself, made bad decisions but because I had a good upbringing and developed a strong testimony while I was young I found my way back to the church. Which raised the obvious question- why do 30% who serve missions go inactive later on? I think its all related with a persons personal upbringing and testimony. That should be our focus. Its easy to get caught up in statistics and make our focal point the wrong thing.

If all we did as youth leaders is make "serving an honorable mission" our ultimate goal then we miss the mark entirely. Our goal should be tailored to each young man (also the YW) to help them improve their upbringing- more positive experiences doing righteous things and helping them develop a real and stronger testimony of Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father and his plan for us. Then, those who want to serve missions are more prepared and those who dont end up serving missions or go inactive will have the security measure in place that will help retain their connectivity in the church or pull them back into activity later on. The end result, or goal is tge question-  what are we as youth leaders doing to be with them more frequently helping create positive experiences and in that process how are we better connecting them with heaven?

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an interesting thing.  With the items they require to go on missions now...and over the past 5 years...I personally think they've gotten too restrictive on who can go on missions and who cannot.

IF...your numbers are right...they should be encouraging anyone to go, and be LESS restrictive...otherwise...per the stats, it sounds as if they are setting themselves up for failure in the future by denying some who may WANT to go from going of their own free will.

With that in mind, in regards to your last paragraph, this is what missions are tailored to do today.  Some think it is about converting individuals to the church, and there is that, but a LOT of sending people on missions today has nothing to do with converts and everything to do with conversion.  By that, I mean, it is not just about converting investigators, but converting the individual who goes on a mission.  Some of them have already been converted, but MANY young individuals are only coasting on their parents testimony, or merely have a belief that is just as strong as other people's belief in their church...but not a true foundation in a testimony of the church.

Being on a mission forces one to focus on the gospel in a way no other method can.  This focus gives them the opportunity to find that time to pray and study and to finally get that testimony and truly gain that conversion into having a testimony of the Gospel and the Lord.  Even with this, not all gain this testimony, but it means that there is an extended opportunity for those who do not have it to gain it.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, those who do not go on a mission do not get this two year period where it is entirely devoted to scripture study and prayer which gives one that opportunity to find this conversion.  That does not mean they will not have it, but they will have to find time in a busy life full  of other interruptions.  I think this is why there would be such a stark difference between those who go on a mission and remain active later in life, and those who do not go on a mission and may or may not remain active.

Thus, I'd be more  to trying to inspire more young people to go on missions and have that opportunity, rather than some of the more restrictive measures we have these days on who can go and who cannot.

I'd only have a few restrictions to be honest, if one has committed a serious crime or if one has broken a major commandment (such as murder or fornication).  Regarding the latter, in today's society, it is getting harder to find those youth that are chaste...and so even with this, perhaps regulations would be there to allow those guilty of the latter to also go...but it's a shaky area.  From my experience it seems that those guilty of the latter tend to be those more likely to have a serious breaking of mission rules, and to disregard the commandments even on a mission.  This is not always so, and sometimes they are the best missionaries out there having gone through the furnace and gained a true knowledge of the atonement...it's the ones that detract and bring all others down that are my concern in that matter.

Nonetheless, I think we should have a greater emphasis on missions, and perhaps a larger emphasis on mini-missions of various types for the youth before they graduate. Perhaps a 2 month mission where they basically study the scriptures and discuss things with other youth on these types of missions online during a summer break, or other such things.

I think the big thing is that missionaries have the time to devote to study and prayer...whereas many of those who do not go on these missions do not.  In many instances, it is by choice for those who choose not to go.  If there is to be a program that helps those who do not go on 2 year missions, I think it would be vital to have something that encourages them (even more than the church already does...and there is quite a bit of encouragement already) to do that study and prayer on their own to a degree that they can gain that testimony that helps them keep the commandments and stay strong in the church. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get where the stake leaders are coming from, and in our church it is difficult to measure many things that are intangible such as the relative faithfulness of the members, why people go inactive etc. but on something where their is data we should chase those numbers.  I think that by encouraging youth to serve missions you are playing the odds.  The more that serve more will remain active.  We are creating building blocks for our church a generation from now. 

