Mission Possible: 15 MTCs dot the earth.

[_I have a question]

What follows is Stage 2 and Stage 3 behaviour...

To extract all this from my OP? Wow. If you go back and look again at my OP you will see that I posted a link and asked a question. I then made a statement that the church's missionary outreach through the number of MTC's throughout the world has increased significantly since the time I served a mission.

There is no "pattern" here except for the fact that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. You are the one going off on comparisons and what not. That's fine. And I...as you noticed...don't have any problem with that. Again, please go back and read everything that I said in this thread. You're the one creating a false narrative of my intent and/or purpose.

Not going to play your game, IHAQ.

I have a question for you. Why did you feel as though it might be inappropriate for me, or anyone else for that matter, to be curious as to the number of missionary training facilities other churches might have throughout the world? Is it not possible to ask a simple question around here without ending up with a post such as the one I've copied in it's entirety above? Again, all I can say in response to your post is...wow.

Notice that I haven't taken down my SigLine during the time I took a break.

It belongs there. It is for you.

One more question. Why did you feel it necessary to jump right in with the innuendo and personal attacks on my integrity/motives? in my opinion, it was unwarranted and unnecessary. You took the thread into a very predictable direction.

Can you play nice?

by the way, if others are interested in your "bigger question", fine. But it's YOUR question...and it's not one that I asked.

Regards,
MG

In response to your claim:
What has been the net positive effect of 15 MTC's on the missionary program of the Church?
Please be specific.

[_Goya]

I served a mission back in 1973-75. The number of mission homes has increased quite dramatically since those days.

....

The Church seems to have developed a very efficient system by which to move the gospel message forth to the countries that are open to missionaries.

I'm not seeing it.

This is the headline of a Salt Lake Tribune story from last month:

Mormon growth rate falls to lowest level in 80 years, but ups and downs vary by region

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5381411-155/mormon-growth-rate-falls-to-lowest

They're pegging the total growth rate at the lowest it's been since 1937. Perhaps the LDS Church's "very efficient system by which to move the gospel message" isn't that efficient.

Since this addresses your OP, maybe you'd care to respond?

[_Goya]

In response to your claim:

What has been the net positive effect of 15 MTC's on the missionary program of the Church?

Please be specific.

[_Maksutov]

MG: "Hey everyone, look at me, I've just run the 100 metres in 45 seconds, how good is that! I wonder how fast other people can run the 100 metres?"
IHAQ: "Here are the times of some other people for running the 100 metres. They did it in less than 10 seconds. By comparison your time is woefully slow."
MG: "I never asked for comparisons, why are you always so negative?"

It's a familiar pattern.

Stage 1 - MG makes a statement through a Cheerleader paradigm that makes him feel good about his Church.
Stage 2 - Other people post information, data and evidence that contextualises MG's original statement. The context leads to inescapable conclusions that MG's original statement is exaggerated, wrong or simply a fanciful view point.
Stage 3 - MG tries to either change his original statement into something else or discount the information, data and evidence by claiming the person posting it simply has an axe to grind. Anything to avoid addressing the context or inescapable conclusions it produces.

MG will do and say anything to avoid amending the original thing that it is he wants to believe.
Anything.

Because the context of the outreach program comparisons leads us, inescapably, to the conclusion that the Church's efforts (although clearly doing some positive things) are woefully inadequate in comparison to others and in comparison to the financial resources it has at its disposal (as demonstrated by the fact it can build, using liquid funds, a state of the art religious sales training school. 15 of them) is not a problem caused by me posting hard evidence.

MG Your failure to understand this^, is intellectually dishonesty.

The bigger question to ask is - why would the only organisation specifically led and directed by Christ Himself, not be at the pinnacle of outreach programmes?

The Church has, I believe, a four-fold mission:
1. Preach The Gospel
2. Perfect The Saints
3. Redeem The Dead
4. Help The Poor & Needy

Can it really have escaped men led by God that if they pumped all their resources, all their efforts, all their exhortation into number 4 on that list, that it would automatically deliver points 1 and 2, and do so exponentially more successfully than at present?

That they don't do so, coupled with an intransigence towards publishing the financial records and letting members know exactly how their donations are being used is suggestive to me of a fifth, more nefarious and self-serving objective, to which we aren't privy.

The MG subroutine: the dependable loop of passive aggression, whining, hyperbole, evasion and pouting, rinse and repeat. You've captured it perfectly....guess you've seen it a few times, eh? It's like a compulsive kabuki, maybe a weird OCD variant?

[_mentalgymnast]

What follows is Stage 2 and Stage 3 behaviour...

And here we go again...

SigLine link #'s 5,7...at the minimum.

In response to your claim:

What has been the net positive effect of 15 MTC's on the missionary program of the Church?

Please be specific.

I ask four questions. You ignore them and come back with one. Even Steven, right?

Net positive? Let me see...

Resource allocation and relief for both the church and the missionaries being called?

https://www.lds.org/callings/missionary ... s?lang=eng

Better to have them there...or move all these prospective missionaries to Utah?

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, IHAQ, you are prone to looking at what you perceive to be negative and pointing it out to the exclusion of all else. What's the point in doing that?

The fact is, as I pointed out in my OP, the church has many more MTC's throughout the world than they did back in the day when I served a mission. I think that...in and of itself...is a good thing. A net positive. I ask you, how can it NOT be?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Perhaps the LDS Church's "very efficient system by which to move the gospel message" isn't that efficient.

Since this addresses your OP, maybe you'd care to respond?

See my response to IHAQ. Resource allocation and relief for the church and prospective missionaries. I would think that administratively it would make a difference also. To have localized resources/properties/leaders to network with rather than have everything go back through SL.

