DiscussMormonism.com

Gadianton wrote:Beastie,

I assume that you aren't kidding, but virtually every line that you wrote was a revelation.

I have never heard of being approached by anyone, let alone a missionary, for name removal.

I had no idea they were phasing out tracting. in the last couple years I've seen more missionaries than ever in my neighborhood. I've been approached a couple of times but not sure I can say I've seen them actually knocking on doors.

no more stat reporting? Lack of accountability, even though everyone fudged their numbers, seems like it would be a problem.

I-pads? why? at that point why not just call them on a virtual mission.

When I was on a mission, lo many years ago, I heard ZLs and APs bemoan that re-activated members couldn't be counted as baptisms because their names had not been removed during their periods of inactivity. Those voicing this also claimed it would be to the benefit of the inactives to have their names removed, because if they died in that state--inactive with their names on the rolls--it would be like an indictment against them.

Then, at least, we were instructed not to trifle our time on inactives--that was for the local ward leaders and members. We were to focus solely on the unbaptized.

It would not surprise me if beastie's experience was more a local phenomena than Church-wide, Missionary Dept directive. It could have been a by-product of now being told to work closer with local LDS leaders, and this particular bishop/SP wanted assistance in purging inactives from his rolls, for some of the reasons mentioned above in this thread.

I see missionaries on the move more now than ever in the past in my neck of the Zion woods. But I do not notice them knocking on doors, progressively down a street. They always waive or say 'hi' back, with almost a longingness to their gazes--a hope that realizes there's no real hope of you being a prospect. But in my area, they never make the initial gesture or greeting.

I think the missionary program is in much more serious trouble than COB will ever let on. With numbers of new missionaries per month having stalled, those voluntarily coming home earlier at a steep increase, baptisms waning and many girls raised in staunchly LDS homes being more willing to marry a guy who has not completed a mission, COB has lowered the age to 18 and boasted the bump up as though it will be permanent, lowered the age for girls to 19 putting implicit pressure on them to go too, dropped tracking, taking up the internet/iPads. With a program that is working, you do not see such re-tooling efforts.

I think reducing the guys leakage (18-19 years of age), and putting girls in the peer-pressured position (dropping age 21 to 19), are obvious moves. That is, the purpose is so transparent that it's unbecoming to the observer that is not fully inside the LDS tent. What is not so transparent is what the 'business plan' and the ROI analyses are with respect to going from tracking to iPads. They better have some detailed game plan for how they are going to move the missionary effort from Kirby vacuum sales to Amazon ones, not just hoping it will happen. It will take a different sales approach. You've got to offer a convenience to the 'buyer' that would outweigh the face-to-face appeal that works with some people when a couple of clean-cut 19, 20 year olds come knocking on their door.

So what's the game plan? What makes someone want to read an LDS missionaries Facebook postings rather than CauseWereGuys, for example?

Have they hired call-center experts to advise and train on techniques those missionaries that are responding to chats online at Mormon.org or calling in?

In the past, they've kept missionaries as isolated from doubting questions as possible. How's that going to happen now?

Dropping the ages to 18 and 19, closing the post-high school gaps, makes sense to stop the leakage. But taking even more naïve BIC kids and exposing them to internet Mormon discussions is likely to cause greater dissent. The internet age should indicate older, more staid Mormons being missionaries. The LDS Church should be focusing more on creating more BYUs, so every Mormon high school graduate goes to a church college.

beastie wrote:
My overall impression is that they are obviously trying to make a mission a less painful experience in the hopes of convincing lots of (very young) people to go.

Has anyone else had that impression?

I don't think that the bishop has much say in what the missionaries should do. It would come from the mission president and not the bishop. So, I tend to doubt your version of it.

That being said, since your guy is still on the rolls the ward is still responsible for him. They have him on the rolls for home teaching etc. Also, if one is no longer interested in the church, one should just resign and move on. I tend to think that your partner is not ready for such a step. Perhaps he still feels some attachment to the lds church.

Also, each mission president is different. They more or less have the say in what they want the missionaries to do. In my area, missionaries are still going door to door.

sock puppet wrote:
I think the missionary program is in much more serious trouble than COB will ever let on. With numbers of new missionaries per month having stalled, those voluntarily coming home earlier at a steep increase, baptisms waning and many girls raised in staunchly LDS homes being more willing to marry a guy who has not completed a mission, COB has lowered the age to 18 and boasted the bump up as though it will be permanent, lowered the age for girls to 19 putting implicit pressure on them to go too, dropped tracking, taking up the internet/iPads. With a program that is working, you do not see such re-tooling efforts.