Now you fell in the 9% I think that's great but even you have to admit that you are the exception and not the rule. 

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Our goal should be tailored to each young man (also the YW) to help them improve their upbringing- more positive experiences doing righteous things and helping them develop a real and stronger testimony of Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father and his plan for u

I agree with this, and you will find that as the youth develop stronger testimonies there will be more of a desire to serve a full time mission. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I get where the stake leaders are coming from, and in our church it is difficult to measure many things that are intangible such as the relative faithfulness of the members, why people go inactive etc. but on something where their is data we should chase those numbers.  I think that by encouraging youth to serve missions you are playing the odds.  The more that serve more will remain active.  We are creating building blocks for our church a generation from now. 

Now you fell in the 9% I think that's great but even you have to admit that you are the exception and not the rule. 

I agree with this, and you will find that as the youth develop stronger testimonies there will be more of a desire to serve a full time mission. 

Amd thats kind of my point I was driving at- by placing the emphasis on building stronger testimonies we have a greater odds of retaining members across the board. I tend to think that youth leaders themselves dont have a very high influence on the percentage of youth who serve missions. I think in general most youth who go on missions make up that decision based mostly on the influence and interactions in their homes and family relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

If all we did as youth leaders is make "serving an honorable mission" our ultimate goal then we miss the mark entirely. Our goal should be tailored to each young man (also the YW) to help them improve their upbringing- more positive experiences doing righteous things and helping them develop a real and stronger testimony of Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father and his plan for us.

I don't really disagree with what you have written. But...

  • "You should serve a mission because it will help you be strong and remain committed to the gospel in your middle age."
  • "You should pay your tithing because then God will open the windows of heaven and take care of you."
  • "You should go to the temple because that will get you lots of blessings in heaven."
  • "You should do your Church calling with diligence because then God will bless you at home."

Some or all of these may be true. And it's certain that obedience for any reason is better than disobedience. But somehow, the mindset in the above statements seems off. As long as we're focused intently on our own good and protection, we will be missing the larger point.

Ideally, you don't serve a mission for your own benefit. You serve a mission for the benefit of others. If you're not that charitable yet, then you serve a mission because it's a commandment of God and you want to do your duty. The blessings that accrue to you because of your missionary service are "bonus points", and almost all of them come from the natural results of dedicating your time and efforts to serving God and your fellow man.

I think we should teach our sons that (1) missions are a way to serve others and quit worrying about ourselves; (2) God has commanded us to prepare ourselves for missionary service; and maybe (3) by the way, much good will come to your own soul by such service, even beyond the possibility of learning to speak another language poorly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I don't really disagree with what you have written. But...

  • "You should serve a mission because it will help you be strong and remain committed to the gospel in your middle age."
  • "You should pay your tithing because then God will open the windows of heaven and take care of you."
  • "You should go to the temple because that will get you lots of blessings in heaven."
  • "You should do your Church calling with diligence because then God will bless you at home."

Some or all of these may be true. And it's certain that obedience for any reason is better than disobedience. But somehow, the mindset in the above statements seems off. As long as we're focused intently on our own good and protection, we will be missing the larger point.

Ideally, you don't serve a mission for your own benefit. You serve a mission for the benefit of others. If you're not that charitable yet, then you serve a mission because it's a commandment of God and you want to do your duty. The blessings that accrue to you because of your missionary service are "bonus points", and almost all of them come from the natural results of dedicating your time and efforts to serving God and your fellow man.

I think we should teach our sons that (1) missions are a way to serve others and quit worrying about ourselves; (2) God has commanded us to prepare ourselves for missionary service; and maybe (3) by the way, much good will come to your own soul by such service, even beyond the possibility of learning to speak another language poorly.

