Missionary Numbers - stats, ugh.

[omegaseamaster75]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Let's take your word for it for the sake of moving on and not getting unnecessarily personal... What did you mean then by pointing out that (you presume) I wasn't an AP? Did you have a point? Or was it just meant as an attempted smear?

A veiled attempt to smear obviously.

The point is that the most rule abiding Missionaries are not always the most effective. I used the example of AP because the assumption is that as AP you are the exemplar missionary, most obedient, etc, etc. I used my example because I was not a rule stickler yet was still very effective.

It's pointless to discuss....

Edited April 13, 2018 by omegaseamaster75

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

A veiled attempt to smear obviously.

Veiled?

17 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

The point is that the most rule abiding Missionaries are not always the most effective. I used the example of AP because the assumption is that as AP you are the exemplar missionary, most obedient, etc, etc. I used my example because I was not a rule stickler yet was still very effective.

Effective at what though?

17 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

It's pointless to discuss....

Is it? I think a discussion to understand the validity of obedience and when and if disobedience has any value seems quite useful.

[Vort]

26 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

A veiled attempt to smear obviously.

The point is that the most rule abiding Missionaries are not always the most effective. I used the example of AP because the assumption is that as AP you are the exemplar missionary, most obedient, etc, etc. I used my example because I was not a rule stickler yet was still very effective.

It's pointless to discuss....

So you insulted TFP by writing "Says the guy who wasn't an AP" because you were attempting to illustrate that the most effective missionary was not always the most obedient?

Bull. No one believes you. You don't even believe such a transparent lie.

[Just_A_Guy]

Somewhat back more on-topic-ish:  I think the second God’s Army effectively shows one form of tension between obedience and effectiveness.  You have one missionary who is portrayed as being a great “people person” and seems committed to the Gospel generally; but is willing to flout the rules (staying out late, routinely going into “compromising” situations, etc).  As a result, he’s able to minister in ways more obedient missionaries wouldn’t be able to do—but his junior companion, who is fiercely obedient but maybe not quite so deeply converted and who is initially horrified at his senior’s “disobedience”, eventually slacks off in his obedience and finally gets himself into a lot of trouble that could have been avoided had he and his senior companion maintained a habit of obedience.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Somewhat back more on-topic-ish:  I think the second God’s Army effectively shows one form of tension between obedience and effectiveness.  You have one missionary who is portrayed as being a great “people person” and seems committed to the Gospel generally; but is willing to flout the rules (staying out late, routinely going into “compromising” situations, etc).  As a result, he’s able to minister in ways more obedient missionaries wouldn’t be able to do—but his junior companion, who is fiercely obedient but maybe not quite so deeply converted and who is initially horrified at his senior’s “disobedience”, eventually slacks off in his obedience and finally gets himself into a lot of trouble that could have been avoided had he and his senior companion maintained a habit of obedience.

In your view JAG (or in anyones, really ) do you think most missionaries today are able to walk the line between obedience and disobedience? 

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

In your view JAG (or in anyones, really ) do you think most missionaries today are able to walk the line between obedience and disobedience? 

Line?

[Just_A_Guy]

21 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

In your view JAG (or in anyones, really ) do you think most missionaries today are able to walk the line between obedience and disobedience? 

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at.  But if you’re asking whether missionary effectiveness is compromised in the name of strict missionary obedience, I’d say “short term, most emphatically yes; but long term, very probably not.”  Methinks the bad done by one missionary who commits a major sin, outweighs the good done by dozens—maybe hundreds—of missionaries who chose to minister on dangerous ground.

Maybe that calculus will change as social mores evolve.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at.  But if you’re asking whether missionary effectiveness is compromised in the name of strict missionary obedience, I’d say “short term, most emphatically yes; but long term, very probably not.”  Methinks the bad done by one missionary who commits a major sin, outweighs the good done by dozens—maybe hundreds—of missionaries who chose to minister on dangerous ground.

That's a great answer, and sorry if I wasn't clear.  

Do you think most missionaries are obedient? 

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's a great answer, and sorry if I wasn't clear.  

