We know that sending young people to find converts (or convert the missionary) is a well defined Mormon tradition/custom. We also know that the church has prided itself as a missionary church because it's one of the missions of the church. However, has the time come for the church to dissolve its cumbersome bureaucratic missionary program?

-It's not growing the church membership

-It's not retaining the youth to remain active and loyal to the church

-What are the invested costs?

Lots of costs: Perpetual calling training of mission presidents, Rental of mission homes/offices, Maintaining a fleet of mission vehicles, media commercials, printing tons of Books of Mormon that end up supporting couches and other furniture with broken legs :D

Also, more legal maneuvers to defend the ***good name of the church*** when missionaries act dumb (vandalize, steal or create ill will in their communities) or defend missionaries in cases of sexual abuse or try to convince foreign governments that American missionaries are not spies.

Any guesses as to what the financial ratio missionary work is to church tithing and or invested lifetime member?

I am guessing that it's a poor return. Maybe the church spends 20 dollars for every dime it gets back.

Do you really think converts in third world countries are helping the church's bottom line?

They won't ever completely give it up. Missionaries are one of the only memorable things about the church.

Four points.

First, the return to the church is not a dime for every 20 dollars spent because the bulk of the money comes from the members and not the church. I'm guessing the proper ratio is more like a dime for every dollar or two that the church spends.

Second, wasting money may well be the purpose--or, more precisely, wasting members' money may be. Psychologically people become more committed to something the more they have sacrificed for it. Canceling the missionary program would be an admission of defeat and it would reduce the commitment that is demanded of the members by the church.

Third, the way forward is not to end the missionary program but to transform it. This is already happening. The Q15 have started to take the notion of public service more seriously. That isn't because they care about the public: it is to keep the missionaries engaged. I would expect more such change in the structure and goals of the missionary program going forward.

Fourth, the converts in poor countries don't improve the bottom line much, and least not in the short term. They do, however, convince missionaries and their families that the church is still succeeding at generating converts. A proper evaluation of the importance of the missionary work must therefore take into consideration the propaganda effect on the church membership.

In short, I don't think money is the standard the church uses to evaluate the missionary program. The COB is concerned about retention of the core population in the Morridor. The cost of maintaining such a large missionary force is significant but most of the expense is borne by the members and not the church. For the latter it is still a big net positive.

I agree with LW that the church is more likely to transform missions than take them away altogether.

If the numbers of ERMs (early return missionaries) keep increasing, I could see the church taking domestic, same-language missions down to a year only. I could also see an increase in service hours to keep missionaries engaged. I also think the church would be wise to reduce the control over how missionaries spend each day. From reports, missionaries back in the old days were treated more like adults, and not like errant children who need constant supervision.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2019 09:39AM by summer.

As the parent of 3 missionaries I totally agree. Missions aren't what I did anymore. I wandered the streets like a homeless person. Now missionaries are told to actively seek ANY opportunity to do anything (within Mormon standards) for anyone.

It is quite frightening on the one hand and at least an improvement to being a street walker with only approved opportunities to serve.

My eldest has done so much laundry, cooking, and helping clean and organize at the same time having someone do her laundry that it is ironically ridiculous.

The COB is finally doing a tiny bit about the massive waste of time a mission is with the only benefit of any substance the young person's exposure to other people and other lands within a highly regulated life.

If a mormon mission involved serving in Habitat For Humanity, it would garner some serious positive PR for TSCC. Maybe/might/could reduce the number of disillusioned mishies who "fall away".

Proselyting was not the 'waste of time' in the pre-internet days that it seems to be now. A Hoover salesman and mormon elders were probably neck & neck in terms of sales, back in the day. And that was enough for tracting to be the mainstay that it was.

Young mormon males, with their winning smiles and glinting teeth, neatly dressed, were a big novelty. Amusing, if nothing else. I don't think there are any 1st & 2nd world nations where that is true anymore.

If I had any input (and I do! Just ask Bro. ------ [I don't want to blow his cover], whose assignment is to follow me on the internet and report to his bosses what I'm saying and doing) I would tell the powers that be that they need to return 'trust' to their little minions. Stop with the constant hovering, make ratting out your companion a bad thing, let the mishies come up with their own strategies on how to make connections with investigators, and if it involves the mishies sleeping in late and working out more than they pray let it happen.

