Missionary Numbers - stats, ugh.

[JohnsonJones]

In @omegaseamaster75 defense, I think what he is pointing out is not that missionary rules are unimportant, or that obedience is unimportant, in fact he stated

23 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

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. 

He thus states he would advise that they strictly obey the rules.  However, he was pointing out that if you count an effective missionary as one that baptizes more than others, the rules may be a restriction...which I can see and agree with.

However, overall, I think his point (and he can correct me if I am wrong) was that there are rules that are just that...rules...and that one is not necessarily a bad person if they fail to follow some of these minor rules, and, in fact, in some instances could be a better person or more effective.

A prime example would be, for example, the Lord where he and his apostles were eating food on Sunday and they were questioned about this.  The Lord then basically said commonsense overrides the rules men set upon themselves.

That said, I may not expressely agree with @omegaseamaster75 points in the thread, but I think they have been largely lost in our conversations regarding how important or unimportant it is that one was an AP.

I think the more central aspect of contention here, or at least dispute, is the differences between following the Letter of the Law vs. following the Spirit of the Law.

In my opinion, if one is to keep the Spirit of the Law, keeping the Letter of the Law is the basic beginning of that.  One needs to keep the Letter of the Law and from there they can go on to the Spirit of the Law.  The Spirit of the Law is only MORE strict and severe than the Letter of the Law.

For example, people talk about the commandment to not commit adultery (which encapusates fornication as well).  This is the letter of the Law.  The Spirit of the Law is more than this.  To begin with, as we learn from the HIGHER law found in the Beatitudes, one should not even look upon a woman (or another of the opposite gender) to lust after them, even privately.  Taking this even further, we can see the more in tune with the Spirit of the law we are, the more restrictive the law actually IS.  The letter of the Law is simply the easiest and most basic form which is the lowest form that one should follow.

At least in my personal view.

I think that the disagreements are not how obedient an missionary is if we get to the heart of it, but what we define as obeying the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The Spirit of the Law is only MORE strict and severe than the Letter of the Law.

Double thumbs up.

[The Folk Prophet]

20 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think that the disagreements are not how obedient an missionary is if we get to the heart of it, but what we define as obeying the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.

I think that some do not believe the same as you have suggested about the spirit of the law being more strict. There seems to be an idea that some allude to that the spirit of the law is to let go of the letter for the sake of the result...a la an ends justifies the means type ideology. This sort of premise seems moderately common.

[Colirio]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

Pairs of elders cannot teach single women without another male present.  There are circumstances when another male just isn’t available.  The rule prevents two particular missionaries from teaching a particular woman—not now, and depending on what happens in the future, maybe [in this life] not ever.  These missionaries’ short-term effectiveness is compromised, in order to promote the long-term effectiveness of LDS missionaries as a whole (by avoiding situations that might give rise to a reputation for sexual misconduct).

 

I see where you are coming from, but...

 

 

The member from the Elder's quorum that should have accompanied them missed out on faith promoting experiences that would have brought him closer to Jesus Christ because two missionaries would break a rule to teach a lone woman. Helped her? Maybe. Helped him, too? Nope. 

 

The fact is that missionaries are called to bring souls to Jesus Christ. Compromising the rules, unless absolutely directed to do so by the Spirit, is less effective in accomplishing that goal 100% of the time.

 

Anecdotal tales of miracles performed through the breaking of rules leads me to believe that:

1. Someone else probably missed out on the blessings they could have received.

2. The story has become so stretched that the missionary himself probably doesn't remember the truth anymore. 

Edited April 13, 2018 by Colirio

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Colirio said:

Anecdotal tales of miracles performed through the breaking of rules leads me to believe that:

1. Someone else probably missed out on the blessings they could have received.

2. The story has become so stretched that the missionary himself probably doesn't remember the truth anymore. 

Maybe.

There is the idea that the Lord does His work in spite of our failings...perhaps sometimes even through them.