I think its a great goal for young men to prepare and serve a mission. The positives that come from serving surpass any other reason for not going. The reality is that most young men wont serve a mission regardless of our desires for them. So, my hope is that we are still doing what we can, perhaps working harder with those youth who dont go, so that their testimonies are strong and they have a connection with heaven as they go out on their own into the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I went on my mission some 30 years ago, the big shocker i had was that some missionaries were just there to please their parents or because they thought they couldn't get a wife if they didn't go.  I was shocked that someone would dedicate two years of their life on such shallow reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bytebear said:

When I went on my mission some 30 years ago, the big shocker i had was that some missionaries were just there to please their parents or because they thought they couldn't get a wife if they didn't go.  I was shocked that someone would dedicate two years of their life on such shallow reasons.

For the most part, it doesn't matter WHAT the reason is they go, but THAT they go.  When viewing it as a place where not only do they proselyte the gospel, but when immersed in it they get the opportunity, 24 hours a day, to learn about it themselves and hopefully be converted, THAT's one of the most important parts of a mission.  That does not mean they will, but MANY who do not have a testimony will gain it while on their mission.  Some sooner (MTC), some later (while in the field), but they grow from simple belief to a knowledge for themselves.

Missions are some of the strong building blocks of the LDS church, both for finding converts who are seeking the true gospel, as well as the members themselves that are on the missions.

Pleasing one's parents can be a powerful motivater...on the otherhand, I'm not so sure going on a mission really helps one get a wife...it probably helps with those who need to develop social skills though.  I'm certain there are some that go for that reason, but I can't see that reason keeping them out in the field for long.  Eventually something else has to happen or give them more reason than that I would think, though it is possible that someone stuck out two years for some odd reason that they actually thought this would help them get a wife.

There are far more Non-LDS women than Mormon, and most of them are not that impressed about someone spending two years in a religious mission, especially on a Mormon Mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

If all we did as youth leaders is make "serving an honorable mission" our ultimate goal then we miss the mark entirely. Our goal should be tailored to each young man (also the YW) to help them improve their upbringing- more positive experiences doing righteous things and helping them develop a real and stronger testimony of Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father and his plan for us. Then, those who want to serve missions are more prepared and those who dont end up serving missions or go inactive will have the security measure in place that will help retain their connectivity in the church or pull them back into activity later on. The end result, or goal is tge question-  what are we as youth leaders doing to be with them more frequently helping create positive experiences and in that process how are we better connecting them with heaven?

I agree with this.

In my opinion, though, there is benefit to Young Men/Women Leaders to help the parents raise successful children rather than just concentrating on the children.  This is what I've observed with my husband (who has been in YM or Scouts leadership for the past decade).  I don't think he set out a plan to get parents involved but I think he just instinctively knows that if he can get the parents to pay attention to their children's spiritual upbringing instead of just leaving the matter to the Church or the YM/Scouts leadership, the kids will be more successful (in my husband's view - if the kid earns his Eagle and returns honorably from a mission, he marks it as success).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bytebear said:

When I went on my mission some 30 years ago, the big shocker i had was that some missionaries were just there to please their parents or because they thought they couldn't get a wife if they didn't go.  I was shocked that someone would dedicate two years of their life on such shallow reasons.

Neither pleasing one's parents nor upping one's chances of an eternal companion are not even a mile close to being shallow reasons.  I would be very happy if my children would go on a mission for either of these reasons.  That means they love and respect their parents very much that they want to please them - which is, after all, why we do all these things - because we want to please our Heavenly Father.  Or it means they are taking the commandment of Eternal Marriage seriously - after all, going on a mission is one of those spiritual experiences that prepare a young man to be a good husband and father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
12 hours ago, bytebear said:

When I went on my mission some 30 years ago, the big shocker i had was that some missionaries were just there to please their parents or because they thought they couldn't get a wife if they didn't go.  I was shocked that someone would dedicate two years of their life on such shallow reasons.

Growing up Catholic you can get confirmed at age 16 or so. You get to choose your own confirmation name and it's supposed to be a coming of age thing, regardless of it's spiritual side. In the Catholic world it's when you get the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. 

 Apparently, you can choose if you want to get confirmed or not but 99.9% of kids in my class who did so did so only because their parents said "You are getting confirmed." It made no sense to me at all at age 16, it makes no sense to me at 35.  I think going on a mission is slightly the same thing. A lot of kids (no, not all) go just because their parents say "You are going on a mission." 

