Conversions lag behind explosive missionary growth - SLTrib

[_Equality]

I agree that the church's prime motive in increasing the size of the missionary force (and lowering the age) is to try to retain the missionaries as life-long members. The church was losing far too many young people in the 18-23 age bracket. But, anecdotally, I think the church also knows that increasing the missionary force has the effect of retaining and re-activating the parents of missionaries. Just based on my (totally unscientific) sampling of my Facebook feed, I have noticed that families who have kids on missions get a LOT more zealous and in-your-face with their own Mormon proselyting.

[_The Mighty Builder]

considering just a few years ago they were cutting the missionary force down by saying that they need to keep less worthy kids out, something changed, and I don't think we know what that is yet. Aristotle Smith had a great post recently where he revealed that the "Feed my Sheep" program was driven by boatloads of Book of Mormon overstock. The church was able to sell it off to a duped membership. Something indirect and tricky like this I believe will explain the missionary force increase.

Reducing the missionary force by semi-tricky means over "personal worthiness" made sense. This does not make sense. There is no way the Church doesn't realize the missionary force size is not cost justified, and the SLTrib is just playing the role of "Captain Obvious" here.

Some will say, as the Church has, about City Creek, that its role as a money-making venture is secondary, its role in the Financial Kingdom of God on this earth is blurry. So we could say that like City Creek, the Church has some kind of nebulous plan for the increased missionary force. I don't think this is the case. In the case of City Creek, I think its primary creation was for maximum ROI, but the Church a) didn't see the real estate and financial crisis coming and b) were in over their heads estimating project costs, not having enough internal expertise here and relying too much on consultants.

The increased missionary force I believe must be different. I think the Church has great data and world-class expertise when it comes to estimating the wool it can sheer from its sheep. I think they know it's not cost justified on direct grounds of ROI from conversions, even personal conversions of the missionaries. There's a piece of the puzzle we don't have.

The part you're looking for is the Presidential campaign of 2012. Mitt Romney was SO convinced that he was heir apparent to the President position that he persuaded Tommy and the Boys that they would not be able to respond to the inquires about the new President' religion.

Hence the age reduction in the age limit and increase in the sales force.

[_Tchild]

I believe that expanding the missionary force is about youth/young adult retention. It's not about converts.

That is what it is about in my opinion. tens of thousands of "converted" North American 19-23 year olds who serve a mission are worth more than 20 million members in Africa, S. America or elsewhere in terms of future tithes.

[_Bazooka]

One could argue that the increase in numbers, coupled with the reduction in maturity, has actually harmed convert missionary work. In that potential converts are put off by being overcontacted as a result of too little work for too many companionships or because the missionaries have dipped below a maturity level where converts find them credible enough. These two factors are also resulting in less member engagement rather than more.

[_Mayan Elephant]

there is a ton of speculation regarding monson's motivation for reducing the required age for missionaries. it is just speculation. i have mine too.

the testimony of the missionary has always been a priority for mission presidents. i had a great mission president and i saw his concern for missionary testimonies was merely a consistent part of his concern for their welfare. i wouldn't say that converting missionaries was more important than baptizing mentally ill and homeless immigrants. it doesn't really come down to those choices. welfare of missionaries is always a consideration for a good mission president and the missionary's testimony is part of that. the baptisms of kooky people will come if the missionaries are healthy and well.

my speculation of monson's so-called revelation is this - he had to stand for something at some point, might as well be for younger missionaries. he needed a headline and a revelation. he failed miserably with his prop 8 and anti-gay leadership. he failed miserably in courts when the church was caught lying about contributions. his boy mitt was running for president and was running around the country saying he would NOT listen to a prophet's voice if he were president. monson needed something. anything. and this idea fit with some theories about the declining activity among young single adults. so he did it.

what else has monson done? cut the tape at a mall? shut down hinckley's McTemple campaign? he has turned over the pr department to otterson. he really hasn't done a damn thing other than change the missionary age.

i think what is more relevant is that the missionaries are no longer finding their own customers. whats the point in having a larger salesforce if they are not finding customers? if mission presidents start telling these missionaries to not tract and not contact on the streets, there is going to be a lot of idle time for these kids. hopefully they will eventually just eliminate proselyting and make them all full-time service missionaries.

