Two out of Five Missionaries will leave?

[_Malcolm]

Writing in the introduction to Jack B. Worthy's, The Mormon Cult, Richard Packham writes,
"One of the surprising facts about the missionary experience is that it can just as easily destroy a missionary's testimony as build it up. The church is aware of this, although its leaders do not admit it officially. In private, however, they acknowledge that two out of every five missionaries will eventually leave the church, largely because of their mission experience.Some missionaries even abandon their mission before completing it, in spite of tremendous pressure to finish it "honourably", and despite the shame they must endure when they return home".

We have RM's on the board and indeed RM ExMo's too. Being a convert in my mid 20's I never served a mission, but my late wife and I did have pairs of missionaries staying in our Granny annexe for a few years and got to know some very well. I am in touch with three who have since left the church of their own volition, not excommunication.
Richard's figure of two out of five seems a lot. But he is usually right in his figures. What say you Guys?

[_beastie]

I haven't heard those specific figures, but I wouldn't be surprised. I have long noticed a seemingly high number of French RMs. Some of us (French RMs) speculated that French missions tend to produce quite a few apostates. It makes sense. Although I continued as a believer for well over a decade after my mission to France, in retrospect, I think some of the foundation for my future apostasy took place on my mission. I was constantly taught all this faith-promoting verbiage, and subjected to intense pressure and negativity when the faith-promoting theory of the day failed to produce converts. Yet I knew I was serving faithfully, with the sole hope of bringing souls to Christ, and trying to apply whatever the latest theory was we were being taught. And yet no converts. Just more door slams. On top of that, there were a lot of JWs and inevitably you'd end up "bashing" with some of them, and it was impossible not to notice that we were two sides of the same coin.

OTOH, the missions that tend to produce a lot of converts I'd suspect produce less future apostates. The point is whether or not the mission demonstrates a divide between reality and what the church teaches is reality.

[_Joseph]

It is not surprising. Missionaries are told constantly how good and great they are. How special and loved. Then reality sets in: The Brethren and their leaders do not trust them. In many areas they have to live in a home or apartment with a Member family. They are always being checked on. They are constantly being interviewed about whether they are 'following the rules' and how much they buy into the sales techniques, an ever changing set based on the whim of someone above their pay grade who is 'inspired'.

Then the actual teaching of things they often don't know and cannot get information about. "The Basics" that don't make sense when looked at from a distance. Stories and good feelings and teachings and the constant push for baptisms, often backed up with 'you are not good enough', 'you aren't working hard enough', 'you are lacking faith' when they don't meet arbitrary goals. A mission can be a demoralizing experience for many of these 'chosen few' as they fail to meet expectations put on them by those who can't and won't do what they are doing.

Forty percent isn't too bad when you consider what a downer many missions are.

[_Thexriddle]

Beastie,

As I remember it, there was a major problem in the French mission in the 1950's(?) with an Assistant to the President deciding that the Fundamantalists were right so he proceeded to convert a number of his fellow missionaries.

It was quite a scandal in the 1960's when I was serving in the US and I seem to recall a written account.

I don't remember the details I heard nor do I think they were completely accurate and it was "a long time ago" so that incident would not seem to be a likely contributor to later, post-mission "apostacies".

T

[_Analytics]

I haven't heard those specific figures, but I wouldn't be surprised. I have long noticed a seemingly high number of French RMs. Some of us (French RMs) speculated that French missions tend to produce quite a few apostates. It makes sense. Although I continued as a believer for well over a decade after my mission to France, in retrospect, I think some of the foundation for my future apostasy took place on my mission. I was constantly taught all this faith-promoting verbiage, and subjected to intense pressure and negativity when the faith-promoting theory of the day failed to produce converts. Yet I knew I was serving faithfully, with the sole hope of bringing souls to Christ, and trying to apply whatever the latest theory was we were being taught. And yet no converts. Just more door slams. On top of that, there were a lot of JWs and inevitably you'd end up "bashing" with some of them, and it was impossible not to notice that we were two sides of the same coin.

OTOH, the missions that tend to produce a lot of converts I'd suspect produce less future apostates. The point is whether or not the mission demonstrates a divide between reality and what the church teaches is reality.

That may or may not be true. I was in Argentina in 1989, and to the companionship that had the most baptisms every month, the mission president gave a plaque that said, in Spanish, "Baptizer of the Month" (I'm not making this up). You usually needed 15-20 baptisims in a month to win the plaque.

The result of all these converts are wards and branches with a lot of converts, and the ability to see how well the church works there. Does it really bless the lives of these people who believe you? Sometimes, but usually not. When you got to the dreaded third discussion and you ask them to come to church and they say yes, are they impressed with how wonderful the church is? They almost always think the meetings are awful. Whenever the local members did their antics or the meetings were awful, the knee-jerk response by the missionaries was, "The church isn't true here."