The powers that be know that waiting on Holy McGhost is useless. Give the kids charge of their missionary lives, subject to some basic restrictions. Going door-to-door doesn't work, so let the 'boots-on-the-ground come up with unique solutions. Because I guarantee you that it wasn't some A-hole in SLC who came with the notion of free English lessons.

Adults who think they know it all are never going to come up with useful solutions.

(One of the things Bro. ------ has remarked upon to his supervisors is that it's a shame I didn't stay TBM and become the beloved first Brown Apostle whom I was slated to be from the foundation of the world. "...lot of shakings of the heads in SLC over that one!" I remarked humbly.

I defer to Canis Rex, who has forgotten more about mishie-dom than I will ever know - or choose to know.

Agree. Do the math. Missions are designed to do 2 things and 2 things only. And neither one involves converting anyone and spreading the word. It's about money and it's about converting the missionary into a life long tithe payer. "The" church says it has 65,000+ missionaries out there. They just increased costs on 1/2 of them in certain countries. From 400-500/mo. Let's average it at $450/mo. Many living quarters are owned by the church, owned by members that "tithe" their apartment building to the church. The overall living expense is minimal to the church. The kids are on shitty, halfway starvation diets, if they want more or better food, their parents cover the extra cost. Kids pay for their clothes, bikes and maintenance, toiletries, and any other associated costs. Medical insurance is on the kids (usually still on family insurance). MP's get covered by the church and an estimated 3% of the "indigent" missionaries get church insurance (the church doesn't like indigent missionaries-no matter their unwavering enthusiasm and dedication.) So, you've got 65,000 missionaries at $450/mo. 65,000 x 450 = $29,250,000/mo or 351,000,000/year.
You don't think a huge chunk of that isn't pure "prophet"? They like to call hot prospective converts "golden". It's a misdirection. The only thing golden about the entire program is the missionary dollars.

The families pay the $400-500.

Did you read my comment? Did you understand my comment? The entire business, cash cow model is based on families paying the costs. It was not a net liability to the church, it's an ongoing revenue stream.

stillanon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you read my comment? Did you understand my
> comment?

It was confusing.

I don't see how. "The" church didn't get to be a 100 billion dollar real estate and investment corporation by luck. It started as a pyramid scheme and still is. It was built on the backs of tithing dollars. When the flock didn't revolt about mandatory tithing, they came up with other revenue generating schemes. Missions, fast offerings, leaving real estate and assets to the church, etc. I don't see how you can't understand how $351,000,000/year, gross, isn't another cash machine for the church. Honestly. I can help you understand. Please tell me what is confusing. Thanks.

First, I assume you are talking about the money my wife gives for my missionary children is the $350 million?

At any rate, you cleared up my confusion. I'm not judging you are my reading comprehension. I assumed you were talking about the church and not us poor parents/kids who earned their own $10K.

No biggie.

Thanks. No, my math model is built around the fact that parents/kids give the church their money for the missionary program. The church, through limited expenses, expends much less than they accrue from the gross dollars that parents, wards, grandparents or anyone else pays in. Many people are under the illusion that the missionary program costs the church a lot of money, when in fact, it generate revenue for them. And, because their finances are hidden better than a Colombian cartel, members will never see where the money comes from or goes out to.

I took what I figured were average costs and I think the following figures are conservative:

$100,000,000 - 400 missions: MP costs & housing @ $250M/year
$ 33,500,000 - 67,000 trips/year @ $500 each
$. 3,000,000 - diplomatic fees/visas for 30,000 @ $100/year
$150,750,000 - 16,750 rentals (4 elders/unit) @ $750/month
$. 2,400,000 - 1,000 3rd world citizens paid $200/mo. for 1 year
_____________
$289,650,000


Here's a question whose answer I do not know: If a kid goes on a mission on the basis of someone paying his expenses and eight months later that someone stops paying, what happens to the missionary? Is there a fund into which rich people pay periodically to cover this situation?

What are the monthly expenses of the main MTC and it's scattered offshoots? Such expenses need to be multiplied by 12 and added to the above figure. Did missionary monthly contributions build the new MTC? Is the church building fund being repaid from the missionary fund? But for sure, Food, utilities, employee expenses, etc. have to be paid. They are in constant use and that expense has to come out of the figure StillAnon calculated.

what expenses am I missing? Maybe the church makes a big profit on kids going on missions, but I'd like to pin it down more.