I think that you are being over dramatic in your post. I see no trouble brewing. More and more people are signing up to serve. Of course, the numbers will stall as the pool of young people decreases. But still the number of missionaries have increased beyond expectations. Now, will some wish to go home. Of course. But that is only natural. People have a change of heart. It is only human.

SP wrote: That is, the purpose is so transparent that it's unbecoming to the observer that is not fully inside the LDS tent

I don't get it. Granted, it's not like I'm out researching the missionary program. But wasn't it just a few years ago that they were trying to get rid of missionaries? They increased the standards for participating and actually refused to let kids go with certain sins under their belts. Now they're flooding the earth with 18 years olds, and don't make them tract? None of this is transparent to me at all. I have no idea what their plan is.

By the way, as far as tracting goes, yes, it's ineffective, but it's more effective than sitting around doing nothing. Back in my day, the mission leaders acknowledged tracting wasn't easy, and had no issues with missionaries being creative with finding activities, it's just at a certain point, there just wasn't anything else you can really do.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Yeah, the Sister missionaries here are similar. They can make phone calls, they don't fill out tracting sheets or itineraries, and they essentially just float around the Ward boundaries hanging out with members who are expected to create teaching opportunities for them.

Very low pressure, and pretty much the exact opposite of my mission in the early 90's.

- Doc

I also served in the 90's. About 80% of our work was tracting. Lots of guilt heaped on you if you didn't. Numbers and stats were always counted and low stats were bad.

My SIL's little brother just returned home from his mish and I talked to him about it. No tracting. No stats, no discussions, or hard commitments i.e. Baptism commitment Asap. A lot of hanging out with members and less actives.

I am bittersweet about this. Part of me is relieved that much of the old pressures are gone, since my TBM sons will most likely be serving in a few years. The other part of me is saddened. Yes tracting sucked, but at the end of the day it gave you brass balls and made you not afraid to approach anyone (an attitude that has helped me in my career). Secondly, I don't know any missionaries who ever actually baptized anyone from tracting, but I can tell you 100% of the best stories and craziest shiz I ever saw in my life came from my tracting experiences.

Gadianton wrote:

SP wrote: That is, the purpose is so transparent that it's unbecoming to the observer that is not fully inside the LDS tent

I don't get it. Granted, it's not like I'm out researching the missionary program. But wasn't it just a few years ago that they were trying to get rid of missionaries? They increased the standards for participating and actually refused to let kids go with certain sins under their belts. Now they're flooding the earth with 18 years olds, and don't make them tract? None of this is transparent to me at all. I have no idea what their plan is.

By the way, as far as tracting goes, yes, it's ineffective, but it's more effective than sitting around doing nothing. Back in my day, the mission leaders acknowledged tracting wasn't easy, and had no issues with missionaries being creative with finding activities, it's just at a certain point, there just wasn't anything else you can really do.

I have a suspicion about this.

Raising the bar is a concept that makes sense...if the church actually believes its own marketing. The powers that be have to believe that being worthy actually mattered in some way. Now, it could be that they were seeing too many problems with sour missionaries turning ward or branch members against the missionaries and not being willing to work with them or introduce their friends. So, there's that narrow focus as an option. But at some level they must have honestly believed having a more pure missionary force would lead to greater success. Possibly due to divine influence, possibly due to just having better examples of the benefits of Mormonism marketing it. Either way, the focus came off of the missionaries well-being and belief in the church and seems to be more about increasing church benefits through new members while reducing the labor force to the highest potential producers. I'd say they took the membership for granted.

But I'm inclined to believe they've seen that isn't realistic at all. The mindset has shifted from seeing worthiness as being important for doing actual missionary work to seeing participation being more important for leading to temple marriages and retention. It seems they've recalculated their "profits" and realized their most valuable assets are the members they already have and any effort that leads to keeping one far outweighs the effort to attempt to get a new one. They can't count on new people joining or take the membership's belief and long term participation for granted, so it becomes a basic business decision at that point. Of the two, they're much more likely to be able to keep old members than acquire new, so a reconstructed missionary program makes sense just from that perspective.

I could be wrong, but it was what I thought when the age limits were changed. This development reinforces it.