Mind you, I agree with the idea that overall effectiveness will always be better served through our obedience.

[Colirio]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe.

There is the idea that the Lord does His work in spite of our failings...perhaps sometimes even through them.

Absolutely agree.

 

The Lord is capable of doing His own work. 

 

I also believe that blessings are missed due to disobedience. Fortunately, the Atonement of Jesus Christ is there for us. 

[Guest]

There are some Miracles the Lord performs because it is fore-ordained, regardless of obedience. There are some provided as blessings for righteousness.  And some provided as a direct answer to prayer of a penitent or otherwise humble soul.

[Colirio]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There are some Miracles the Lord performs because it is fore-ordained, regardless of obedience. There are some provided as blessings for righteousness.  And some provided as a direct answer to prayer of a penitent or otherwise humble soul.

Of course.

 

That's not even the point I was making. I specifically mentioned anecdotal tales of miracles that occurred due to disobedience. 

[The Folk Prophet]

27 minutes ago, Colirio said:

Of course.

 

That's not even the point I was making. I specifically mentioned anecdotal tales of miracles that occurred due to disobedience. 

Hmm. Not sure about that. Well...depends on what the disobedience is to. The Lord? Then no miracle comes "due" (caused by) disobedience to the Lord.... Well...at least not to the doer of the disobedience. Disobedience to other stuff (even mission rules)...if the Lord commands the Lord commands and obedience is always right...even if it breaks a "rule".

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Colirio said:

Absolutely agree.

 

The Lord is capable of doing His own work. 

 

I also believe that blessings are missed due to disobedience. Fortunately, the Atonement of Jesus Christ is there for us. 

Let me be very clear that I am *not* intending to pan the concept of obedience or advocate disobedience.  My thoughts were more geared towards the rules/policies themselves.  I absolutely, 100% agree that a Church standard, once in place, needs to be obeyed until it is changed by those whose prerogative it is to change it; and I would strongly disagree with any suggestion that obedience per se limits a person’s divine blessings.

[askandanswer]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Each day we had to log what time we woke up, how many minutes we studied (both individually and with our companions), what time we left our apartment, what time we got back each night, what time we went to sleep, whether we spent more than a certain amount of time at members’ houses.  Any violation of a mission time standard was deemed a “disobedient act” (a “buraco”, which in Portuguese literally means “hole”); and zone “obedience” was ranked at mission conferences and in the mission newsletter by the number of “buracos” each zone had incurred for a given time period.

 

Mathew 23:4  For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

This seems to be a particularly pharisaical approach to obedience. My understanding that one of the main condemnations of the pharisees is that they tried too hard to be obedient to the law.

I'm so glad that I didn't serve in a mission like the above. For me, I think it might have been hard to avoid the impression that the Mission President didn't trust his missionaries, although, on the other hand, I guess it could also be interpreted as exercising an excess of caution, motivated by a sense of care and concern for his missionaries. 

One of the things to be careful about when pursuing exact obedience is that it can sometimes lead to a mind-set whereby we feel that we only have to do what we are told. Of course this is not always the case, and it can be guarded against, but it is perhaps something to be careful about. 

 

 

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

This seems to be a particularly pharisaical approach to obedience. My understanding that one of the main condemnations of the pharisees is that they tried too hard to be obedient to the law.

I am prone to be much more charitable to the mission president, who after all was only trying to find a way to instill and (hopefully) quantify the obedience of his missionaries. I agree that his bean-counting method was suboptimal and perhaps counterproductive, but calling him Pharisaical seems overkill.

Also, the condemnation of the Pharisees was never that they tried too hard to be obedient to the law. It was that they were stinking, lying hypocrites.

[zil]

5 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

My understanding that one of the main condemnations of the pharisees is that they tried too hard to be obedient to the law.