Regards,
MG

[_Xenophon]

If I told you I had a business and that I went from 1 distribution center to 15 and that I doubled my sales staff. You might be pretty impressed. If I then told you that after doing that I saw a net decrease in sales, would you claim that I had become efficient, experienced a "net positive"?

You are correct that it is probably "more" efficient than when you a missionary, that doesn't make the process all that efficient in total though.

"Automating a wasteful process just makes waste faster" -Art Byrne

I won't say that they are doing no good in the world, that would be ridiculous. But there is no need to pretend that this is the most efficient way for the Church to help as many as possible though.

[_mentalgymnast]

The MG subroutine: the dependable loop of passive aggression, whining, hyperbole, evasion and pouting, rinse and repeat. You've captured it perfectly....guess you've seen it a few times, eh? It's like a compulsive kabuki, maybe a weird OCD variant?

Attacking the messenger again, I see. Making stuff up. Rinse and repeat.

Can't you just play nice? I asked the same of IHAQ and he failed to respond. Playing nice is not in your repertoire?

Read my OP. Read my other contributions during the thread. Look to see/notice where a derail occurred. Watch how others such as yourself come into attack the messenger, so to speak. THAT is the "dependable loop".

What did you find so offensive with my orginal post and the other contributions I made as I initiated this thread? Can you be specific please and as I've said before...use context...and my own words, to show that I am guilty of "passive aggression, whining, hyperbole, evasion and pouting"? Can you? Sure, I've pointed out that you and IHAQ are entering into a predictable pattern of deceit and provocativeness, but, heh, what would you expect me to do? Sit back and take a licking? Nah. YOU have predictably jumped into this thread to make it all about me again as a derail. You'll notice, by the way, that I'm not the one that moved it that direction.

When the dogs start barking, however, I have to...as I have before...point it out and try and bring things back around to a hoped for positive/productive discussion and sharing. Usually, from my experience, the dogs just keep on barking in unison and make a lot of noise much to the dismay of the neighbors/inhabitants in the neighborhood. I don't expect to be able to stop the barking. This thread will probably...now, unfortunately...continue to deteriorate into negativism and variants of hyperbole.

THAT, fellow board members, is a colossal waste of time for everyone.

Play nice?

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

What did you find so offensive with my orginal post and the other contributions I made as I initiated this thread? Can you be specific please and as I've said before...use context...and my own words, to show that I am guilty of "passive aggression, whining, hyperbole, evasion and pouting"? Can you?

ihaq already covered that, quite clearly.

Here is MG in Stage 3, trying to shift the intention of the OP.

I simply want to point out the growth in the number of MTC's that the church has built throughout the world and the positive net effect that it has had on the missionary program of the church. Would you disagree with me when I propose that the net effect has been positive?

Regards,
MG

So let's contextualise this^ statement.

MG, what has been the positive net effect on the missionary program of the Church as a result of building more MTC's?
And be specific.

MG's answer to this stage 3 variation on his OP question is that administrative expenses have decreased:

Resource allocation and relief for the church and prospective missionaries. I would think that administratively it would make a difference also. To have localized resources/properties/leaders to network with rather than have everything go back through SL.

That's not relevant to his re-constructed question: is there a "net positive effect on the missionary program" as a result of more MTCs?" Clark Goble's statistical work, however, contains some information that is considerably more relevant to the idea of how to measure the "net positive effect".

As far as I can tell, the first additional MTC was built in the late 1977, and now there are 15. According to Clark's post:

in 1978: there were 6.75 converts per missionary.
in 2016: there were 3.38 converts per missionary.

https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.p ... revisited/

Obviously, this is a correlation and not evidence of causality, but it can be stated, with confidence, that having 15 times the number of MTCs, spread worldwide, was not sufficient to prevent missionary efficiency, as measured by missionary converts, from dropping by 50%.

[_Mittens]

I wonder how the missionary outreach from other churches compares with the LDS Church in regards to the number of training facilities throughout the world?

Yes, let's.

Today the Seventh-day Adventist Church has a presence in more than 200 countries. Its commitment includes satellite television and shortwave radio blanketing the globe, a huge publishing program, thousands of schools, a large network of hospitals and clinics, and hundreds of missionaries. It also includes a worldwide humanitarian work through the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) and Adventist Community Services (ACS).

https://www.adventist.org/en/service/missionaries/

Educational Program
Total Schools 7,792
Tertiary Institutions 115
Worker Training Institutions 49
Secondary Schools 2,296
Primary Schools 5,332
Total Enrollment 1,864,352
Tertiary Institutions 147,123
Worker Training Institutions 5,922
Secondary Schools 566,301
Primary Schools 1,145,006
Food Industries
Food Industries 22
Healthcare Ministry
Hospitals and Sanitariums 175
Nursing Homes and Retirement Centers 140
Clinics and Dispensaries 385
Orphanages and Children’s Homes 29
Airplanes and Medical Launches 7
Outpatient Visits over 18,540,278
(Note: Incomplete reporting of healthcare institutions’ statistics in some divisions.)

Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA)
Countries and Areas of the World Where ADRA is Present over 130
Total Projects Funded 7,733
Beneficiaries of Projects 14,787,780
Funds for Program Support and Implementation
in excess of US$180,000,000

Note, the year before the 7DA spent $291,000,000

https://www.adventist.org/en/informatio ... tics-2015/

Okay, your turn...I'll start you off...

In a lecture given last month at the University of Oxford, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said that each year The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spends about $40 million on welfare, humanitarian and other LDS Church-sponsored projects around the world and has done so for more than 30 years.

Link

Looks like the Adventist outshine the Mormons by leaps and bounds