[_Analytics]

Writing in the introduction to Jack B. Worthy's, The Mormon Cult, Richard Packham writes,
"One of the surprising facts about the missionary experience is that it can just as easily destroy a missionary's testimony as build it up. The church is aware of this, although its leaders do not admit it officially. In private, however, they acknowledge that two out of every five missionaries will eventually leave the church, largely because of their mission experience.Some missionaries even abandon their mission before completing it, in spite of tremendous pressure to finish it "honourably", and despite the shame they must endure when they return home".

We have RM's on the board and indeed RM ExMo's too. Being a convert in my mid 20's I never served a mission, but my late wife and I did have pairs of missionaries staying in our Granny annexe for a few years and got to know some very well. I am in touch with three who have since left the church of their own volition, not excommunication.
Richard's figure of two out of five seems a lot. But he is usually right in his figures. What say you Guys?

I’ve heard statistics like that, too. It seems reasonable to me. Would it be more believable if they claimed that 2.5% of returned missionaries between the ages of 21 and 40 leave the church in any given year? If your chances of staying a member is only 97.5% a year, the chances of you surviving for 20 years is 60%.

[_beastie]

That may or may not be true. I was in Argentina in 1989, and to the companionship that had the most baptisms every month, the mission president gave a plaque that said, in Spanish, "Baptizer of the Month" (I'm not making this up). You usually needed 15-20 baptisims in a month to win the plaque.

The result of all these converts are wards and branches with a lot of converts, and the ability to see how well the church works there. Does it really bless the lives of these people who believe you? Sometimes, but usually not. When you got to the dreaded third discussion and you ask them to come to church and they say yes, are they impressed with how wonderful the church is? They almost always think the meetings are awful. Whenever the local members did their antics or the meetings were awful, the knee-jerk response by the missionaries was, "The church isn't true here."

I thought of something similar after I posted. Not only would you see whether or not the church really blessed the lives of people who believed you, but you would also see more people join the church casually, out of social reasons, and probably become inactive very quickly. (at least that's what I've heard often happens in South America)

Also, you still were subjected to the same intense pressure to baptize. It really felt like the pressure was more a reaction to the negative attention low-baptizing missions received from the brethren than concern over spiritual welfare. It they were really just concerned over spiritual welfare, they would have encouraged missionaries to maintain contact with people even if they weren't ready to be baptized. Instead, the pressure was to baptize, and if they resisted, move on.

[_Inconceivable]

Something I've noticed on my mission alumni site is that even one of my past companions removed his profile after the first year as a member. There are perhaps only 30% of the missionaries that served during my time signed up as members.

What does this say about the effects of the mission and the desire to stay connected with former members of the program?

Over the past 12 years I saw an inordinate amount of young men either returning prematurely, choosing to not go at all or returning from an "honorable" mission just to go completely inactive. It didn't seem so much like this when I went in the early 80's but maybe I just kept my eyes closed.

[_sock puppet]

A young relative of mine was serving a "2 year" mission in 1982 when the Church announced that they were shortening them to 18 months (an experiment that apparently did not get results as intended as they backed up to 2 year terms not long afterwards).

When the announcement was made at an LDS chapel in his mission with all 150+ missionaries in attendance, raucous cheering and celebration broke out so fervently that within minutes the mission president was booming over the microphone that he wanted them to all go outside so that they would not be disrespectful to the chapel.

My young relative is about as TBM as you get. You might know the type. He's never had hot chocolate or hot apple cider in his life because they are "hot drinks." He described the scene that moved out into the parking lot for the next 15 to 20 minutes as virtually everyone of them had tears of joy streaming down their faces, high fiving each other, talking about what that meant for their post-mission plans--now 6 months earlier.

If there really are 60% that remain active post mission it has to be due to the relief of having that ordeal over and behind them. The mission program is not a healthy one.

[_Inconceivable]

A young relative of mine was serving a "2 year" mission in 1982 when the Church announced that they were shortening them to 18 months (an experiment that apparently did not get results as intended as they backed up to 2 year terms not long afterwards).

When the announcement was made at an LDS chapel in his mission with all 150+ missionaries in attendance, raucous cheering and celebration broke out so fervently that within minutes the mission president was booming over the microphone that he wanted them to all go outside so that they would not be disrespectful to the chapel.

When the anouncement was made, those out for a year were given the choice to go full term or leave at 18. As I recall, more than half left that had the choice (very happily I might add).

I would have chosen to go the full 2 years at the time but was not given the option.