Do you think most missionaries are obedient? 

I think they try, yeah.

I have a somewhat skewed perception of what constitutes an “obedient” missionary, though.  In my mission “missionary obedience” was largely quantified and reported by how we managed our time.  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.

I’ve never been great for punctuality; so I consistently incurred a higher-than-average number of “buracos” and thus never really considered myself a particularly “obedient” missionary.  But, in hindsight, if you determine “obedience” according to the general Church behavioral standards in conjunction with the missionary rules as given by Salt Lake in what we called the “white bible”—eighty to ninety percent of us were probably doing fine; even if our miserable bullying APs and ZLs habitually tried to persuade us otherwise.

(I’m pretty orthodox Mormon; but hearing that someone was an AP is a strike against them in my book.  Yes, I have issues.  )

Edited April 13, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think they try, yeah.

I have a somewhat skewed perception of what constitutes an “obedient” missionary, though.  In my mission “missionary obedience” was largely quantified and reported by how we managed our time.  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.

I’ve never been great for punctuality; so I consistently incurred a higher-than-average number of “buracos” and thus never really considered myself a particularly “obedient” missionary.  But, in hindsight, if you determine “obedience” according to the general Church behavioral standards in conjunction with the missionary rules as given by Salt Lake in what we called the “white bible”—eighty to ninety percent of us were probably doing fine.

I used to hang out with the missionaries 3-4 times a week. Driving them somewhere, going to lessons, that sort of thing. I think the majority of them, close to 90%) go out of their way to both follow the rules and get converts. Sure, you'll meet one who doesn't care and is there just because mommy and daddy forced them to go, but they are the expectations. I don't think they do much damage to the church. 

The cool thing is that most missionaries "let their hair down" when they are with LG and I. So it's neat to see them as Kristen or Shane or Annie, instead of who they think missionaries are required to be. 
 

Edited April 13, 2018 by MormonGator

[NeedleinA]

18 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Do you think most missionaries are obedient? 

Yes.
The small number of rogue missionaries make the news however.

The real disobedient ones tend to eject themselves from the mission field:
a. "I'm out of here, send me home"
b. "I'm not going to follow the rules", by extension the Mission Pres. may send them home.
c. "I'm out of here" - missionary disappears from his/her mission, and reappears at home

Edited April 13, 2018 by NeedleinA

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, NeedleinA said:

Yes.
Rogue missionaries make the news however.

The real disobedient ones tend to eject themselves from the mission field:
a. "I'm out of here, send me home"
b. "I'm not going to follow the rules", by extension the Mission Pres. may send them home.
c. "I'm out of here" - missionary disappears from his/her, and reappears at home

Agree. 

I have huge respect for them in the first place. At age 18-19 the LAST thing I would have done, even if I was raised in the church, was go out on a mission. It's tough for these kids. I'm glad that most members seem to understand that and  treat them with the love and care they deserve. 

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But if you’re asking whether missionary effectiveness is compromised in the name of strict missionary obedience, I’d say “short term, most emphatically yes;

Really?

How so?

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

...even if our miserable bullying APs and ZLs habitually tried to persuade us otherwise.

(I’m pretty orthodox Mormon; but hearing that someone was an AP is a strike against them in my book.  Yes, I have issues.  )

A-freaking-men!

[JohnsonJones]

Let me get this straight.  

Were people in this thread actually arguing about whether they were an AP or not and the importance of being an AP?  Does this really even matter?  Are people that hurt over not being an AP that they would be offended or need to argue such a thing? 

I would say it does NOT matter one whit whether one was an Assistant to the President on their Mission or not.  In the long run, it doesn't affect you.  As far as I know the Lord during his mortal ministry was never an AP either.  In fact, considering his status with the Pharisees and Saducees, it's probable he was the farthest from that.

If I read right, all the idea that the first person to bring up regarding an AP was utilizing it as an example in this thread.  The example was with the idea that APs were more obedient (if I read it right) in general.  I agree with the idea that this presented in regards to the AP, if I read it right, that obedience brings blessings. 

However, can obedience be a hindrance to baptizing converts.  Probably, especially in many instances. 

