Missionary Numbers - stats, ugh.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, paracaidista508 said:

So the standard really hasn't changed then except for perhaps the timeline. When I was that age they could have sex / girlfriend and go a few weeks later...Now its a few months maybe. Well that is not a higher bar.

What's your timeline on repentance/forgiveness?

I'd dare assume that typically a few weeks is not enough to repent of serious sexual sin. But I am not the Lord, a bishop, or otherwise.

The higher bar is "worthy". I don't set the standard on how long it takes to repent of any given sin to become worthy.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, paracaidista508 said:

...just repent and you are good.

That's the way repentance works.

[Guest MormonGator]

23 minutes ago, Grunt said:

There is SO much more to it than that.  If I remember, I’ll break it down tonight.  

Thanks, I knew you'd have the answer. 

Sorry for my ignorance everyone. I grew up in a family that had very little connection to the military-my Grandfather fought in WW II but he never talked about to his own children, much less his grandchildren. Nor should he have, in my view.

[The Folk Prophet]

19 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

To help bring them to Christ.

Would someone who has been brought to Christ not want to and be worthy to serve a mission?

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I don't know I was AP

Well whoopty-flippin-do. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

I think I understand. My only hang up is this. I had a companion who grew up in his older brother’s home who was a pretty big time drug dealer in AZ. Difficult to get along with but holy cow did he do amazing things on his mission.

One of the best zone leaders I ever had was hated in his stake because he had took the virginity of many of the young women. He too did amazing things on his mission and was an amazing leader that taught me so much about what a good missionary is.

Another great missionary that exhibited more love than  could ever hope for grew up in Vegas, had a tattoo on his thigh and was huge into partying before his mission. He was and is one of the most kind and bold people I know. True liver of charity.

I could probably think of more examples if I thought hard enough, but I won’t.

these are definitely exceptions. But my fear is that there are leaders that look at youth and say “they will never serve a mission so let’s try to get them to church as often as we can”.

I think its just viewing it from different angles. I grew up in that mentality of trying to live up to serving a mission as it appeared that was the sole goal of my leaders. Well, my mother got deathly ill and we (me and some of my siblings) went from planning for missions to drug and alcohol abusers, fornicators, liars, thieves, etc. In fact, almost our entire young mens group in that ward in Utah we attended was down that same exact dark path. Some ended up serving missions, lying their way in, others like myself and older brother decided  to just leave the church as going on a mission was no longer a goal and it appeared thats where tge YM leadership were so concerned with anyway. Besides, once we stopped going they basically shifted their focus anyway on the ones who woukd go. So then, ten years later why did some sister missionaries knock on my door and work so hard to get me to change? Why was it all of a sudden so important then but not in jy youth? The truth is that from Gods perspective it was never his will for my youth leaders to give up on me but rather the opposite and counsel to leave the 99 and find the lost one. So then, why d8dnt they heed that call and focus on bringing me back then? Because they knew I wasnt going to serve a mission or come back to the church. Nevermind they could have tried, even in the smallest of degrees, to help me along- find out what interested me and included me.

Anyway, the point is I have a very unique perspective and angle in that with my approach the youth actually have a better chance at serving a mission, going to the temple, raising a family, being an honorable priesthood holder, being a kind and loving father and husband, etc by teaching them the value of the worth of a soul and leaving the 99 to save the one and that through saving the one the 99 become master followers of Christ. 

Honestly, the results of making "serving an honest full time mission" a goal of the church is a failed or misdirected approach. It basically brainwashes youth into having to serve a mission to be accepted and that once you serve a mission you can do whatever- committ all manner of sins afterwards and all is good because after all- "I am a returned missionary". Dont get me wrong, I do want the youth to serve missions, but that isnt my end goal, nor is it my priority. Serving a mission is not a saving ordinance, getting ones endowment and marrying in the temple is. Thats where my focus is- helping each young man in progressing to that point. If they choose to serve a mission then great, its an added bonus. The shift must change though from looking after the 99 and forgetting the one to leaving the 99 and finding the one. 

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Would someone who has been brought to Christ not want to and be worthy to serve a mission?