Anyway, I am thinking that the missionary fund isn't a cash cow for the church.

Pretty clearly net negative, I'd think. The question is whether the net is small or large. In any case the return on investment is not measured financially, at least not primarily.

"It's not growing the church membership"

It is in Africa...

From their POV, I think the missionary program is unwieldy and uncommercial, but not entirely unsuccessful. They were still picking up many converts (mostly students) in our ward. They didn't retain most of them.

"convince foreign governments that American missionaries are not spies."

They're not all Americans for a start. I've seen missionaries from Europe, Latin America, East Asia etc. I presume in some places South Sea Islanders are common.

Even if you go to temple square there is a possibility you will meet missionaries who are not American.

Rather a lot of the missionaries at Temple Square are not North American. They seem to have made a concerted effort to have missionaries there who can speak to foreign visitors in their native language. Whatever problems LDS Inc has (and they are legion), I give the organization points for not being xenophobic.

The LDS statistical report broke out service missionaries as a separate category starting in 2010. In less than a decade it has nearly doubled, from 20,800 to 37,000 plus.

They created the category with very little fanfare, which I find unusual. They love to toot their own horn when they do something new. I suspect they are planning to ramp up service missionaries and decrease proselytizing missionaries, but they don't want the world to notice.

Missions serve as a Mormon rite of passage into adulthood.
(Leave to go into the jungle and return a man ready to mate!)
All religions need to have rites of passage for life events.

Missions help serve as the path to "higher initiation" in the religion. Most religions have stepping stones to access "higher mystery" and insider workings. The ones who survive are even more invested. This is one of the "tests."

Missions serve as a cultural accomplishment to get mates and networking within the culture. Women especially are drilled to marry a RM in the temple, so going on a mission helps with dedication and desirability.

Missions are a way of sorting the "best" and most dedicated in an unspoken way.

I really think looking for converts is a minor part of why they do this. Its about investment of the missionary.

That's a good point, Lot's Wife; the "propaganda effect". I wondered why TSCC would bother with the poor countries because they can't bring much revenue in for the business.

I think LDS inc is knee-deep in the sunk-cost fallacy when it comes to missions.

a sunk-cost is when you've spent money/time that can't be recovered. the fallacy is when people think "we've already spent $XXX or devoted Y-time to Z, so we can't back out even though the ultimate outcome is negative or there are now better options"

I already spent $80k in student loans, so I might as well finish my degree program even though I know the career prospects are limited.

I've devoted so much time and energy to my spouse, so we can't get a divorce even though he or she is untrustworthy and the marriage is a constant pain.

I already read the first 100 pages of the book, so I should finish even though I've grown bored.

our new product line is a disaster, but we can't give up after spending so much time and money developing it.

we've spent $Y trillion on this war, so we can't back out without a victory or all the money and lost lives are in vain.

we already spent $XX millions on the missionary program and helped so many people and trained so many young men that we can't back out and disappoint the saints and cast doubt on Spencer Kimball.

most other Christian churches have missionary programs, but it's entirely optional. when the spirit moves you and you can afford it, and for whatever time commitment you can manage. the cookie-cutter 2-year mission-for-all-young-men is a different beast and it's hard to back out of a big program like that when you've devoted so much cash and effort to it. basic human nature.

valkyriequeen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's a good point, Lot's Wife; the "propaganda > effect". I wondered why TSCC would bother with the > poor countries because they can't bring much > revenue in for the business.

(a) it's not entirely about revenue. the church is corporate-leaning in their thinking, but if revenue were their top priority they would not seek converts in poor parts of Guatemala or the Philippines. there are people at COB who sincerely believe they are saving souls and spreading the true gospel of God.

(b) poor people in third-world countries are typically deeply religious, conservative and have very tight social/family networks. a lot of the church's message is appealing to them. one reason the church has been so successful in the Pacific Islands is that many of those cultures have an esoteric/initiatory religious tradition. at a certain age, people engage in a secret religious ceremony led by the local shaman (or whatever). so the LDS message of going to the temple for sacred/secret ceremonies is not a huge stretch and resonates with deep cultural traditions.

> I think LDS inc is knee-deep in the sunk-cost
> fallacy when it comes to missions.
>
> a sunk-cost is when you've spent money/time that
> can't be recovered. the fallacy is when people
> think "we've already spent $XXX or devoted Y-time
> to Z, so we can't back out even though the
> ultimate outcome is negative or there are now
> better options"

Yes, Jordan, that is what I said. The sunk-costs fallacy explains a psychological pattern of behavior. It does not make sense, but that is how people behave. The more they commit, the harder it gets to abandon the project.

