Home Page › Forums › General Discussion › Number of LDS missionaries rising
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 3, 2023 at 9:14 pm #213291
Anonymous
GuestI ran across this article and was curious what might explain the increase. The Deseret News article seems to explain it by a RMN conference address in April 2022 that asked young people to go on missions.
I suppose that might have helped. However, I think that a better reason is that we are returning to our pre-pandemic numbers.
There is an excellent graph found at
https://latterdaysaintmissionprep.com/news/number-of-mormon-missionaries/ From the mission prep website.
Quote:“The decline in 2020 was due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a 23% year over year drop and was the biggest decline in the history of the available data (since 1977). In March of 2020, all missionaries throughout the world were brought to their home countries and quarantined. They were then given the opportunity the continue their mission immediately or postpone it. Roughly 80% decided to continue with their missions.”
Our 2022 & 2023 numbers are comparable to our 2017, 18, & 19 numbers and only look stellar when compared to 2020 & 2021.
Another questionable assertion from the Deseret News article comes in the following quote
Quote:Fewer children are being born today in most countries. And yet, even “with fewer available, more are going out,” Elder Cook said.
Fewer children being born today? Hmm, may be true but that does not necessarily equate to “fewer available.” The raw population numbers of the world and LDS membership have both ballooned since the 1980. The church membership in 1980 was 4.5 Million and in 2022 topped 17 million. Although, I do not know how many of those numbers represent the youth of the church, it seems only reasonable that the number of church youth today is much larger than it was 40 years ago. Maybe the percentage of growth from the birthrate has slowed but that is not the same thing as saying that there are “fewer available.”
Quote:The phenomenon church leaders are seeing among young people who are signing up to go on missions is that they are responding in higher numbers, and higher percentages, than previous generations, Elder Cook said.
It would be interesting to see statistics comparing the number of missionaries as a percentage of youth available to serve. Maybe to get an apples to apples comparison it would be necessary to compare the number of male missionaries as a percentage of male youth available to serve. I believe that expectations regarding young LDS women and missionary service have shifted during this period and might muddy the results.
In summary, we reached 60k missionaries in the year 2000. Church membership in that time was 11 million. We are now at 17 million members and we just hit 68k missionaries. Nothing to crow about, but I guess if you need something to crow about then you can make a mountain out of this molehill.
Quote:As Elder Marcus B. Nash, a General Authority Seventy and the executive director of the church’s missionary department, said at the Missionary Training Center, “There’s just something going on, and I don’t know how to explain it other than the prophet spoke in April 2022, and this rising generation — that he teaches us was held in reserve — are responding.”
July 4, 2023 at 11:48 am #343977Anonymous
GuestIt is very interesting that I had similar thoughts as I read the article. I generally take whatever is written in Deseret News as biased, but I think this one is more biased than average. Roy wrote:
I suppose that might have helped. However, I think that a better reason is that we are returning to our pre-pandemic numbers.
I agree, and there were great predictions when the missionary age was lowered which seem to not have quite yet come to fruition.Quote:There is an excellent graph found at
https://latterdaysaintmissionprep.com/news/number-of-mormon-missionaries/ From the mission prep website.
Quote:“The decline in 2020 was due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a 23% year over year drop and was the biggest decline in the history of the available data (since 1977). In March of 2020, all missionaries throughout the world were brought to their home countries and quarantined. They were then given the opportunity the continue their mission immediately or postpone it. Roughly 80% decided to continue with their missions.”
Our 2022 & 2023 numbers are comparable to our 2017, 18, & 19 numbers and only look stellar when compared to 2020 & 2021.
Nothing like a good lie with statistics. There’s the old adage “lies, damn lies, and statistics.”Quote:Another questionable assertion from the Deseret News article comes in the following quote
Quote:Fewer children are being born today in most countries. And yet, even “with fewer available, more are going out,” Elder Cook said.