Actually, they made up laws around the laws (e.g. if the law says you can't get within 10 feet, the pharisees said you can't come within 15 feet) with the idea being that by creating this more strict version, you wouldn't come close to sinning.  Of course, these "fences around the law" were burdensome and obscured to true meaning of the law.

(They may have done other things too, but this was one of the things.)

[askandanswer]

I think its also important to consider the question of obedience to what/whom. The degree to which disobedience is wrong depends on who/what it is that you are disobeying. My guess is that disobeying a Zone Leader is not as bad as disobeying a Mission President, and "disobeying" a guideline is not as serious as disobeying a commandment. Disobeying, or acting in a manner inconsistent with a handbook of some sort might not always be as bad as disobeying one's common sense and good judgement. It is impossible to create a law/rule to properly address every possible kind of situation, and when it is obvious that the rule does not fit the situation, then consideration may need to be given to the extent to which the rule should be obeyed, modified, or disregarded. When there is doubt as to whether the rule fits the situation and how one should act, then it might be useful to let one's actions be guided more by motives and principles, in particular 

37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38  This is the first and great commandment.
39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
 

[Colirio]

3 hours ago, Colirio said:

Compromising the rules, unless absolutely directed to do so by the Spirit, is less effective in accomplishing that goal 100% of the time.

 

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. Not sure about that. Well...depends on what the disobedience is to. The Lord? Then no miracle comes "due" (caused by) disobedience to the Lord.... Well...at least not to the doer of the disobedience. Disobedience to other stuff (even mission rules)...if the Lord commands the Lord commands and obedience is always right...even if it breaks a "rule".

Agreed.

That's why I stated the above quote. 

 

And the truth is, for every "keep the Sabbath day holy," there are going to be stories of needing to get the ox out of the mire, Nephi killing Laban at the Spirit's command, etc. And as such, we can see why we need the Spirit in our lives to guide us. 

Edited April 14, 2018 by Colirio

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Colirio said:

That's not even the point I was making. I specifically mentioned anecdotal tales of miracles that occurred due to disobedience. 

I don't believe that is the way thing work.  I believe some Miracles may happen IN SPITE OF disobedience, but never DUE TO disobedience.

[FoolsMock]

OP, many of the youth are addicted to sexual sin and aren't worthy of serving because of that.  Older generations need to realize this and stop saying "Well when I was 18 there was no question about going"

 

When you were 18 internet and smart phone pornography did not exist.  

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, FoolsMock said:

OP, many of the youth are addicted to sexual sin and aren't worthy of serving because of that.  Older generations need to realize this and stop saying "Well when I was 18 there was no question about going"

 

When you were 18 internet and smart phone pornography did not exist.  

Even with the big issue, there should still be “no question about going”.

I get so frustrated at the concept that “we don’t NEED to go” or “I can serve a better mission by staying home”. The only place you hear that is from people who decide to stay for whatever reason.

I struggled with sexual sin before my mission. Well there was no question about going or not so I repented and served.

[FoolsMock]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

Even with the big issue, there should still be “no question about going”.

I get so frustrated at the concept that “we don’t NEED to go” or “I can serve a better mission by staying home”. The only place you hear that is from people who decide to stay for whatever reason.

I struggled with sexual sin before my mission. Well there was no question about going or not so I repented and served.

That is beautiful that all it took for you to stop sexual sinning was one-time repentance and then you were fine.  For most people, sexual sin is a monumental addiction that can seem impossible to be free from and you speak as if you have no idea how serious of a problem sexual addiction is to missionary aged men.  Some people are addicted to sexual sin for years.  They are addicted to practices that would not allow them to serve a mission.  So if someone is 18 or 21 or 22 and has spent years trying to break their addiction and they have no faith they are going to change and they are bogged down by the social expectations to serve a mission, what are they to do?  Tell every person who says "So when are you going?  It's taking a while...."?  "Oh, sorry, I'm addicted to masturbation and I've spent years trying to quit and I'm not making progress.  So to be honest, I would like to go, but I'm knee deep in this and I don't think I can quit and I can't sit around doing nothing with my life so the prospect of serving a mission is kind of on the back burner and I'm working or going to school and nursing this awful addiction"

