just me wrote: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 know that Mission Presidents are instructed specifically that their primary purpose is to ensure the conversion of the missionary themselves. I seem to recall some quoted statistics that show that youth who serve missions are far, far more likely to subsequently marry in the temple, have children and remain active in the Church.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Bazooka wrote:I seem to recall some quoted statistics that show that youth who serve missions are far, far more likely to subsequently marry in the temple, have children and remain active in the Church.
i have heard that too. but it is a goofy statistic. its like saying that 3 out 4 Mormons are more likely to be 75% of Mormons.
if Mormons fulfill one rite of passage they are obviously more likely to fulfill the next rite of passage.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
Quasimodo wrote:I heard a story once (I can't attest to the truthfulness) about a company that decided to get into the dog food business.
They did a thorough market research, hired the best advertising agency available and had experts design the packaging and labeling.
It was a total failure. People stopped buying it almost immediately.
It seems that most dogs refused to eat it.
Yep, slick marketing campaigns and a pushy sales force will only go so far. You still need a good product.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Water Dog wrote: The problem with this is that 1) the members usually don't know how to do missionary work, are afraid, lack the social confidence, whatever, and 2) they don't know any non-members to speak of. And this often leads them to make fake friends with the ulterior motive of handing them over to the missionaries, etc., which leads to other problems. Pressure the member all you want, if they don't actually socialize outside the church there is nobody for them to share the gospel with.
They won't socialize outside the church very long if they keep pushing their religion on others or maybe that's why they don't socialize outside the church they've already driven their non-member acquaintances away with their pushy proselytizing. Or maybe they don't hand over names to the missionaries because they know that it will adversely affect the friendships they have with non-members. I'm going with that, Mormons like their non-member friends and don't want to annoy or alienate them by feeding them to the missionaries.
wow water dog. thanks for taking the time to write that.
i agree with the process you have described. it is the same all over and in every language.
but, i stand by what i say. most, and i mean nearly all, converted adults are goofy as hell.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
Bazooka wrote:I seem to recall some quoted statistics that show that youth who serve missions are far, far more likely to subsequently marry in the temple, have children and remain active in the Church.
i have heard that too. but it is a goofy statistic. its like saying that 3 out 4 Mormons are more likely to be 75% of Mormons.
if Mormons fulfill one rite of passage they are obviously more likely to fulfill the next rite of passage.
Goofy or not, I think that increased probability is what was behind the decision to reduce the age limit. Young men were turning 18 and had a year in which they were suddenly in charge of their own destiny but not yet eligible to serve missions. That 'spare' 12 months seems to have been a real period of risk to their 'testimony' of the Church and their was an increasing trend of attrition of that age group. The reduction to missionary age seeks to get them out and converted before they have the time on their hands as adults to give the Church some serious enquiry. Plus, when they get exposed to the uncomfortable truths for the first time, they are doing so whilst under the constant supervision of companions, zone leaders and mission presidents, rather than in an environment where their social network may not be as faith promoting in their discussion of what the young man has just found out.
It's a clever, if manipulative, strategy that will probably work.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)