I don’t recall the precise moment, but sometime on or around July 2nd, 2004 (incidentally, the day after I finished being a missionary) I began to notice how young missionaries are. They are mere children, sent throughout the world, suddenly finding themselves in a situation much more challenging than anything they have ever faced. I felt glad I was never that young as a missionary.
In truth, I was that young. When I first set foot in the Missionary Training Center in June 2002, I was all of 19 years old. I thought I was older than the other missionaries, but I really wasn’t. Attending two years of college and living away from home for that time perhaps made a difference. But no matter how you slice it, I was just as clueless about life as the rest. And to complicate matters, I was a clueless 19-year-old in Siberia.
Such is the reality of the entire missionary force of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In over 150 countries, there are young men and young women (as young as they can possibly be and still be called men and women) volunteering prime years of their young lives to do missionary work. There are currently over 52,000 of them.
With nearly half of the Church’s members living in the United States, a significant fraction of the missionary force is American. Many world leaders have made comments alluding to Mormon missionaries being one of the primary means of cultural exposure their citizens have to America. Even here in Romania, I have been asked multiple times “are you a Mormon?” Knowing what they mean, it’s a tricky question to answer, “Well yes, but…”
Two years in Russia as a missionary were the most life-changing I have yet to experience. Peace Corps has also been a significant experience, but had I never served a mission, I doubt my chosen career path would have been the same. This same path fostered my desire to serve in the Peace Corps.
Last week, we talked about one purpose of missionary work – “spreading the Gospel.” I mentioned that it was only one of the major purposes of missionary work. Now I wish to address the other purpose, which perhaps is more important.
First I post a question: If Mormon missionary work is focused on church growth, why are their most inexperienced members sent out to represent the religion to the world? I posed this question to some missionaries this past week, and they couldn’t answer it. They had never even considered it.
When a new mission president (missionary supervisor in a given area) is called, they are told that their primary responsibility is to “convert the missionaries,” rather than “convert as many others as possible.” True, missionaries are already fully participating church members, and by definition can’t be converted. However, for Mormons, conversion is more than changing from one belief system to another. It is a life-long process of self-improvement, and the quest to come to know God.
Having the experience to focus 100% of one’s time to a singular cause, with daily reflection on things pertaining to life and the divine, it is a very effective way of jump-starting eternal progression. Doing so at the threshold of adulthood helps to set a course for life.
Therefore, I believe that the ultimate purpose of the missionary program of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not solely to increase their membership. It is to develop conviction among their existing membership, by providing an ideal environment for spiritual development for their youngest adult members.
Would the readers agree with this assessment?
DISCLAIMER:
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly! Having had three missionary sons, I believe it is the greatest way a young man can prepare for marriage and family, a full life and to continue to build the kingdom of God here on earth.
This eraly in the commenting game, I simply pose one "devil's advocate"-y question- what about the thousands of LDS young women who don't serve missions? They seem to miss out on this "conversion boot camp." Thoughts?
When I was young I looked up to missionaries in their smart suits and energy and enthusiasm and being from various countries in the world (granted more from America), being from a part member family we were allotted extra time according to missionary rules at the time and I sure did enjoy it.
I might even be willing to admit a harmless crush when I was 13 years old.
Boy does ones opinion change after having served a mission. Not only do we notice how young they are as the years pass us by, but we notice who works hard, wants to be there, and is an excellent missionary compared to the missionary who is filling in time or making the family happy back at home. Put another way, those who worked real hard to be there financially and spiritually and those who were given a free trip to a new place for 2 years, their parents (or sponsors) hoping a testimony would arrive at some point etc....
Missionaries these days might not know why they are out there at so young an age, but my generation was brought up to believe that missionaries were sent out like Joseph Smith, young and unlearned. Who better to serve and share the gospel teachings? Someone naive, unsoiled by the wisdom of the world.
If what you say is true, I chuffed whilst reading about what a Mission President's first responsibility now is. Maybe it's a new focus of the church, since I hadn't heard it before and such was not the intent of my Mission Presidents.
Retention would be the word I think this post is looking for, and didn't say. The church has always sought ways to retain and build the faith of its membership (Home/Visiting Teaching, Young Men/Women) but a mission can also send some reeling off one way and others another. I can agree that it helps, but there's no guarantee, is there? The strong get stronger in their faith, and the weak are weeded out.
I believe that retention is the primary motivation in sending young men off at age 19. I hear anecdotally that convert baptisms are down, but again, have no actual numbers to back that up. I undertand that retention of new converts is a problem in many countries, with a high inactivity rate.
