Rumors of 19 year old females going on missions

[Northwestcoug]

Total missionaries with baptisms per missionary.

Kind of interesting to see the trends. I think baptisms per missionary is not affected by missionary count, and more affected by other issues. I would predict baptisms per missionary does not drop too much even if we upped the number of missionaries significantly, ie + 30%.

I just ran these numbers through excel and made a scatter plot, plotting baptisms per missionary against total number of baptisms. You'll have to take my word for it, but there's a clear downward trend (as missionaries increase, baptisms per missionary decreases). I'm sure that there are other significant variables that I'm not accounting for. But I'll take this as positive evidence to support my unresearched opinion that increasing missionaries won't necessarily increase baptisms.

[Moliere]

As a skeptic I can't wait to hear about the miracle of the large increase in missionaries serving. I know it was hard for some to swallow the increasingly dwindling missionary numbers (they were around 60K when I served and gradually declined from there) even though there was a pretty rational explanation for it.

This is obvioulsy not going out on a limb, but I expect to hear many times over the great miracle of our even larger missionary force as it continues to increase over the next couple years.

[Sullyute]

The church could easily significantly increase their conversion rate in developing countries, but the church has chosen to manage their growth rates there to allow time for leadership to be trained, "infrastructure" to be built and not flood the members with more people than they can possibly serve/fellowship/assimilate.

The Philippines and Latin America are notable examples of what happened when the church didn't manage early growth well.

I have a hard time with this line of thinking. We are purposely withholding the true gospel with life saving ordinances to potential believers because we lack "infrastructure" but we have the ability to build mega malls?! (I know, I know... ) Maybe it is time that church leaders receive a revelation to pay bishops or stake presidents in these developing nations so that they can put in the time that is needed to grow this infrastructure. Maybe they can pay senior missionaries to go out and be bishops in these towns to train their counselors to be future bishops, etc.

I also find it interesting that business and political instutions have realized that communities in developing nations do much better by empowering women (micro-financing, education, medical training, etc) than by working with the men. Maybe allowing women a greater role in church leadership in these developing nations would alleviate some of the "infrastructure" problems.

[jay santos]

I just ran these numbers through excel and made a scatter plot, plotting baptisms per missionary against total number of baptisms. You'll have to take my word for it, but there's a clear downward trend (as missionaries increase, baptisms per missionary decreases). I'm sure that there are other significant variables that I'm not accounting for. But I'll take this as positive evidence to support my unresearched opinion that increasing missionaries won't necessarily increase baptisms.

I don't know how you come to this conclusion. There has been downward pressure on baptisms per missionary for a long time. But it seems to be uncorrelated with changes in numbers of missionaries.

• In the 80's, missionaries went up, and so did baptisms per missionary.
• From 2002 to 2004, missionaries fell drastically, and baptisms per missionary was pretty flat (you would think they would spike if your theory is that there is a set number of converts out there divided into missonaries(
• Missionaries went up 2010 to 2011 while baptisms per missionary was pretty flat

[Northwestcoug]

I don't know how you come to this conclusion. There has been downward pressure on baptisms per missionary for a long time. But it seems to be uncorrelated with changes in numbers of missionaries.

• In the 80's, missionaries went up, and so did baptisms per missionary.
• From 2002 to 2004, missionaries fell drastically, and baptisms per missionary was pretty flat (you would think they would spike if your theory is that there is a set number of converts out there divided into missonaries(
• Missionaries went up 2010 to 2011 while baptisms per missionary was pretty flat

Like I said, I just plotted your numbers and saw a clear downward trend. I'm not accounting for any other variables.

However, my assumtion is that the church has near complete exposure in developed countries. If there aren't a lot of nonmembers who haven't been reached via media, then the increased missionaries probably won't translate into a significant increase in baptisms. And I have no hard data to back that up.

[pelagius]

I don't know how you come to this conclusion. There has been downward pressure on baptisms per missionary for a long time. But it seems to be uncorrelated with changes in numbers of missionaries.

• In the 80's, missionaries went up, and so did baptisms per missionary.
• From 2002 to 2004, missionaries fell drastically, and baptisms per missionary was pretty flat (you would think they would spike if your theory is that there is a set number of converts out there divided into missonaries(
• Missionaries went up 2010 to 2011 while baptisms per missionary was pretty flat

Like I said, I just plotted your numbers and saw a clear downward trend. I'm not accounting for any other variables.

However, my assumtion is that the church has near complete exposure in developed countries. If there aren't a lot of nonmembers who haven't been reached via media, then the increased missionaries probably won't translate into a significant increase in baptisms. And I have no hard data to back that up.

You're right about the correlation in the levels of the two variables, but this is a classic spurious correlation problem. Jay's right, you should look at changes not levels (or some variable that detrends like the change over a 5 year moving average). The problem is that the time series trend is pretty much positive in the number of missionaries and negative in baptisms per missionary. This implies the distributions of the two variables are unlikely to be stationary (which is a basic underlying assumptions you need for it to be kosher to look at the correlation between two variables).

[statman]

You're right about the correlation in the levels of the two variables, but this is a classic spurious correlation problem. Jay's right, you should look at changes not levels (or some variable that detrends like the change over a 5 year moving average). The problem is that the time series trend is pretty much positive in the number of missionaries and negative in baptisms per missionary. This implies the distributions of the two variables are unlikely to be stationary (which is a basic underlying assumptions you need for it to be kosher to look at the correlation between two variables).

A correlation of the two variables yields an r value of -0.85. A correlation of the movement of % change in the two yields a much smaller correlation of -0.19. In other words, they both are affected by large trends that are strongly inversely correlated, but when it comes to looking at the movements of the year to year changes, there's very little correlation at all...