"True freedom is doing what I tell you to do."-Shift the Ape from the Chronicles of Narnia. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better living through statistical guidance can be a good enough thing, but you have to be careful.  Understanding that a thing tends to happen, is not the same thing as understanding why.  Nor does it speak to the desirableness or lack thereof, in attaining the statistic.  We must fill all those gaps in for ourselves. 

The foundation should be "I want my kids/ward youth to be good disciples of Christ, because the plan of happiness is about the best we can do here on earth.  They tell me a good way to reach that goal, is to be active in the church.  They tell me a good way to stay active, is to serve a mission.  Therefore, let's devote efforts to making that happen."

I once met a missionary who flat out admitted he hadn't even really thought about whether God existed or not.  He was there, he said, because it was just expected of him since birth.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's not one of the 71% still active in his '40's.

 

Quote

 The flip side was that only 9% of LDS men remained active at 40 who didn't serve missions.

Yay!  I'm a nine-percenter!  My mommy always said I was special!  To reinforce my point above, what exactly do we really know about this 9%?  You want your son to grow up to be a moderator of a discussion forum with a bizarre passion for little girls' cartoon shows?  Won't that knock him out of any respectable dating pool? :)

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I once met a missionary who flat out admitted he hadn't even really thought about whether God existed or not.  He was there, he said, because it was just expected of him since birth.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's not one of the 71% still active in his '40's.

 

And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he found God on his mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yay!  I'm a nine-percenter!  My mommy always said I was special!  To reinforce my point above, what exactly do we really know about this 9%?  You want your son to grow up to be a moderator of a discussion forum with a bizarre passion for little girls' cartoon shows?  Won't that knock him out of any respectable dating pool? :)

 

Well... you met a woman who likes funny-looking chickens, so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive seen many a missionary come home and get married, cheat on their spouse, get divorced and fall away from the church. So, I can understand the new qualification questions. In my mind those types make up the general masses in the 30% who did serve but remain inactive. They never had a true or strong testimony of Jesus Christ. A more fitting question or statistic might be- what percentage of LDS who develop a strong testimony in their youth and are raised in a good traditional family upbringing remain active at 40? Now, of course it wouldnt be ethical to make such an actual study as what truly defines a real testimony and good upbringing, but nevertheless we all know that the family environment has the greatest effect on membership retainment later on in life. Being a good mentor as a leader also has an effect but tge impact is much much smaller. Now, if leaders can help make their youth home environments better that would have a great effect. But, as is the sad case, the traditional family is eroding at a rapid pace. As leaders we can offset the ramifications to some degree but in most part the damage is mostly already done. As always, Im open to others interpretations and wisdom in helping solve or alleviate this problem in even the smallest of degrees..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

For the most part, it doesn't matter WHAT the reason is they go, but THAT they go.  When viewing it as a place where not only do they proselyte the gospel, but when immersed in it they get the opportunity, 24 hours a day, to learn about it themselves and hopefully be converted, THAT's one of the most important parts of a mission.  That does not mean they will, but MANY who do not have a testimony will gain it while on their mission.  Some sooner (MTC), some later (while in the field), but they grow from simple belief to a knowledge for themselves.

Missions are some of the strong building blocks of the LDS church, both for finding converts who are seeking the true gospel, as well as the members themselves that are on the missions.

Pleasing one's parents can be a powerful motivater...on the otherhand, I'm not so sure going on a mission really helps one get a wife...it probably helps with those who need to develop social skills though.  I'm certain there are some that go for that reason, but I can't see that reason keeping them out in the field for long.  Eventually something else has to happen or give them more reason than that I would think, though it is possible that someone stuck out two years for some odd reason that they actually thought this would help them get a wife.

There are far more Non-LDS women than Mormon, and most of them are not that impressed about someone spending two years in a religious mission, especially on a Mormon Mission.

When I was growing up, quite a bit of the local and stake leadership made it *explicit* that young women were not to consider any potential spouse who wasn't a returned missionary. If a guy hadn't served, he wasn't worth their time. 