Sure, but for most of them its not gonna hapoen when they are 21 years old and in jail on a grand theft charge. Maybe when they are 65 years old they will serve a mission with their spouse when they perhaps choose to join the church after they get out of jail. My hope is that everything I did with them as a youth acts as a tenticle to help pull them in after 30 years down the road. Thats my perspective. Thus you can see why I put little focus on serving a mission after high school as my goal, it means nothing in most peoples cases I work with. In my current stake the statistics are that only 1 in 10 of our youth on our membership records are serving missions. The stake president wants to push us to make it all of their priority. Thats great and all but the reality is that ten years from now that number will not have improved just by getting youth leaders to focus youth on serving missions. It hasnt worked in the past and it isnt gonna work in the future. You have to fix the disease and that disease is the bigger picture of fixing society one person at a time.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

 Thats great and all but the reality is that ten years from now that number will not have improved just by getting youth leaders to focus youth on serving missions

That's for sure. The problem of how to grow the church (at least in Europe and Canada/USA) won't be solved by adding more missionaries 

[Sunday21]

17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's for sure. The problem of how to grow the church (at least in Europe and Canada/USA) won't be solved by adding more missionaries 

I wonder if part of the answer is online missionary work. I could not find the stats but apparently Mormon.org has good results, perhaps because the victim, opps ...prospective convert..has to initiate. Also more online work would allow more disabled missionaries and more seniors to participate. 

[The Folk Prophet]

38 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Sure, but for most of them its not gonna hapoen when they are 21 years old and in jail on a grand theft charge. Maybe when they are 65 years old they will serve a mission with their spouse when they perhaps choose to join the church after they get out of jail. My hope is that everything I did with them as a youth acts as a tenticle to help pull them in after 30 years down the road. Thats my perspective. Thus you can see why I put little focus on serving a mission after high school as my goal, it means nothing in most peoples cases I work with. In my current stake the statistics are that only 1 in 10 of our youth on our membership records are serving missions. The stake president wants to push us to make it all of their priority. Thats great and all but the reality is that ten years from now that number will not have improved just by getting youth leaders to focus youth on serving missions. It hasnt worked in the past and it isnt gonna work in the future. You have to fix the disease and that disease is the bigger picture of fixing society one person at a time.

What exactly do you think is involved in "preparing" young men to serve missions?

What you're saying is true. But all you're talking about it the "how" instead of the "what".

The goal being to get young men to go on missions isn't a problem. The how of it is certainly worth considering.

[The Folk Prophet]

35 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The problem of how to grow the church (at least in Europe and Canada/USA) won't be solved by adding more missionaries 

This is not why we want to prepare every young man to go on a mission.

[zil]

36 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's for sure. The problem of how to grow the church (at least in Europe and Canada/USA) won't be solved by adding more missionaries 

No, but the number of faithful missionaries can be a good indicator of the strength of the Church, and if the Church membership is strong, the Church will grow.  See below.

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

This is not why we want to prepare every young man to go on a mission.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, zil said:

No, but the number of faithful missionaries can be a good indicator of the strength of the Church, and if the Church membership is strong, the Church will grow.

Time will tell. 

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Thanks, I knew you'd have the answer. 

Sorry for my ignorance everyone. I grew up in a family that had very little connection to the military-my Grandfather fought in WW II but he never talked about to his own children, much less his grandchildren. Nor should he have, in my view.

So, the stigma of enlisted being “uneducated” is a holdover from the old days and very unfortunate.  It’s difficult to get promot d far in enlisted ranks without a bachelors, and even harder to make Sergeant Major without a masters. 

Here it is in a nutshell:

Enlisted ranks are the junior soldiers with no to minimal experience. Typically you need minimal test scores and a HA diploma or GED to join.  

If enlisted Soldiers stay in long enough, and do well, they become noncommissioned officers.  To progress higher as a noncommissioned officer education is helpful and at some point required, though not officially.  

Many enlisted Soldiers join specifically for the education benefits.  National Guard is known for this because they serve one weekend a month and typically get free tuition and a stipend while in school.  

The next level is Warrant Officer.  If you have good test scores you and are an expert in your field you can become an officer through warrant.  Typically you must become an NCO ( noncommissioned Officer) before you can become a Warrant. Warrants are officers through expertise, not education. 

Officers are strategic leaders. You must have 60 college credits to enter the program, 90 credits to become an officer, and must complete a degree within a specified amount of time. You can become an officer through training, not experience.  It’s also not unusual for enlisted members to become officers once they complete their degrees. 

They all do different, but equally important, jobs.  One of my best enlisted Soldiers was a law professor who wanted to be an NCO and didn’t pursue a commission. You’ll find varying levels of education in all the ranks.  

Hope this helps. 

[NeedleinA]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Based on several other posts you’ve made, @paracaidista508, I was under the impression you hadn’t served a mission.

Unless I'm confused, it appears to be more than an impression, rather a 'statement'?

On 3/11/2018 at 5:59 AM, paracaidista508 said:

After getting out of the military, I didn't have much difficulty getting dates in the singles ward. I did have one girl cut a date short though once she found out I didn't go on a mission .

Are there zone leaders outside of missions that I'm missing?