 

I guarantee you this is the situation most young men who are not serving missions are in.  In my singles' ward, we are flooded with men addicted to such behavior and I'm sure for the high school crowd it's just as bad if not worse

Edited April 16, 2018 by FoolsMock

[Vort]

24 minutes ago, FoolsMock said:

OP, many of the youth are addicted to sexual sin and aren't worthy of serving because of that.  Older generations need to realize this and stop saying "Well when I was 18 there was no question about going"

When you were 18 internet and smart phone pornography did not exist.  

PROGRESS:

1980: "Nudity isn't that big a deal. It's natural. It's how God created us! People in the Church need to get over their sexual hang-ups. It's not like nudity leads to sex!"

1985: "Why all the worry about 'petting'? That's a 1950s term! Get with the times! A little kissing and affection isn't breaking the law of chastity! Sheez, people, lighten up!"

1990: "Porn? Seriously? 'Oh no, nekkid wimmen, now I must burn my eyes out of their sockets to repent!' Grow up.News flash, Nimrod: Boys have been sneaking peeks at naked women since people were put on earth. It's NOT a big deal. Your grandpa did it; your dad did it. Don't worry about it. It's normal kid stuff. Cosí fan tutti."

1995: "Quit with the 'oversexualizing' handwringing. So a boy has sex with his girlfriend. It's not the end of the world. Do you even know what the Old Testament penalty was for 'fornication'? Marriage! Not. A. Big. Deal."

2000: "You old farts are so sex-centered. Why is homosexuality a big deal? It's not like homo porn is going to 'convert' anyone to gayness. You need to get over your obsession with pornography."

2005: "The internet is awesome! How is porn a big deal? Guess what, Grandpa: You had porn, too! You think those Playboys were for the articles? The hypocrisy is stifling! Get a grip."

2010: "Come out of the Stone Age! Your sexual hang-ups are not my problem. Gay sex? Not my problem! Not a problem at all! Porn availability? Exercise some self-control! Get a filter! Sheesh, why do you always insist that everyone else adapt to your issues?"

2018: "YOU JUST DON'T KNOW HOW BAD IT IS! *sob* PORN EVERYWHERE! IT WASN'T LIKE THIS FOR YOU, BACK WHEN THINGS WERE PRISTINE! IT'S SOOOOO MUCH HARDER TODAY! YOU HAVE NO IDEA! DON'T JUDGE ME FOR MY PORN USAGE!"

Progress, indeed.

[FoolsMock]

22 minutes ago, Vort said:

PROGRESS:

1980: "Nudity isn't that big a deal. It's natural. It's how God created us! People in the Church need to get over their sexual hang-ups. It's not like nudity leads to sex!"

1985: "Why all the worry about 'petting'? That's a 1950s term! Get with the times! A little kissing and affection isn't breaking the law of chastity! Sheez, people, lighten up!"

1990: "Porn? Seriously? 'Oh no, nekkid wimmen, now I must burn my eyes out of their sockets to repent!' Grow up.News flash, Nimrod: Boys have been sneaking peeks at naked women since people were put on earth. It's NOT a big deal. Your grandpa did it; your dad did it. Don't worry about it. It's normal kid stuff. Cosí fan tutti."

1995: "Quit with the 'oversexualizing' handwringing. So a boy has sex with his girlfriend. It's not the end of the world. Do you even know what the Old Testament penalty was for 'fornication'? Marriage! Not. A. Big. Deal."

2000: "You old farts are so sex-centered. Why is homosexuality a big deal? It's not like homo porn is going to 'convert' anyone to gayness. You need to get over your obsession with pornography."

2005: "The internet is awesome! How is porn a big deal? Guess what, Grandpa: You had porn, too! You think those Playboys were for the articles? The hypocrisy is stifling! Get a grip."