[_Sanctorian]

I believe that expanding the missionary force is about youth/young adult retention. It's not about converts.

Disagree. For starters, it's a very false assumption that missionary service strengthens testimonies. The opposite is generally true. Missionary service exposes one to the inner dysfunction of the church, and at a maturity level that is often ill prepared to handle it. The most critical and cynical people in every ward I've ever been in are always RMs. People who never served have very false and fanciful ideas of what things are like in the mission field. Many times I have heard members who didn't serve express bewilderment over all the RMs who are inactive or leave the church, thinking them to be like Laman & Lemuel who saw an angel.

I agree with the dog on this one. It's one of the many reasons I support the OW movement. Once you see how "spiritless" the church is actually run, it's easy to accept it all as BS. I believe this has been the primary reason women stay active at a much higher rate than males. Encouraging women to serve missions will backfire in the long run. Once the women start taking on more aggressive roles like missions, they will likely become more cynical as there male counterparts and start leaving at a higher rate.

Or as bcspace would say, end of days, sign of times, when the very elect will be deceived.

[_Mayan Elephant]

the baptisms of kooky people will come if the missionaries are healthy and well.

huh?

in another thread someone said that with the exception of a couple spouses of members, all the converts were generally poor and single. i would add, that with a few exceptions, most converts i saw as a missionary and almost all converts i saw as a ward and stake missionary, were nuttier than a chinese chicken salad.

as long as the missionaries were in good shape and getting out of their apartments every day, they were likely going to find someone crazy enough to get baptized.

[_GrandMoffTarkin]

I believe that expanding the missionary force is about youth/young adult retention. It's not about converts.

Disagree. For starters, it's a very false assumption that missionary service strengthens testimonies. The opposite is generally true. Missionary service exposes one to the inner dysfunction of the church, and at a maturity level that is often ill prepared to handle it. The most critical and cynical people in every ward I've ever been in are always RMs. People who never served have very false and fanciful ideas of what things are like in the mission field. Many times I have heard members who didn't serve express bewilderment over all the RMs who are inactive or leave the church, thinking them to be like Laman & Lemuel who saw an angel.

For once we agree!

[_Equality]

if mission presidents start telling these missionaries to not tract and not contact on the streets, there is going to be a lot of idle time for these kids.

Yes, this is happening. Someone had the bright idea to let these uncouth youth get on the interwebs and interact with people in the big, bad world, where their words can be shared with the world and saved for all generations of time and throughout all eternity. Here is an example that was posted on Reddit last week (the Elder thought it would be a good idea to venture onto an Ask and Atheist discussion on a Facebook page):

http://imgur.com/a/TpUAD

http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/23pwrj/so_my_online_debate_with_a_missionary_has/?sort=old

[_Quasimodo]

if mission presidents start telling these missionaries to not tract and not contact on the streets, there is going to be a lot of idle time for these kids.

Yes, this is happening. Someone had the bright idea to let these uncouth youth get on the interwebs and interact with people in the big, bad world, where their words can be shared with the world and saved for all generations of time and throughout all eternity. Here is an example that was posted on Reddit last week (the Elder thought it would be a good idea to venture onto an Ask and Atheist discussion on a Facebook page):

http://imgur.com/a/TpUAD

http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/23pwrj/so_my_online_debate_with_a_missionary_has/?sort=old

Great post!

Reading those links made me think of ldsfaqs. The "I used to be an atheist, but now I believe" ploy was classic ldsfaqs. I wonder if the Church really wants defenceless, confused 19 year olds defending the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham on a public forum against well educated adults.

All this is not going to end well.