Fewer children being born today? Hmm, may be true but that does not necessarily equate to “fewer available.” The raw population numbers of the world and LDS membership have both ballooned since the 1980. The church membership in 1980 was 4.5 Million and in 2022 topped 17 million. Although, I do not know how many of those numbers represent the youth of the church, it seems only reasonable that the number of church youth today is much larger than it was 40 years ago. Maybe the percentage of growth from the birthrate has slowed but that is not the same thing as saying that there are “fewer available.”
Quote:The phenomenon church leaders are seeing among young people who are signing up to go on missions is that they are responding in higher numbers, and higher percentages, than previous generations, Elder Cook said.
Elder Cook’s quote is of course not backed up with statistics, presumably because a) the stats don’t say what they want them to say b) the stats really aren’t available or c) both of those. I think in general in the Northern Hemisphere people in general are having fewer children. I saw a mention in another Deseret News article about how single children are more likely to have multiple children (based on anecdotal evidence) because they didn’t like being single children. I thought about the “mega multi-children” families in my ward (families with 8 children, now adults and parents) and the that anecdotal evidence indicates the opposite – none of them have anywhere close to 8, several with one of none (and don’t plan to have any). Anyway, for whatever reason I agree that surface evidence would seem to be that there are more church members, hence more missionaries as you say.Quote:It would be interesting to see statistics comparing the number of missionaries as a percentage of youth available to serve. Maybe to get an apples to apples comparison it would be necessary to compare the number of male missionaries as a percentage of male youth available to serve. I believe that expectations regarding young LDS women and missionary service have shifted during this period and might muddy the results.
I think this stat does exist, at least at the local (stake/ward) level, which would seem to indicate there is a churchwide compilation through the membership computer system. As I recall when I could see such local stats, it really only listed unmarried 18-year-old men who had not served missions (and perhaps the same for women, but I don’t recall seeing that).Another important point is that with the missionary surge after the age change the largest increase was actually in sister missionaries. Again I’m sure that stat was available to the church, perhaps not shared with DN, but in all likelihood there are far more sisters serving now than there were prior to the age change, skewing those prior stats. A stat of how many more males there are serving now compared to then would be more useful. This of course may be another misuse of stats because they don’t say what DN or the church would like them to say (and maybe they don’t expect people like us to actually think – how dare we!).
Quote:In summary, we reached 60k missionaries in the year 2000. Church membership in that time was 11 million. We are now at 17 million members and we just hit 68k missionaries. Nothing to crow about, but I guess if you need something to crow about then you can make a mountain out of this molehill.
Again, especially when you recognize that it’s more than likely that most if not all of those 8 million are sisters.Quote:As Elder Marcus B. Nash, a General Authority Seventy and the executive director of the church’s missionary department, said at the Missionary Training Center, “There’s just something going on, and I don’t know how to explain it other than the prophet spoke in April 2022, and this rising generation — that he teaches us was held in reserve — are responding.”
Way to toe that party line, Elder Nash – good for you! There’s bound to be an opening in the Twelve very soon, hang in there.
July 4, 2023 at 2:56 pm #343978Anonymous
GuestGut reaction, it’s just a piece put out in hopes that it will get even more kids to serve a mission based on the bandwagon effect. I still haven’t gotten over Nelson renewing the teaching that every young man has a
responsibilityto serve a mission. I believe renewing that call has led to lots of manipulation being used to get kids to serve a mission. There’s the messaging from higher up church leaders like Elder Pearson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQfT0ZT2bEo Then there are local Leaders. I know this clip is anecdotal but I’ve heard similar things in my stake and I’m sure similar things are being said in many stakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiknvBvVRG8&t=34s Then there’s what’s being said in families. It’s no surprise at all that mission numbers are surging when the entire weight of the culture of the church is leaning on young men to serve. I’m still disgusted by that messaging. It’s not right.