2010: "Come out of the Stone Age! Your sexual hang-ups are not my problem. Gay sex? Not my problem! Not a problem at all! Porn availability? Exercise some self-control! Get a filter! Sheesh, why do you always insist that everyone else adapt to your issues?"

2018: "YOU JUST DON'T KNOW HOW BAD IT IS! *sob* PORN EVERYWHERE! IT WASN'T LIKE THIS FOR YOU, BACK WHEN THINGS WERE PRISTINE! IT'S SOOOOO MUCH HARDER TODAY! YOU HAVE NO IDEA! DON'T JUDGE ME FOR MY PORN USAGE!"

Progress, indeed.

You are mocking the leadership of the church's views on what today's youth are experiencing by equating internet porn (instant and free access to sexting, all styles of pornography, easier ways to identify willing individuals for physical or digital sexual interaction) to playboys and VHS tapes

You have no idea what you are talking about and when my teenage and young adult children have the opportunity for virtual reality pornography and farther advancements in pornography, I am not going to downplay how much harder they have it compared to what I went through.

 

In seconds, a high schooler or recent graduate can have any sort of sexual stimulation they yearn for.  Smart phones and the internet changed things and have turned pornography into an issue it wasn't in previous decades. 

 

Edit: If I misunderstood your post, I'm sorry.  I couldn't quite tell what you are getting at.  The world may have mocked the church's views on pornography over the years you listed, but I don't think many believing members of the church growing up during those years disagreed with the church's stance, they're just addicted and doing destructive things they feel constant compulsion to do

 

 

I am 29, active in my single's ward and this month I hit three years free from sexual addiction that I was addicted to from 14 to 26.  I used to be very involved with my singles ward's anti-pornography program to share my story and be a voice to addicts that they can change and it is eye opening, when you really get involved with those things, to see how many men in your ward are addicted to these things.  My bishop is an amazing man.  A number of bishops in my stake are involved in this program.  None of them play the "we had porn in the 60s-80s too, ya know?" card.  Because it's not the same situation. 

 

 

So for people in this thread who want to SINCERELY know (not just throw up their hands and say "pornography was around back in 1975 when I was 18 too!  It was the same sort of temptation you kids go through. That can't be the reason missionary numbers are low, it's because millennials are lazy and godless!") why missionary numbers are down, do some research, and you'll find out how big of an issue this is to Mormon youth

 

And if you want to disregard the sexual addictions today's instant access to pornography has caused to Mormon youth, then enjoy the low missionary numbers because you aren't going to make any progress with any sexual addict by telling them "well we could get our hands on playboys.  You lot just aren't trying hard enough!" when the smart phone in their pocket can get them connected to any sort of pornography or sexual interaction with a girl their addiction wants, in seconds to an hour. 

Edited April 16, 2018 by FoolsMock

[Vort]

23 minutes ago, FoolsMock said:

You are mocking the leadership of the church's views on what today's youth are experiencing

Yeah, um...no.

23 minutes ago, FoolsMock said:

You have no idea what you are talking about

Yeah, um...wrong.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, FoolsMock said:

That is beautiful that all it took for you to stop sexual sinning was one-time repentance and then you were fine.  For most people, sexual sin is a monumental addiction that can seem impossible to be free from and you speak as if you have no idea how serious of a problem sexual addiction is to missionary aged men.  Some people are addicted to sexual sin for years.  They are addicted to practices that would not allow them to serve a mission.  So if someone is 18 or 21 or 22 and has spent years trying to break their addiction and they have no faith they are going to change and they are bogged down by the social expectations to serve a mission, what are they to do?  Tell every person who says "So when are you going?  It's taking a while...."?  "Oh, sorry, I'm addicted to masturbation and I've spent years trying to quit and I'm not making progress.  So to be honest, I would like to go, but I'm knee deep in this and I don't think I can quit and I can't sit around doing nothing with my life so the prospect of serving a mission is kind of on the back burner and I'm working or going to school and nursing this awful addiction"

 

I guarantee you this is the situation most young men who are not serving missions are in.  In my singles' ward, we are flooded with men addicted to such behavior and I'm sure for the high school crowd it's just as bad if not worse

I was involved with sexual addiction from age 8-18. I know the struggle.

