Mission Possible: 15 MTCs dot the earth.

[_Maksutov]

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

Know what, MG? This is your thread and you're welcome to it. I don't need to do the loop again. Enjoy.

[_I have a question]

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

Are you asking me if that's a net positive (from your use of a question mark)?
Because it's currently resting with you to show, specifically the net positive.
Your question doesn't do that. Your link doesn't do that.

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

Again, you're asking me a question where you should be making a statement(S) demonstrating the specific net positive of these centres.

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?

Couldn't resist slipping into Stage 3 huh...

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?

Yet another attempt to shift the burden of proof. How, specifically, is it a net positive?
(Just because you think it a net positive, does not a net positive make it)

[_Themis]

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

I don't think there is a strong correlation to increasing missionary numbers and the increase in MTC's. I suspect it is just trying to keep missionaries from having to travel less to get to a MTC. No point in going half way across the world for a few weeks only to travel back to the same area.

[_SteelHead]

Net benefit to local construction companies?

[_mentalgymnast]

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

I don't think there is a strong correlation to increasing missionary numbers and the increase in MTC's. I suspect it is just trying to keep missionaries from having to travel less to get to a MTC. No point in going half way across the world for a few weeks only to travel back to the same area.

I think I sorta mentioned that.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

I don't think there is a strong correlation to increasing missionary numbers and the increase in MTC's. I suspect it is just trying to keep missionaries from having to travel less to get to a MTC. No point in going half way across the world for a few weeks only to travel back to the same area.

True, a possible decrease in expenses, but no indication that it increased the efficiency of missionary work. In fact, the extreme drop in the efficiency of missionary work is completely inversely correlated with the increase in MTCs.

[_fetchface]

My experience in rural Brazil (2000-2002) was that the SDAs and JWs were kicking the LDS church's tail in that market. It bothered the hell out of me at that time and I just attributed it to Stan's influence but that was what I saw.

[_Themis]

I don't think there is a strong correlation to increasing missionary numbers and the increase in MTC's. I suspect it is just trying to keep missionaries from having to travel less to get to a MTC. No point in going half way across the world for a few weeks only to travel back to the same area.

True, a possible decrease in expenses, but no indication that it increased the efficiency of missionary work. In fact, the extreme drop in the efficiency of missionary work is completely inversely correlated with the increase in MTCs.

LDS Missionary work has always been very inefficient. I suspect they don't understand what it is that really gets people in and keeps them in. The mindset is the one true church and the holy ghost doing the converting, when its the social aspects that really convert people.

[_I have a question]

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

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/f ... 5948a.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionar ... ing_Center

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? 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.

Regards,
MG

Whilst dotting the earth with 15 MTC's may be Mission Possible...

Let's consider the capacity of just the Provo MTC which is now up to 3,700 missionaries at any one time.

How many missionaries can the MTC Provo process in a 50 week year?
Two week stint = 92,500 missionaries per annum (English speaking)
Six week stint = 30,833 missionaries per annum (Romance languages)
Eight week stint = 23,125 missionaries per annum (Harder languages)

Globally there are currently >37,000 missionaries a year being called on missions (and this number is reducing). Most of which will be sent to English speaking missions. When you ponder the numbers you can easily see that the new set up at Provo could handle every single missionary that is called to serve in any given year.

And the Church has built 15 of these things globally...

For reference;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/2 ... 41080.html


...filling them will be Mission Impossible

[_Maksutov]

The mission is to convert the missionary. Maybe it was different once, but that's the emphasis now.