 

[omegaseamaster75]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well whoopty-flippin-do. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

  5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I agree with the idea that some rules are less effective -- perhaps even end up being theoretically detrimental in some cases. But I also believe that obedience brings blessings, and that is even more true when it comes to missionary work. The missionary who strictly follows all "rules" will be more effective as a missionary than the one who blows them off, even if the rules are theoretically less than perfect.

See highlighted part. Sometimes the rules make you less effective. 

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Hope this helps. 

Very much so. Thanks bud. 

[e-eye]

4 hours ago, Fether said:

I served 2 years ago

Just talking about this with a friend.  I understand the raising the bar and worthiness is a great part of it but the atonement still works.  When I was a kid it seemed like all the young men were caught up in sin and they straightened their lives out and went on a mission and were great missionaries.  I think the biggest part about being a missionary now is being better prepared in all aspects but I still see and hear of kids who messed up pretty seriously and they repent and go serve.  

[zil]

2 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

  5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I agree with the idea that some rules are less effective -- perhaps even end up being theoretically detrimental in some cases. But I also believe that obedience brings blessings, and that is even more true when it comes to missionary work. The missionary who strictly follows all "rules" will be more effective as a missionary than the one who blows them off, even if the rules are theoretically less than perfect.

See highlighted part. Sometimes the rules make you less effective. 

IMO, the idea of the rules making a missionary less effective requires one to make assumptions about what "effective" means.  The longer I spend in my current calling, the more certain I am that things like "number of baptisms" or "time spent preaching the gospel" are probably not the correct measures of whether a missionary is being effective, but "exactness in obeying priesthood leaders (aka rules)" is a correct measure of whether a missionary is effective.

In other words, the world teaches us to measure the outcome against our personal wishes / expectations.  I think the Lord is trying to teach us to be concerned with doing exactly what we have been commanded (and He will worry about the outcome).

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

  5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I agree with the idea that some rules are less effective -- perhaps even end up being theoretically detrimental in some cases. But I also believe that obedience brings blessings, and that is even more true when it comes to missionary work. The missionary who strictly follows all "rules" will be more effective as a missionary than the one who blows them off, even if the rules are theoretically less than perfect.

See highlighted part. Sometimes the rules make you less effective. 

I'm not following. You said you became the AP. Are you under the impression that that fact alone means you were more effective as a missionary than you would have been if you had been strictly obedient all the time?

Don't get me wrong. I had my less than perfectly obedient times too. Plenty of them. This isn't some high-n-mighty holier-than-thou thing. It's a principle of right.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

That's for sure. The problem of how to grow the church (at least in Europe and Canada/USA) won't be solved by adding more missionaries 

I am naive enough to believe that "growing the Church" per se is not a high priority for the leading councils of the Church. Under the assumptions that (1) Christ's sheep hear his voice and (2) many of Christ's sheep live among the peoples of the earth and need to be found, seeing to the Church's growth is assumed as a necessary step to accomplishing its missionary duties. I know full well that some mission presidents and even seventies have put great stress on baptizing many people, but I bet when the First Presidency meets, their agenda topics don't include "we need to figure out how to baptize more people".

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

things like "number of baptisms" or "time spent preaching the gospel" are probably not the correct measures of whether a missionary is being effective

Or whether one became AP or not.

[omegaseamaster75]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not following. You said you became the AP. Are you under the impression that that fact alone means you were more effective as a missionary than you would have been if you had been strictly obedient all the time?

Don't get me wrong. I had my less than perfectly obedient times too. Plenty of them. This isn't some high-n-mighty holier-than-thou thing. It's a principle of right.

I almost never mention that I was AP on my mission. Mostly because I was not the most obedient (even though I was very effective), I may also mention that my mission president was full aware of my imperfections.  I think the point I am trying to make is that sometimes the rules can get in the way of effectiveness as a missionary.

For the record I would not encourage our missionaries to not obey the rules.  I would advise that they strictly obey all the rules even the nonsensical ones. 

 

[omegaseamaster75]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Or whether one became AP or not.

Said the guy who wasn't

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I am naive enough to believe that "growing the Church" per se is not a high priority for the leading councils of the Church. Under the assumptions that (1) Christ's sheep hear his voice and (2) many of Christ's sheep live among the peoples of the earth and need to be found, seeing to the Church's growth is assumed as a necessary step to accomplishing its missionary duties. I know full well that some mission presidents and even seventies have put great stress on baptizing many people, but I bet when the First Presidency meets, their agenda topics don't include "we need to figure out how to baptize more people".

That's fine and I'm sure you and @zil are correct. Practically speaking though,  with decreasing birth rates and growth not doing well, something has to change or the future looks very difficult for sustainability. Maybe it's the businessman in me talking.