BUT - using the same method - looking for correlation of % change - between # of missionaries and # of baptisms, the correlation is a much more respectable 0.50.

[statman]

A correlation of the two variables yields an r value of -0.85. A correlation of the movement of % change in the two yields a much smaller correlation of -0.19. In other words, they both are affected by large trends that are strongly inversely correlated, but when it comes to looking at the movements of the year to year changes, there's very little correlation at all...

BUT - using the same method - looking for correlation of % change - between # of missionaries and # of baptisms, the correlation is a much more respectable 0.50.

Graph should now be attached...

[Paperback Writer]

If my goal for my son was to have the most successful mission possible, I would agree. In fact, I would have him go after he graduated from college. He'd be even more mature and have more life experience to draw on. If my goal was to have him serve, get the life benefits you get from a mission, but fit it in his life in the optimal point, I would want him to go right after high school before college.

The optimal point will vary for each YM. Something else to consider: some YM at 18 will not be able to handle difficult missions. That could change at 19 after a year away at college. One of the most difficult outcomes is a YM coming home from a mission early because he doesn't have the coping skills for a difficult mission.

But each YM is different; many YM may be ready for a mission at 18. However, my counsel will most likely be to attend 1-2 years of college first. I'm strongly encouraging my 17-year-old HS senior to attend at least a year of college even if he attends BYU next Fall. He's more ready to attend college right now than serve a mission.

[Indy Coug]

I have a hard time with this line of thinking. We are purposely withholding the true gospel with life saving ordinances to potential believers because we lack "infrastructure" but we have the ability to build mega malls?! (I know, I know... ) Maybe it is time that church leaders receive a revelation to pay bishops or stake presidents in these developing nations so that they can put in the time that is needed to grow this infrastructure. Maybe they can pay senior missionaries to go out and be bishops in these towns to train their counselors to be future bishops, etc.

I also find it interesting that business and political instutions have realized that communities in developing nations do much better by empowering women (micro-financing, education, medical training, etc) than by working with the men. Maybe allowing women a greater role in church leadership in these developing nations would alleviate some of the "infrastructure" problems.

The reason the "infrastructure" is in quotes is because it's not physical buildings, it's the people and the organizations.

[Moliere]

The optimal point will vary for each YM. Something else to consider: some YM at 18 will not be able to handle difficult missions. That could change at 19 after a year away at college. One of the most difficult outcomes is a YM coming home from a mission early because he doesn't have the coping skills for a difficult mission.

But each YM is different; many YM may be ready for a mission at 18. However, my counsel will most likely be to attend 1-2 years of college first. I'm strongly encouraging my 17-year-old HS senior to attend at least a year of college even if he attends BYU next Fall. He's more ready to attend college right now than serve a mission.

My experience so far is that parents and leaders are strongly pushing for the YM to go at 18 when they graduate. I didn't anticipate this happening so rapidly, but I'm afraid it will be the expectation sooner than I thought.

Thankfully my bishop is a pretty reasonable guy so hopefully he can use his weight to keep some of the kids who are not ready from going at 18. I know he's already put his foot down (tactfully) on one kid who was thinking about going right away.

[splitbamboo]

Our 17 year old turns 18 in February and will graduate this year. Our hope is that enough young men make the jump to missions that it allows him, with his less than stellar grades, to get into BYU.

[Paperback Writer]

My experience so far is that parents and leaders are strongly pushing for the YM to go at 18 when they graduate. I didn't anticipate this happening so rapidly, but I'm afraid it will be the expectation sooner than I thought.

Thankfully my bishop is a pretty reasonable guy so hopefully he can use his weight to keep some of the kids who are not ready from going at 18. I know he's already put his foot down (tactfully) on one kid who was thinking about going right away.

Mileage varies considerably with Bishops. I don't expect the Bishop to be the gatekeeper for my kids when it comes to missionary readiness. But I'm also familiar with some familes who view a mission as a "finishing school" for their YM. These are kids who are not ready for college or a mission...or working...or much of anything. And it's little surprise when one gets to know the parents. So they will pack Jr's bags and make it the problem of a MP and senior companion. Maybe a Bishop can hold him back, but its the parents who will be pushing for him to get out of the house.

I do like that there's more flexibilty now on when to serve a mission. It's a good thing. What I don't like are the Mormon cultural ramifications that are sure to come to a YM who elects to attend college before his mission. The YM will be thinking that a year or two of college will probably make him a better missionary and it could be better for him academically as well. Meanwhile, many of his ward will be thinking that he's less valient since he's going off to school and not serving a mission at 18.

I also think this ties into the whole "raising the bar" which I'm not a big fan of because I feel too often the bar is only raised when it comes to "moral" choices. So an anti-social and immature YM who has never gone out on a date gets the green light while they put a hold on somone who is social, well adjusted and ready to serve because something in the handbook says he has to wait 6 months or a year. In my view, serving a mission should be penance enough for youthful indiscretions. But at age 18, theres less of a chance of these youthful indiscretions occurring.

[Sullyute]

The reason the "infrastructure" is in quotes is because it's not physical buildings, it's the people and the organizations.

I know, that is why I went off on paying ecclesiastical leaders or giving women more authority at the local level. The church can afford to pay people (especially in domestic wages) to be leaders until the membership catches up. I realize that this may lead to other problems too.

I know that our retention rate is abysmal but purposefully not sharing the gospel doesn't seem like the right answer. Maybe it is just me.

[Sullyute]

In my view, serving a mission should be penance enough for youthful indiscretions.