Is this a problem?

Now, it depends on how you see missions and their purpose.  In my mind, one purpose of a mission is to BUILD the missionary up and strengthen their testimony.  It is to show what type of individual and follower of the Lord they are and will become. 

In that light my PERSONAL THOUGHTS are that obedience is extremely important.  How obedient one is to the leaders of their mission, in this instance, primarily the Mission President and the rules set forth by the General Authorities of the church is VERY exemplary in many instances of how obedient one may be after their mission.  It is not a definitive nor absolute, you can have those that were very obedient on their missions that are not afterwards, and vice versa.  However, it can be a good indicator of how willing one is to follow the church directives and the Lord's commandments.

The Lord could raise up a church out of the stones of the Earth if he wished to.  A mission is to be a tool for him to allow us to be part of the work of building the church, but a mission is also for the missionary.  In that light, obedience is better than sacrifice, and it is by obedience to the Lord's commandments that we prove ourselves and endure to the end.  This is no different on a mission than in our personal lives outside a mission.  By following the dictates of a mission we can learn important habits for the rest of our lives. 

In a mission, by following the rules we can learn to do daily scripture and personal study.  We learn about waking up early and working hard.  We learn about avoiding the things of the world and putting the things of the Lord FIRST.  We learn to focus on the Lord, and how we can love as the Lord loves.  We can learn that the Lord wishes all to come to him and how we can use that in our lives after a mission to seek to share the gospel, even with those that hate us or despise us. 

These are important life lessons that return missionaries all too often forget too quickly.  They look forward to not having to get up in the morning for scripture study or personal study.  They want to partake of the worldly measures of violent and explicit movies that no missionary would normally be allowed to watch.  They want to listen to music that excites the body rather than the soul, and to no longer have to spread the gospel to others.  They wish to no longer try to love those that hate them.

A mission can be a starting point rather than just a period that is set apart for us in our lives.  I'd say obedience is very important on a mission to learning how to be followers of the Lord.  It is like the college of the spirit, and as such is an important point for many people's lives.  In this light, being an AP or not in this life is the same as any other position.  Your church position that you get in this life is not important overall.  Whether you are a Priest, or an Apostle, both can fall into sin.  It is probably better to be a humble deacon who is righteous than an apostle like Judas Iscariot.

The important thing in this life is to be obedient and LOVE the Lord.  Follow his commandments and endure to the end.  Obtain the necessary ordinances to obtain eternal life, and one's reward will be great in heaven regardless of one's station in this life.  When the Lord came he went to the poor, the handicapped, the sick and afflicted, and the humble and meek.  He made it abundantly clear that the big things that are important are that we follow him and love him and his father (and our father).  Our station in this life is not what matters, it is our willingness to follow him that matters.

Going back to the mission, some rules are probably more important than others.  There are probably some very good missionaries that wake up later than they should, or are not as zealous as they could be, or any number of other things.  Some of them are probably better at converting others.  There may be missionaries that simply ignore mission rules and are excellent proselyters and baptize many converts.  The bigger question isn't how successful they are on their mission, the Lord could have done this by himself without any help if he wanted.  The bigger question is HOW this affects them, the missionary.  HOW good and faithful are they AFTER their mission.  It doesn't matter if an individual baptized the world if they fail to save themselves and fall to apostasy.  If one doesn't baptize a single soul, but stays true and faithful to the end and obtains eternal life and exaltation, than that individual has been FAR more successful in their mission for two years as well as their mission in life than the individual that baptizes a ton of converts but then falls away and fights against the Lord and his purposes later.  

Just my personal thoughts on what seems to have turned out to be a very weird conversation in some ways.

[omegaseamaster75]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

So you insulted TFP by writing "Says the guy who wasn't an AP" because you were attempting to illustrate that the most effective missionary was not always the most obedient?

Bull. No one believes you. You don't even believe such a transparent lie.

Yup that's what happened.  Again your right I'm a liar and incorrect as per usual. 

[omegaseamaster75]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Veiled?

not openly or directly expressed; masked; disguised; hidden;obscure

[omegaseamaster75]

42 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think they try, yeah.