Quote:The phenomenon church leaders are seeing among young people who are signing up to go on missions is that they are responding in higher numbers,
, than previous generations, Elder Cook said.and higher percentagesI’ll do some back of napkin math using pre-pandemic numbers. 2014 when the number of missionaries peaked. 2019 just before the pandemic. Today. I’ll assume that the demographics are relatively the same. Roughly the same percentage of youth in the church that are eligible for a mission in the year 2014 as there are today. I don’t think that’s too much of a stretch.
[table]
[row][col]Year[/col] [col]Membership[/col] [col]Missionaries[/col] [col]Percentage[/col]
[/row]
[row][col]2014[/col] [col]15,372,337[/col] [col]85,147[/col] [col]0.5538%[/col]
[/row]
[row][col]2019[/col] [col]16,565,036[/col] [col]67,021[/col] [col]0.4045%[/col]
[/row]
[row][col]End of 2023 (projected)[/col] [col]17,250,000[/col] [col]72,000[/col] [col]0.4173%[/col]
[/row]
[/table] I guess the percentages are up a little. I don’t see the point of measuring religiosity in the first place but I’d say it’s a little flawed to use the number of kids serving missions to measure it. Especially when you’re applying gobs of social pressure to get them to go.
Elder Marcus B. Nash wrote:There’s just something going on, and I don’t know how to explain it other than the prophet spoke in April 2022, and this rising generation — that he teaches us was held in reserve — are responding.
Several explanations come to mind.
We’re coming off the pandemic years.
- It’s the summer. It’s the typical seasonal surge as kids graduate from high school.
- We’re using horribly manipulative tactics to get kids out on missions.
The numbers are known, not by the public, but they’re known. My guess is that as a percentage there are fewer young men serving missions than there ever has been. What of the makeup of the total number of missionaries? I have no way of knowing but I’d guess that 10 years ago 10-15% of the missionaries were women. Now we have roughly the same number of total missionaries that we had 10 years ago but I’m guessing that 25-30% are women. Meaning there are fewer young men serving… despite the social pressures placed upon them.
I’m also hearing anecdotal reports that in the LDS dating world that men are now starting to expect women to have served a mission. The smelly shoe of the LDS dating scene is now on both feet.
July 4, 2023 at 4:14 pm #343979Anonymous
GuestThe idea that LDS men cannot look for female RMs to date in the same way that LDS women are encouraged to do is a pet peave of mine. Below is a post of mine from another thread.
Quote:
PazamaManX wrote:
My brother-in-law, for example, had his girlfriend at the time break up with him when he decided not to serve. Only an RM would be good enough for her.
Yes! The church has encouraged women to apply this sort of pressure on the men for a long time. Perhaps the biggest “chip” that the church has in pressuring men to serve missions is that the men will not be considered full marriage material without serving.
What I found more interesting was when Elder Holland heard that some men were saying that they only wanted to date and marry female RM’s and he came out forcefully against that trend. This struck me as odd. If some men wanted a partner with the growth and life experience and proof of dedication to the gospel and the church that missionary service is supposed to provide then why should that matter to Elder Holland?
From the YSA FAce to Face event in 2016
Quote:“I was in the missionary executive counsel with President Russell Nelson when we wrestled through this issue to lower the age to 18 for young men and 19 for young women. And indelibly imprinted on my soul forever was President Thomas Spencer Monson thumping the table, pointing a finger, declaring what we would and would not do on this. He was very supportive. You remember that announcement; I mean that electric moment when he announced that in general conference, but more privately he had said, and of course he said it publicly too, but this was in the formative period of the policy. He was adamant that we were not going to create a second class citizenship for young women who did not serve a mission.