As for me, a convert, I can say that I called the missionaries with the intention of joining. Yep, I was "golden." In a sense, I suppose that I should give the "credit" to my husband for converting me, as I would have never joined based on the 3 missionary lessons that I received. To be perfectly honest, the missionaries almost "unconverted" me. :)
I live in a northern Utah town where they still publish the missionary comings and goings each week in the newspaper. I have noticed (again, no "hard science" to back this up), especially over the last year that I'm seeing fewer missionaries being sent to places other than the U.S. and South America. It used to be that I saw many exotic destinations. Any thoughts there? I'm also noticing fewer temple marriages. It used to be that most marriages in the Sunday paper were at a temple. Now? Sometimes the civil weddings outnumber the temple ones. That's been a more recent development, and was rather sudden.
When I was serving a mission, I also noticed that it did me more good than anyone else. I also noticed that if someone felt the Spirit and were affected, it had very little to do with anything my companions or I did directly. Some people were simply more ready to understand than others, although for us to have fasted and prayed before going out certainly helped.
As to Janet's comment about fewer missionaries being sent to more exotic places than the Americas, I believe more and more native individuals are filling missions in their own, or neighboring countries.
My Daughter was in Poland up until about a year ago, and she served with companions from Denmark and Belarus.
Also, not all mission calls appear in the paper, at least in my "Northern Utah" area.
I think that a 19 year old person with at least a year of active church membership and a conviction/testimony of it is plenty qualified to teach the basic principles of the gospel. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism by immersion, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. They need not be great orators with years of teaching experience. One should not expect this nor is is needed. The message is simple and simple minds bring it. As a missionary we are even discouraged from studying "deep" doctrine as it distracts from the lessons you will be teaching.
I think what Nils was hinting at is that a mission president's responsibilities are different than that of a missionary. A president presides over a mission and acts not only as a spiritual adviser/teacher but also is in charge of all the missionary work done in that geographic area. So, of course he's going to want you to be converted spiritually. What kind of a missionary would a skeptic make? As a missionary, the principal responsibility you have is to baptize. Although a missionary may have preliminary contact after the baptism with the newly baptized member, the principal purpose of the missionary is not retention. That would fall upon the ward. Correct me if I'm wrong or if it's changed since I've been out (4 yrs). As far as the retention of the missionaries themselves, I'd have to agree wholeheartedly.
I agree with Roly in that a mission is a trial. Either you work hard and succeed or you don't and fail. The Lord always purifies his people through trials and I was never tried like I was on my mission.
Janet, I too have heard that convert baptisms have steadily declined over the last decade. I don't know if the number of missionaries has decreased although I would imagine so since they raised the bar on missionary prerequisites. During my mission alone I saw many changes to the way missionary work was done so as to retain converts better such as an increase in the number of time a candidate for baptism had attended church. Thinking scientifically about it, few things in this world experience constant/exponential growth. Those that do...don't survive. There's always room to have adjustment periods. I can't speculate as to a correlation there but its a possibility.
I think the number of missionaries will continue to wane as the standard continues where it is, but the ability of parents and teachers to produce young men who can meet that standard continues to plummet. I also think it unfortunate that the bar had to be raised some years ago, for it should never have been lowered in the first place. Perhaps it was put in its rightful place after the effects of less adequate missionaries began to be felt among the membership and the leadership of the church.
I think that you're probably right Nils, that mission presidents are told to make sure the missionary converts himself during those two years, but I think it unfortunate that such emphasis is made. Ideally, a mission president would have most of his time for training the missionary to convert and baptize those who seek the truth.
To put the ideal situation candidly, if the bar were where it should be, those missionaries admitted would be ones who felt their duty and who were converted before they even got on the plane. Their time could then be devoted to the stated purpose of their adventure, I mean, endeavor: that of the clerical calling of spreading the gospel.
I just want to thank Steve for bringing up a question that has always been a difficult one for me. Going back to Nils' conclusion as to the other purpose of missionary work, developing and strengthening the youth who serve as missionaries... what about the women? As noted by Fern Rl, there are many women who do indeed serve missions. But the "call" is not so cut and dry for us. I had wanted to go on a mission since 17 and was constantly told that I would get married first. Church leaders told me that, Elder missionaries said that... and every time it made me mad. It was so unfair! Why is it that everyone had to dash my hopes of being a missionary just because I'm a girl and would supposedly get married and have a baby before 21? It's only if I "happen" to make it to 21 that I may indeed get to go. And what about all the great and wonderful women serving!! They didn't just "happen" to not get married and then fall back on a mission because they had nothing else to do... they chose to go on a mission because it was right for them. Oh... and by the way... I didn't get married til 25! So age isn't the issue...