I have a somewhat skewed perception of what constitutes an “obedient” missionary, though.  In my mission “missionary obedience” was largely quantified and reported by how we managed our time.  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.

This is the kind of nonsense I am talking about, loggin what time you woke up, how long you studied what time you got in, who you visited and for how long. Who compiles all this info? talk about a waste of your and the Lords time.

43 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’ve never been great for punctuality; so I consistently incurred a higher-than-average number of “buracos” and thus never really considered myself a particularly “obedient” missionary.  But, in hindsight, if you determine “obedience” according to the general Church behavioral standards in conjunction with the missionary rules as given by Salt Lake in what we called the “white bible”—eighty to ninety percent of us were probably doing fine; even if our miserable bullying APs and ZLs habitually tried to persuade us otherwise.

(I’m pretty orthodox Mormon; but hearing that someone was an AP is a strike against them in my book.  Yes, I have issues.  )

No one should be bullied into obeying the rules, and if your ZL and APs acted like that shame on them.  

[Just_A_Guy]

38 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

This is the kind of nonsense I am talking about, loggin what time you woke up, how long you studied what time you got in, who you visited and for how long. Who compiles all this info? talk about a waste of your and the Lords time.

No one should be bullied into obeying the rules, and if your ZL and APs acted like that shame on them.  

I trust that these types of metrics were appropriate for my particular mission during my particular era.  I just wish that the concept of “obedience” hadn’t been reduced to those particular indicia.  

But yes, there was a certain amount of absurdity when, having mis-timed our walk home and arrived five minutes early, we had to stand around on the street for five minutes lest we commit the “buraco” of entering our apartment before 9:30 pm.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Let me get this straight.

Always a good idea.

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Were people in this thread actually arguing about whether they were an AP or not and the importance of being an AP?

No.

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Does this really even matter?

Apparently so, according to omegamaster75 the AP.

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Are people that hurt over not being an AP that they would be offended or need to argue such a thing?

You need to reread the thread, and pay careful attention this time.

• omegamaster75 was the one who first brought up being an AP.
• After that humblebrag, TFP asked why that fact was relevant.
• omegamaster75 responded, rather bizarrely, that he was illustrating that sometimes obeying the rules makes for a less effective missionary.
• TFP responded with a "Huh?", asking if omegamaster75 was implying that his position as AP was prima facie evidence that he was an effective missionary.
• Meanwhile, zil had suggested that such measures as  "number of baptisms" or "time spent preaching the gospel" were not proxies for determining missionary effectiveness, to which list TFP added, "Or whether one became AP or not."
• To this final comment, omegamaster75 snarkily replied, "Said the guy who wasn't".
• When asked what he meant by the comment, omegamaster75 weaved and dodged, and finally claimed that he was merely illustrating that he was effective despite not being particularly obedient. (In other words, that TFP's claim was right -- omegamaster75 was indeed implying that his position as AP was prima facie evidence that he was an effective missionary.)

To his credit, omegamaster75 admitted his duplicity.

[The Folk Prophet]

So let's get this straight here:

Yes...strict obedience can inhibit a missionary's ability to baptize.

But that's not the goal, now is it?

The idea that strict obedience hinders the missionary in any way from being a tool the Lord can use to do His own work?

I don't think so.

[Vort]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

So let's get this straight here:

Yes...strict obedience can inhibit a missionary's ability to baptize.

Telling the truth often inhibits a missionary's ability to baptize. Some missionaries that I have heard of cast off the shackles of truthfulness to increase their yield. Doubtless on that day when they stand before God, the Most High will praise them for promising to marry the girls they baptized or telling the kids they needed to be baptized to play Church ball. That's the Lord's motto, after all: Whatever it takes. Everyone knows that God is no stickler for exact obedience. After all, how many times throughout the scriptures has the Savior pleaded with us not to be just another sheep following the herd?

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Always a good idea.

No.

Apparently so, according to omegamaster75 the AP.

You need to reread the thread, and pay careful attention this time.

