DiscussMormonism.com

Mormon conversions lag behind explosive missionary growth

In fact, the LDS Church tallied 281,312 convert baptisms in 2011 with help from 55,410 full-time missionaries. That’s barely 1,600 more converts than last year, when there were nearly 28,000 more missionaries. As it stands, the ratio of converts to Mormon missionaries has slipped from 5-to-1 in 2010 to less than 3.5-to-1 last year.

I know the topic has been covered, but here is a good write up on it.

Sammy Jankins wrote:Mormon conversions lag behind explosive missionary growth

In fact, the LDS Church tallied 281,312 convert baptisms in 2011 with help from 55,410 full-time missionaries. That’s barely 1,600 more converts than last year, when there were nearly 28,000 more missionaries. As it stands, the ratio of converts to Mormon missionaries has slipped from 5-to-1 in 2010 to less than 3.5-to-1 last year.

I know the topic has been covered, but here is a good write up on it.

When one then considers the retention rates for these new converts, especially outside the US, the ratio probably works out to less than one tithe paying convert per missionary - and less than 0.5 tithe paying converts per missionary per year of missionary service.

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.

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

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

I think you are probably right. It will be interesting to see how that works out for them. My guess is, not so well. Eighteen your olds just out of high school are going to have more problems in the field than kids with an extra year of experience, and possibly even some college.

The younger kids (a year makes a lot of difference at that age) are going to require more supervision, while leaving an even less favorable impression of the LDS Church with those they meet. Hard to say whether or not they will make more reliable lifetime members than those entering the mission field at 19. I have my doubts.

It's a lot more simple than that. They need to keep missionary work going for appearances. As gullible as many church members are, they would know something is wrong if the church stopped sending missionaries or intentionally reduced the number of missionaries.

It would be a lot easier to explain the drop in recruits. They can just say that the world is getting more wicked and there are fewer chosen left. That wouldn't however mean that the church could just stop looking, even if only a few will be found. Remember, how great will be your joy if you bring just one soul to the gospel...

I agree with justme.

18-19, first year of college is a vulnerable time. A lot of internet access combined with the self-discovery of college can't be good for retention.

"Hey holier-than-thou roommate, let me tell you something about Joseph Smith..."

Better that conversation went, "Hey holier-than-thou companion, let me tell you something about the spirit of the law..."

Gadianton wrote: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.

perhaps it has something to do with expanding BYU campus further north. interestingly the Church abandoned plans for the contentious 9-story MTC building at the very same time they announced the missionary age change.

I believe it is about retention of the missionaries themselves and I would expect the church has hard numbers showing the retention rate of those who serve missions and those who do not.

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

Exactly. 18-19 year olds may go to college, or enter the work force, away from the influence of their parents, bishop, and YM/YW advisor, and see a whole big beautiful world that will allow them to discover their true talents and passions and be whatever they choose to be. This is probably the most vulnerable time for a member to fall into inactivity. I'm surprised it took them this long to figure out the simple solution to this problem. Just close the gap. Prevent them from ever going out into the world on their own as an adult. They go from being a child in an active LDS household, watched over by parents, bishops, and YM/YW advisors, directly to 2 years of brainwashing, watched over by a companion and MP, followed immediately to marriage to a faithful LDS member, folowed immediately to having children. Closing the gap is a big investment for the church, but it's money well spent.