The only thing I can figure is that women must have some other opportunities to learn what missionaries learn on a mission... Like Nils pointed out, the personal development of the missionary is indeed very important, not just "winning" new converts. And what does that say for other great men who don't get a chance to serve either... or for that matter, converts who convert after the age of going on a mission, like both of my parents...? Missionary work can't be the only way the church develops members and youth.
In conclusion... I think it's great that missionary work isn't only for the results, numbers, baptisms, converts... and all that stuff that Janet mentioned is declining. What is great is that the well being and development of the missionaries is important too! They in and of themselves are an important part of their work... not just the members they bring into the fold. And with that, there are also many other ways we as members can challenge ourselves and become more 'converted'... perhaps not through a mission, but by other means...
Several of you have made reference to church statistics. I thought I would provide some statistics for your reading pleasure.
First of all, I think it is important to include this caveat from newsroom.lds.org:
“…the Church cautions against overemphasis on growth statistics. The Church makes no statistical comparisons with other churches and makes no claim to be the fastest-growing Christian denomination despite frequent news media comments to that effect. Such comparisons rarely take account of a multiplicity of complex factors, including activity rates and death rates, the methodology used in registering or counting members and what factors constitute membership. Growth rates also vary significantly across the world. Additionally, many other factors contribute to the strength of the Church, most especially the devotion and commitment of its members.”
With that in mind, here we go…
Missionary Rates
There are two important events to consider in analyzing missionary rates. First, as tobyo mentioned, the “raising the bar” which took effect in late 2002 (on a personal note, I began my mission in June 2002, so I guess you could say I was one of the last of those to “squeak by”). Also, from 2003-2004 the missionary program overhauled much of its teaching program, which may explain the slight fluctuation during that period.
Missionary numbers were at an all-time high in 2001 (61,638) and had been rising ever since 1981 (with exceptions of slight declines in 1991 and 1994). However, after the “raising the bar” took place, missionary numbers declined sharply, bottoming out in 2004. In 2006 missionary rates were the highest they had been since 2003 when the decline began. Numbers dropped slightly in 2007.
2002 - 61,638
2003 - 56,237
2004 - 51,067
2005 - 52,060
2006 - 53,164
2007 - 52,686
Besides the slight drop in this past year, it is hard to determine whether missionary numbers are on an upward trend since 2004, or whether they are leveling out.
Convert Baptisms
During the past 10 years, the average number of convert baptisms per year was 312,222. These numbers were highest in 1999 (398,745) and lowest in 2003 (263,706). Following the “raising of the bar” there has was an initial decline, though numbers have gradually risen since then (except a slight drop in 2005), up to 325,393 last year.
2002 - 327,026
2003 - 263,706
2004 - 290,568
2005 - 285,047
2006 - 307,737
2007 - 325,393
It is interesting to note that the number of baptisms in 2007 (325,393) is nearly the same as it was in 2001 (325,661), a year before the bar was raised. However, there were 60,850 missionaries in 2001, compared to the 52,686 in 2007.
The highest numbers of convert baptisms in the church of all time came in the late 1980’s, where the church had 587,234 new baptisms in 1989 and 452,735 in 1990. The average number of convert baptisms from 1981-1990 was 312,136, and from 1991-2000 it was 330,768.
Growth Rate
Probably one of the most telling statistics of church growth is the percentage growth rate the Church experiences each year. From 1981-1990 the growth rate averaged at 5.29% per year, with the high year being 1989 (8.74%) and the low year being 1983 (3.66%). From 1991-2000, growth rates were much more consistent, averaging at 3.61% with a high year in 1991 (4.23%) and a low year in 2000 (2.94%). Growth rates are also smaller between 2001-2007, averaging at 2.54%
2001 - 2.94%
2002 - 2.87%
2003 - 2.25%
2004 - 2.42%
2005 - 2.32%
2006 - 2.45%
2007 - 2.52%
It seems that there may be a general inclining trend since 2003, though again, it is probably too soon to tell. However, it is notable that growth rates are at their highest since “raising the bar” took place.”
Convert Baptisms per Missionary
From 1981-1990, the average number of convert baptisms per missionary was very high, at 9.43 convert baptisms per missionary per year. The highest year by far was in 1989, when each missionary baptized an average of 14.78 converts. The low year was two years earlier, in 1987, with 6.54 per missionary. From 1991-2000, the average was more stable at 6.54 baptisms per missionary. The highest year was 1991 (7.57) and the lowest year was 1998 (4.88).