Im not saying it is easy, nor am I saying that everyone should just suck it up, be like me and repent. I honestly don’t know why I was able to put it behind me while others can’t.

What I am saying is that it is not an excuse or reason to say “I choose not to serve a mission”. However, there are many valiant young men and women struggling with sexual sin that can’t get out of it that are still striving to prepare themselves for a missions. To them I pray for and hope the very best for. And if they are still struggling past the age they are able to serve, I congratulate  (<— maybe not the best word) them on their struggle and hope they continue to strive through the addiction.

It’s those that decide “I don’t want to because of ‘x’” that ought to repent of their attitude. There should be no doubt in any of our minds that we should serve.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Fether

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, FoolsMock said:

I am 29, active in my single's ward and this month I hit three years free from sexual addiction that I was addicted to from 14 to 26.  I used to be very involved with my singles ward's anti-pornography program to share my story and be a voice to addicts that they can change and it is eye opening, when you really get involved with those things, to see how many men in your ward are addicted to these things.  My bishop is an amazing man.  A number of bishops in my stake are involved in this program.  None of them play the "we had porn in the 60s-80s too, ya know?" card.  Because it's not the same situation. 

1

Men are attracted to women.  There are naked women in porn.  Men have access to porn. Men make bad decisions.  Men should make good decisions

[erog84]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

PROGRESS:

1980: "Nudity isn't that big a deal. It's natural. It's how God created us! People in the Church need to get over their sexual hang-ups. It's not like nudity leads to sex!"

1985: "Why all the worry about 'petting'? That's a 1950s term! Get with the times! A little kissing and affection isn't breaking the law of chastity! Sheez, people, lighten up!"

1990: "Porn? Seriously? 'Oh no, nekkid wimmen, now I must burn my eyes out of their sockets to repent!' Grow up.News flash, Nimrod: Boys have been sneaking peeks at naked women since people were put on earth. It's NOT a big deal. Your grandpa did it; your dad did it. Don't worry about it. It's normal kid stuff. Cosí fan tutti."

1995: "Quit with the 'oversexualizing' handwringing. So a boy has sex with his girlfriend. It's not the end of the world. Do you even know what the Old Testament penalty was for 'fornication'? Marriage! Not. A. Big. Deal."

2000: "You old farts are so sex-centered. Why is homosexuality a big deal? It's not like homo porn is going to 'convert' anyone to gayness. You need to get over your obsession with pornography."

2005: "The internet is awesome! How is porn a big deal? Guess what, Grandpa: You had porn, too! You think those Playboys were for the articles? The hypocrisy is stifling! Get a grip."

2010: "Come out of the Stone Age! Your sexual hang-ups are not my problem. Gay sex? Not my problem! Not a problem at all! Porn availability? Exercise some self-control! Get a filter! Sheesh, why do you always insist that everyone else adapt to your issues?"

2018: "YOU JUST DON'T KNOW HOW BAD IT IS! *sob* PORN EVERYWHERE! IT WASN'T LIKE THIS FOR YOU, BACK WHEN THINGS WERE PRISTINE! IT'S SOOOOO MUCH HARDER TODAY! YOU HAVE NO IDEA! DON'T JUDGE ME FOR MY PORN USAGE!"

Progress, indeed.

I don't think some general views by certain people over the past 40 years represent every young mans struggle today with pornography.  Pornography is in much more abundance at such a younger age, that I personally feel like it is a lot more difficult issue for young men in 2018 than it was in 1980 on a whole (everyone is different).