Racer wrote:
I also served in the 90's. About 80% of our work was tracting. Lots of guilt heaped on you if you didn't. Numbers and stats were always counted and low stats were bad.

My SIL's little brother just returned home from his mish and I talked to him about it. No tracting. No stats, no discussions, or hard commitments i.e. Baptism commitment Asap. A lot of hanging out with members and less actives.

I find this hard to believe. I think that most missionaries must keep a record of visits and contacts. They then report it to the zone leader etc. And what about the baptism commitment? Where do they meet perspective investigators if they are not tracting or making contacts? In some missions, tracting can be dangerous and so, the stress is street contacts etc.

Most members are working during the day as our less actives. What are they doing during the day? Playing basketball? I think that you need to talk again to the return missionary.

why me wrote:

Racer wrote:
I also served in the 90's. About 80% of our work was tracting. Lots of guilt heaped on you if you didn't. Numbers and stats were always counted and low stats were bad.

My SIL's little brother just returned home from his mish and I talked to him about it. No tracting. No stats, no discussions, or hard commitments i.e. Baptism commitment Asap. A lot of hanging out with members and less actives.

I find this hard to believe. I think that most missionaries must keep a record of visits and contacts. They then report it to the zone leader etc. And what about the baptism commitment? Where do they meet perspective investigators if they are not tracting or making contacts? In some missions, tracting can be dangerous and so, the stress is street contacts etc.

Most members are working during the day as our less actives. What are they doing during the day? Playing basketball? I think that you need to talk again to the return missionary.

Hello Mr. Whyme,

Why don't you call the missionaries over? You're a half-member-sorta aren't you? Get to know them, and find out for yourself what they're up to. I guarantee they'll be more than happy to spend some time with you.

- Doc

why me wrote:
I find this hard to believe. I think that most missionaries must keep a record of visits and contacts. They then report it to the zone leader etc. And what about the baptism commitment? Where do they meet perspective investigators if they are not tracting or making contacts? In some missions, tracting can be dangerous and so, the stress is street contacts etc.

Most members are working during the day as our less actives. What are they doing during the day? Playing basketball? I think that you need to talk again to the return missionary.

The sister missionaries had no reason to lie to us about this. She was very clear on the point. She said that, paraphrasing, if they goofed off no one would know but themselves. She wasn't saying it to imply that they goof off, but rather that their own sense of responsibility prevented said goofing off.

My fiance speculates that part of the purpose of the IPAD will be a new reporting method, but the sisters did not make that assertion, although they did refer to some sort of forms that will be on the IPAD.

honorentheos wrote:I have a suspicion about this.

Raising the bar is a concept that makes sense...if the church actually believes its own marketing. The powers that be have to believe that being worthy actually mattered in some way. Now, it could be that they were seeing too many problems with sour missionaries turning ward or branch members against the missionaries and not being willing to work with them or introduce their friends. So, there's that narrow focus as an option. But at some level they must have honestly believed having a more pure missionary force would lead to greater success. Possibly due to divine influence, possibly due to just having better examples of the benefits of Mormonism marketing it. Either way, the focus came off of the missionaries well-being and belief in the church and seems to be more about increasing church benefits through new members while reducing the labor force to the highest potential producers. I'd say they took the membership for granted.

But I'm inclined to believe they've seen that isn't realistic at all. The mindset has shifted from seeing worthiness as being important for doing actual missionary work to seeing participation being more important for leading to temple marriages and retention. It seems they've recalculated their "profits" and realized their most valuable assets are the members they already have and any effort that leads to keeping one far outweighs the effort to attempt to get a new one. They can't count on new people joining or take the membership's belief and long term participation for granted, so it becomes a basic business decision at that point. Of the two, they're much more likely to be able to keep old members than acquire new, so a reconstructed missionary program makes sense just from that perspective.

I could be wrong, but it was what I thought when the age limits were changed. This development reinforces it.

I absolutely agree.

In this age of easily accessible information about church history, my guess is that more missionaries were entering the field with at least a small level of awareness that there are "issues" that can be discovered about early church history. They're bound to have at least heard some rumors about so-and-so leaving the church due to "something" associated with church history. So those missionaries go into the field and face the hell of ten-hour-day tracting with little to no success, and then face the psychological torture of leaders constantly lecturing them about their lack of faith. I have to think that a missionary with an awareness that there are "issues" out there may be more likely to simply say "forget this. I'm going home".

Add to that the bad PR from tracting, and voila!