No questions asked. 

If these individuals grew up in such an area, then I can see how they'd feel considerable pressure. 

 

 

And people wonder why I'm still single...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive never liked the position of teaching one should look for a returned missionary. Me and my wife once walked out on a fireside because the speaker was addressing the youth and saying that they shouldnt even bother looking at someone to marry if they werent LDS, that they werent the same class. Im just not into that whole checklist thing we as LDS fall into. I have seen many LDS marriages fail lately around where I live. People should marry who they believe are best matched to them. Good people are both inside and outside of the church- we all are Gods children seeking the same eternal goal. I married my wife who wasnt a member but who now is. I couldnt imagine anyone else, we were meant for each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 4:28 PM, Ironhold said:

Speaking from personal experience? 

I wonder how many of those people who didn't serve a mission dropped away because individuals in their ward or stake gave them nothing but grief about the matter. 

I would say there are many in this boat. I chose to go into the military rather than go on a mission and I took incoming fire from all directions for about 6 months before I left for Boot Camp. The only mistake I made was to tell anyone I had joined. I should have just waited till about 2 weeks prior to leaving for boot and I'm sure my life would have been much more peaceful. Parents treated me OK although one spent considerable time  dangling college tuition, new car, tuition and car etc in front of me if I went on a mission, but it didn't work. I think they honestly thought I was going to hell for not going on a mission. Also was told no self-respecting LDS girl would marry a non-RM. I was like well dad didn't go on a mission, why did you marry him? Well there was a war going on- that was different. Ok- whatever.

I don't believe that the mission is what keeps people active or whatever. I think it is more because of how they are raised, having a solid family life at home and just general good examples at home. 

If the mission is what keeps YM from leaving the church before they are 40 ish, what then is the reason a ton of our General Authorities both past and present have stayed around? I mean heck tons of them served in a war and didn't go on a mission, but somehow they end up in the church senior leadership?? How does that happen? If anyone has served in a war ( I mean in real combat, not paper pushing or wrench turning) they will see some pretty horrific things that will shake your faith in mankind and possibly your Maker to put it lightly. If there was ever a recipe for making someone either not believe in God or believe more strongly than ever before it is service in combat.

A couple examples of people who didn't go on missions and turned out ok:

Lets look at Pres Monson for example:
Bday - 8-21-1927, end of WW2 Sept 2 1945 (remember these dates)

Joined the Navy during WW2. His contract released him from the military 6 mos after the end of WW2. I have not found a date when he joined the Navy, but his discharge would have him at 18.5 yrs old.

Think about that- 18.5 yrs old and he had already been in the military and back again. He got married in 1948. So for three years he went to school and did whatever. No mission and yet he ended up being the Pres of the Church. One would have thought that being 18.5 yrs old and no war going on it would have been the time to go on a mission, but it wasn't.

How about Russell Nielsen? Born 1924, graduated college in 1945 at age 21. How he didn't end up in the war is a mystery to me, but he was 21 when it ended and he ended up finishing med school. Served in Korean war. 

Here is another one- no inclination to go on a mission when he easily could have gone, yet he ends up as the Pres of the Church also.

I'm not citing these two in order to disrespect them, I bring this up because the lack of serving a mission is no indicator of what someone may do in the future. Both of them could have served missions but they both chose not to-----for whatever reason.

No one went on missions then. You see back then, no one cared and if you went to the war you were set for life. If you didn't end up in the war and still didn't go on a mission, well no one cared about that either. 

Now if you go the war (which we do have one going on BTW) you are a turd. The military is a bad place to be and the only reason any LDS person should be there is AFTER they serve a full time mission. The only option is a mission and then you get treated like a hero when you get back---well for a couple days at least and then everyone reverts back to not caring.

I think if we just treated those who didn't go on a mission with a bit more civility instead of awarding them 2nd class citizen status in the church we would have a much better retention rate.

Just my 2 cents

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought of this, but for as long as I can recall, the young men were compelled to get their Eagle badge. Why??? Oh because that made their odds of going on a mission much higher. How true that is can be debated, but what do we do now that the church is dumping the BSA???