“
We lean on the young men to go as much as we can; we’re pretty straight forward about that. We do an arm twist and a knee pull and go for the jugular on the men. But even there, let me be serious, if a young man doesn’t go, that does not preclude him from our association and admiration and his priesthood service and his loyalty and love of the Lord in the future in the Church. That ought to be true for young men as well as young women, but adamantly for young women. “President Monson never intended for all the young women in the Church to go on missions by dropping that age. We’re very grateful for those that go. It’s changed the face of the Church. It’s going to continue to change the face of the Church. We went from something like 8 or 10 or 12 percent to 30 or 35 percent of the missionary force of the Church being young women and everybody knows that a sister is twice as effective as three elders. But we do not want anyone feeling inadequate or left out or undignified or tarnished because she did not choose to serve a mission. We’re a little irritated with young men who say, ‘I’m not going to date you because you didn’t serve a mission…. … We do not want that type of climate over dating or marriages or who is really faithful in the Church or isn’t. Those are decisions we all make.”
Bolding mine. In an effort at full disclosure, Elder Holland’s comment that follows the bolded section “let me be serious” indicates that he was speaking somewhat humorously and poking a little fun at the pressure that the church puts on YM to be missionaries. I share it only to demonstrate the top leadership is very much aware of the pressure tactics that they use on the YM and that they are sensitive to the idea that some of this same pressure might be directed towards the YW.
https://forum.staylds.com/posting.php?mode=edit&p=140848 Looks like your guess about the men/women percentage of missionaries is pretty accurate. Elder Holland says we went from 8-12% being female to 30-35%.
Quote:everybody knows that a sister is twice as effective as three elders.
This strikes me as sexist and patronizing. If the sisters are so effective then why do we bar them from all leadership positions?July 5, 2023 at 3:24 pm #343980Anonymous
GuestRoy wrote:
Quote:everybody knows that a sister is twice as effective as three elders.
This strikes me as sexist and patronizing. If the sisters are so effective then why do we bar them from all leadership positions?
Women don’t have the priesthood because men with the priesthood don’t want god to give the okay. The holdup is men, not god or eternal doctrines or whatever. Men that are biased against the idea of women holding the priesthood aren’t in a position to receive revelation that women should get the priesthood. Their hearts aren’t open to the idea.
Perhaps leaders feel constrained to work within the bounds of current doctrines (and if that’s the default position there’s absolutely no need for continued revelation, right?) but I get the feeling that that’s what’s at the heart of the one sister is as effective as six elders type comments. Leaders recognize the inequality and try to mollify women with statements like that.
It’s at the heart of the double-standard with the expectations for men and women to serve missions. Men, a responsibility, you promised at 8 years old, you’re angering god if you don’t. Women, it’s nice that you want to serve missions, but remember you don’t gotta, it’s like icing on the cake if you serve.
The issue is that the church needs men to grow. A minimum number of active, full tithe paying, MP holders are required to create branches, wards, etc. The church can’t grow without them. Leaders probably see missions as a way to prep the leaders of the future, so they lean hard on males to serve. But if they ordained women then the metrics for church growth could change and they could lean on the wealth of talent women bring to the table.
July 5, 2023 at 7:21 pm #343981Anonymous
GuestRoy wrote:
Quote:everybody knows that a sister is twice as effective as three elders.
This strikes me as sexist and patronizing. If the sisters are so effective then why do we bar them from all leadership positions?
I agree and came to say the same thing (notwithstanding that Nibbler makes very good points). I think there is some empirical and anecdotal evidence that sisters might be more welcome in people’s homes, but in the end they have to get their male leaders to do the baptism and are relegated to onlooker status (although more recent changes at least allow them to officially “witness”).But the statement smacks of Boomers being Boomers. (For the record I am by age a Boomer but relate far more to Generation X. My mother is a Boomer.
:wtf: ) It is by all means a sexist statement from someone who doesn’t recognize it as such and would scoff at the idea if it were pointed out to them. Boomers (and some of the Silent Generation) run the church and until that changes many years from now I don’t think we’ll see a significant change in misogynistic/sexist attitudes and behaviors. To be clear, I am not implying that all of the Silent Generation, Boomers, and I’ll include Gen X here, are misogynistic but based on the culture in which they (we) were raised it is more likely they might be more so than younger generations. To a lesser extent, the same could be said for racism and anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiments (that is I think those attitudes are more likely found in older generations). -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.