That was the point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2019 05:17PM by Lot's Wife.

I think you'll find my reply is further up the page.

Hasn't it said, by more than one GA, "We're a missionary church."?

Of course, maybe he was just speaking as a man.......

I read some statistcs from the 1930s about Stake missionaries vs full time missionaries.

There were half the number of Stake missionaries as full time missionaries. The Stake missionaries went out one or two nights a week. The Stake missionaries church wide and half the number of converts as the full time missionaries.

I can see a resurgence of local missionaries vs the full time ones.

I betcha the stake missionaries got most of their baptisms from getting children of record dunked at ages 9 and above.

Growing up in Vegas I never saw an elder or LM. I checked the alumni site and the oldest record I could find was for an elder Jantzen who served from '67 to '69. So all convert baptisms in Vegas would have been handled by stake missionaries/70s.

I think there is real possibility in the next 20 years, the missionary work will quit the church - not the other way around. The cult will find it harder and harder to fill missions due to a lack of interested participants.

From what I can glean the church is pushing to make missions "THE Thing" for young Mormons to do.

I remember inviting the sister missionaries to dinner and they called to ask if another set of missionaries could come as well.

I loved having the sister missionaries come to dinner and so I thought having 4 would be awesome.

The two extra guests were elders.

I felt like I was chaperoning a double date.

My niece is on a mission now and I was there for one of her Skype calls.

It sounds like 1/2 of her mission is joint activities with elders and sisters. Fun activities.

She talked about who likes who and who would be dating after their missions. She has someone picked out as well.

I don't think those matchmaking missions are going any where soon.

I've heard of these "double dates" but I've asked my daughter and she says no. She does do a lot of activities at the church and p-days with elders. Who knows. She could be omitting this kind of information.

The current model of missionary work needs to go. It's costly, inefficient and ineffective, and LDS Inc. knows it. Problem is they need to replace the missionary program with another means of brain washing/indoctrination. They're probably working on it but haven't figured it out yet.

Maybe it will be replaced with sort of a months long scripture study retreat in the mountains at one of the properties they own.

It would definitely be a shock to all members if the missionary program ended. Missions are more of a right of passage than anything else. It's just something that is expected and something that is endured as part of the Mormon experience.

Mormons love suffering and enduring - which is mostly what my mission was. If the missionary program is replaced with something else, it won't be something that is enriching or uplifting. It's not the Mormon way.

" Missions are more of a right of passage than anything else. "

Only ultraconservative Mormons go. <-sarcasm.

In my life with The Mormons I would say about the same number of kids go that went in my time.

It is neither all or most but some of them. Maybe in Utah and the Intermountain West it is more.

They are selling the mission home and office in Halifax Nova Scotia. Everything will be coming out of Montreal Quebec. Thoughts?

lou louis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are selling the mission home and office in
> Halifax Nova Scotia. Everything will be coming out
> of Montreal Quebec. Thoughts?

They are doing this kind of thing everywhere. I suppose with better telecommunications, things are easier but Montreal and Halifax are a good distance from each other. NS is much more rural than the Montreal region (although Northern Quebec is far more remote than all of NS)

I wouldn't be surprised if the mission home/office idea was entirely dropped and rentals used instead. Maybe some stakehouses could double as mission centers. It would save them money.

Next milestone - an entire province with no LDS congregation. I think several Atlantic provinces, and even a few European countries could be "LDS-free" within a decade or two.

Imagine the Netherlands ward and the Germany ward and the Scotland ward, etc.

And the European Mission!

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Next milestone - an entire province with no LDS
> congregation. I think several Atlantic provinces,
> and even a few European countries could be
> "LDS-free" within a decade or two.

The Republic of Ireland is like that. Northern Ireland has more congregations than the Republic, but outside Dublin there is no real bridgehead. The ROI is mostly an English speaking nation (ignoring Gaelic for the present) and as a former part of the UK, it was one of the earliest places to be visited outside North America.

I suspect the bandit wars that raged across Ireland for many years probably scared off missionary activity. But even so, the take up in the Republic of Ireland is way lower than the UK.

And as I said, they don't even have the excuse of continental Europe, that they had to translate everything.