• omegamaster75 was the one who first brought up being an AP.
• After that humblebrag, TFP asked why that fact was relevant.
• omegamaster75 responded, rather bizarrely, that he was illustrating that sometimes obeying the rules makes for a less effective missionary.
• TFP responded with a "Huh?", asking if omegamaster75 was implying that his position as AP was prima facie evidence that he was an effective missionary.
• Meanwhile, zil had suggested that such measures as  "number of baptisms" or "time spent preaching the gospel" were not proxies for determining missionary effectiveness, to which list TFP added, "Or whether one became AP or not."
• To this final comment, omegamaster75 snarkily replied, "Said the guy who wasn't".
• When asked what he meant by the comment, omegamaster75 weaved and dodged, and finally claimed that he was merely illustrating that he was effective despite not being particularly obedient. (In other words, that TFP's claim was right -- omegamaster75 was indeed implying that his position as AP was prima facie evidence that he was an effective missionary.)

To his credit, omegamaster75 admitted his duplicity.

What I got from the entire exchange was..."REALLY...people are arguing about whether they were an AP or not?"  I think it misses the entire point.

I agree, that sometimes obeying the rules makes for a less effective missionary if the purpose is to be baptizing any and everyone out there.  I think that could be dead on in how correct it is.  I also agree that at times, number of baptisms have been utilized by various mission presidents to determine who they want to have as an AP or not. 

I don't think Omega was saying anything about how important it was to be an AP, I do see a lot of quibbling about APs though.  I think it's kind of foolish to be arguing about it, and think it misses the point.

That said...this all depends on what you think the purpose of a mission is and what being effective means.

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So let's get this straight here:

Yes...strict obedience can inhibit a missionary's ability to baptize.

But that's not the goal, now is it?

The idea that strict obedience hinders the missionary in any way from being a tool the Lord can use to do His own work?

I don't think so.

And this I think touches more on what the importance of a mission is than simply how many baptisms one can perform on their mission.  I see a mission as a training ground for the future leaders of the LDS church.  I see it also as where boys become men in their stature and standing in their understanding and comprehension of the gospel.  In this way, obedience can be essential to how much that missionary is able to learn in this regard.  It does not mean that this is the ONLY way that one can learn these things, or that if they are not fully obedient that they have failed, but that this is one of the easiest ways for them to learn some of the essential lessons regarding the church, themselves, and the Lord.

Many have learned these lessons in other ways, but I think for the majority, obedience on a mission is one of the easiest ways to build knowledge, faith, and testimony in the fundamental foundations of the gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.  There are many other lessons and things that one gains from going on a mission, but for all of these, I see obedience is the greater law in regards to young missionaries than the amount of baptisms or converts one achieves on the number rack. 

I think this has always been so and is so even today.  Sometimes it gets lost in the paperwork (there was, and still is to a degree, a great emphasis on numbers and reporting which pressures many missionaries and mission presidents), but I think ultimately, that it is as the Lord has stated, obedience is greater than sacrifice, and it is by following the Lord in the straight and narrow that we can obtain eternal life.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Really?

How so?

 

22 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So let's get this straight here:

Yes...strict obedience can inhibit a missionary's ability to baptize.

But that's not the goal, now is it?

The idea that strict obedience hinders the missionary in any way from being a tool the Lord can use to do His own work?

I don't think so.

Just for the sake of pedantry here, and not because I think we disagree in any major way:

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).

To me, the fact that the Lord is perfect in the way He deploys His resources does not mean He doesn’t make short-term sacrifices to ensure long-term improvement.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

Just for the sake of pedantry here, and not because I think we disagree in any major way:

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).

To me, the fact that the Lord is perfect in the way He deploys His resources does not mean He doesn’t make short-term sacrifices to ensure long-term improvement.

I understand.

But I think this misses the idea of what a miracle true conversion is each and every time.

I'm not sure the idea of God making short-term sacrifices for long-term gains really works. God's ways are simply not ours. He does His work according to His will and His time frame.

And...once again...the idea that missionaries being unable to baptize a particular woman equates to less effective misses, I believe, the proper question/point at hand. Effective at what?