No more Eagle scouts or pretty soon we wont have any. Does that mean no one will now go on a mission?

 

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Just thought of this, but for as long as I can recall, the young men were compelled to get their Eagle badge. Why??? Oh because that made their odds of going on a mission much higher. How true that is can be debated, but what do we do now that the church is dumping the BSA???

No more Eagle scouts or pretty soon we wont have any. Does that mean no one will now go on a mission?

 

This is silly.

The Eagle badge is just a piece of fabric and a medal.  The experiences that qualify you to receive the Eagle badge is what raises your odds of going on a mission and returning from it with honor.  Going on a mission is A TOUGH thing - mentally, physically, psychologically.  Resiliency and able Leadership are qualities that are trained onto the Boy Scouts.  Of course, you don't need the BSA to gain these qualities.  You can create your own plan to gain these on your own, or you can continue to follow the path of the Eagle without the merit badges.

In any case, having your children gain skills in mental acuity, physical stamina, responsibility, leadership, etc in addition to his spiritual preparation will greatly improve your children's chances of being prepared to go on a full mission and return with honor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is silly.

The Eagle badge is just a piece of fabric and a medal.  The experiences that qualify you to receive the Eagle badge is what raises your odds of going on a mission and returning from it with honor.  Going on a mission is A TOUGH thing - mentally, physically, psychologically.  Resiliency and able Leadership are qualities that are trained onto the Boy Scouts.  Of course, you don't need the BSA to gain these qualities.  You can create your own plan to gain these on your own, or you can continue to follow the path of the Eagle without the merit badges.

In any case, having your children gain skills in mental acuity, physical stamina, responsibility, leadership, etc in addition to his spiritual preparation will greatly improve your children's chances of being prepared to go on a full mission and return with honor.

Tell that to bro David beck. He went on a speaking tour to scout leaders about 5 yrs ago....or maybe more. Was banging on the pulpit on a sat  afternoon telling us we suck as scout leaders cuz not enough boys were getting their eagles. And because of that they also would be less likely to go on a mission. 

I never bought into to it esp since there are so many merit badge factories and fake eagles in the church anyway. Strange correlation  to cheat on merit badges and the eagle and somehow you are more likely to serve a mission....hmmm wierd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that just less than a year ago I was Scout master in my ward, totally gung-ho pushing all alike to get their eagle. Then, a series of events took place that pretty much changed everything. Our stake started a program practice that lasted a few months taking the place of mutual, then came Scout camp and the staff at camp was less than satisfactory. I was made YM president. Then a week later our ward boundaries changed and our youth numbers tripled overnight. Comvine with all this the new YM program and our scout program suddenly isnt the focus anymore- no longer the activity arm of the priesthood. It left me wondering and in my training I learned why. Youth, especially YM, are not prepared to go out into the world with a firm testimony of Jesus Christ, nor able to fulfill their priesthood duties nor are prepared for their divine roles as husbands and fathers. The scout program doesnt really address those things directly. At scout camp this last summer I noted this in that nothing they do at camp, from the BSA side, prepares them in tge spiritual side in fulfilling priesthood duties, building their testimony in Jesus Christ, nor helps them in preparing them fir their divine roles as husbands and fathers. The leaders themselves can use the BSA program in ways to relate them to these things even teaching them life skills but the truth is the BSA program doesnt teach boys how to fast and pray, how to build faith in Jesus Christ, how to treat their future children and spouse, etc.

I am still very much enthused to push scouts for those who want to earn their eagle but no longer do I have the drive to use the BSA program to run or take the place of our youth programs. And all that in less than a year! Im interested to see what changes are next as tge churches teaching programs for the youth are rapidly changing to counter the destruction of the family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not have time to review all the posts in this thread, but the title of it struck me because I do think statistics sometimes does become too much of a focus.  Home Teaching for example has become a monthly reporting campaign to get numbers reported, and I routinely get text messages to report my home teaching as opposed to "Hey, how is so and so doing".  I know the numbers are important for a lot of reasons, but I think the focus sometimes shifts too much to the numbers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share