Since 2001, the average has been 5.46 convert baptisms per missionary per year. The numbers bottomed-out in 2003 (4.69) and were highest last year in 2007 (6.18).
2001 – 5.35
2002 – 5.31
2003 – 4.69
2004 – 5.69
2005 – 5.48
2006 – 5.79
2007 – 6.18
Conclusions
Inconclusive. Early indicators show that the numbers do seem to be rising, and that raising the bar and overhauling the missionary system have resulted in a more productive missionary force (though still relatively less productive than that during the 1980s). By 2010, there should be a clearer picture if this is the case.
Also, I think it is important to reiterate the original point of this post. While church growth is a natural by-product of missionary work, it doesn’t by any means represent church strength. Several have made mention to the fact that many who join the Church quickly become inactive, and are not actively part of the church strength. While there are no accurate statistics of the overall “activity rate” of the Church membership, many estimates have placed it somewhere in between 30% and 50%.
Also, the “conversion process” of the missionaries themselves during their service is also a major aspect which helps to strengthen the Church. There are plenty of “active” members who don’t necessarily add much support to the Church. Likewise, there are members who add a lot more to the strength of the Church. Many of these leaders are returned missionaries (though not all of them, as Steven and Emily have pointed out – Even among the quorum of the 12 apostles and the first presidency only 8 out of 15 were missionaries). When I talked about “converting the missionaries” I wasn’t referring to them gaining a testimony of the Church, rather a process of strengthening their testimony, that in the future they will provide a more long-term source of support to the Church.
Finally, though statistics are interesting to look at, it should be remembered that these statistics represent real people. They are useful as indicators, but do not adequately represent the importance of each of these people.
Maybe this point is relevant, maybe it's not- you decide, but Emily's comment brought it up.
Whilst in Russia I had the opportunity of serving with a mini-missionary (sort of a fill-in job, a local member serving as my mission companion for a short time). His name was Sasha (Nils knows who I'm talking about), and what my mission president told me was that this mini-mission was to be a trial period for Sasha- a chance to see if a mission was something he a) wanted to do, and b) was up for.
It was clear early on that a mission wasn't the fun vacation I think Sasha thought it looked like. At one point, he even told me that if he didn't serve a mission, he'd never change. Basically, Sasha saw a mission as a means to the end of becoming a better person, necessary to help him change.
I told him flat out that such a goal is not what a mission is for. To be a missionary is to look beyond yourself to others, serving them and teaching them. If you do that, then you change. In other words, personal change is a natural result of being actively engaged in missionary work. And it stretches beyond missionary work even- someone famous said something to the effect that "It is truly remarkable that no man can work to lift others and not lift himself in turn." (That's a paraphrase- 2 million fake bonus points to the person who finds the real quote).
Am I a better person because of my mission? Absolutely. But I got there by doing the Lord's work, not my own. And it's something I still have to work at.
Yes, I believe that for me my mission was a big massive injection of conversion into my heart, soul and mind. But it didn't come just by going- I had to earn it.
So why go so young? Maybe because any younger and we're too immature, and older and we're too set in our ways to learn what we need to learn , for the sake of those we teach and for the sake of our futures.
It's a good question, and one that I think doesn't have one answer.
I'm inclined to side with Steven here. The purpose of missionary work is to spread the gospel, with personal conversion, or a 'strengthened testimony' as a natural side-effect.
But 'spread the gospel' doesn't necessarily just mean 'get people baptized.' We are bound under covenant to share what we have. We must offer, invite, and challenge people to look at it. Whether they accept it is up to them, but if we keep it to ourselves, our garments will be stained by their blood.
If personal conversion of the missionaries were the primary goal, I think the Church could find a much cheaper alternative (i.e. Family Home Evening and daily family scripture study years before the missionary embarks).
P.S. Steven, I don't know if this is the quote you wanted, but it conveys the same idea: "Help thy brother's boat across, and lo! thine own has reached the shore." -Hindu Proverb
"He who seeketh to save his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." Matthew 10:39 (JST). This scripture explains completely how I feel a mission or any Christian service should be. I agree with Steven in that by doing Christian service -sacrificing our desires for the good of others- we are purified by those efforts. We do it to help people and in so doing we help ourselves.
Saw a missionary movie last night, courtesy of our local library: Hawaii starring Max Von Sydow and Julie Andrews, with Gene Hackman in a minor role.
Max Von Sydow was great as the overbearing missionary who understood nothing of the native culture.
Post a Comment