LDS Church plans to decrease missions; utilize tech savviness to locate religious-minded people

[JohnnyL]

Here is one simple method which could be implemented right now. At BYU a student is required to take more than half of their classes in subjects out side of their major. So if you want to study engineering you end up in classes in English and art as well. This was meant to produce a well-rounded individual and as a nice idea in theory and practice however it adds cost and debt to the students life. So the solution is simple, drop the so called general education requirements. This would mean it would take half the time to graduate, cutting the cost and thus the debt in half as well. It would have the added benefit of doubling the number of students who could attend.

All this is to say that you must deal with the economics of this issue first and foremost.

YESSSSSSSSS!!! I agree with that.

If you want four years, take it (some government requirements require one).

(They sent me about three "please leave NOW" letters, but I'm sorry, those requirements YOU set for my major are in the way...)

If not, go to LDS Business College. Whoops, they don't have enough "majors."

How about something in between? A two year degree that hits all the major requirements.

Why not have major corporations agree to accept these degrees and hire straight in, and even have input as to what should be taught, according to the companies' needs.

How about a class where you visit a whole bunch of professions to get an idea about what you might be interested, so you don't graduate with a useless degree?

[yjacket]

Apologies, getting used to this. The bottom line that you comment on is what I'm referring to. But it's not just women . . .it's men too. Many men aren't willing to sacrifice. We hear stories from 20-30 years ago about fathers working 2-3 jobs working 80+ hours a week or more just so mother could stay at home. How many men do that today?? Most just want to work 40 hours and be done.

Much better, thank you!

I am not sure that the average man could work two jobs. Many of us have jobs that require putting in 45-50 hours at the office (including lunch break) and we are pushed to be as productive as possible. We work a lot harder these days when we are at our jobs than in years past.

And sadly, I know a lot of men who put in 60+ hour work weeks, barely getting by because their spouse refuses to stick to a budget and taking away her credit cards would be called abuse, whose wives constantly bicker about their husband not giving them enough time or not having any energy when they get home from work.

I disagree that we work a lot harder. There are plenty who do, but most of the time that's not true. I do agree the 2nd paragraph is a big, big problem. A symptom of the materialism we have in the Church and society at large. People would rather have a big house than lots of kids. As to high cost of living cities . . .there is a very, very simple solution to that . . .MOVE!! I've done it several times in my life, if I can't get what I want in the city I'm living in, I move. With the internet there is even less incentive than their used to be to live in major cities.

And if you look at the stats, economics has nothing to do with how many children you have (if that were the case-Africa and 3rd world countries wouldn't have any).

The number of children a society has on average is directly correlated to the educational level of women. Societies that have high educational levels for women (i.e. they emphasize that it is important for women to have a career, get educated, etc.) have less children. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. For a woman to have an education requires at least 4+ years after 18. So by the time they are done with education and ready to have kids they will be at least 22-23. By age 23 my mom had 2 kids already.

In effect, the Church has to a large extent actively encouraged smaller families by pushing education for women. I know it's done in the "just in case something happens" scenario. Except there was the "just in case something happens" scenario 100 years ago. If the husband died, the woman didn't try to support the family, she pretty immediately remarried.

I'm a TBM, but in many ways it is really quite sad. The Church is in general about 30 years behind popular culture. The current cultural attitudes towards families, divorce, roles of men/women are about where society was at large 30 years ago. We are already seeing a dramatic decline in birth rates in the church as the church members themselves get absorbed into popular culture . . . . Maybe the Amish have it right . . .

[JohnnyL]

Apologies, getting used to this. The bottom line that you comment on is what I'm referring to. But it's not just women . . .it's men too. Many men aren't willing to sacrifice. We hear stories from 20-30 years ago about fathers working 2-3 jobs working 80+ hours a week or more just so mother could stay at home. How many men do that today?? Most just want to work 40 hours and be done.

Much better, thank you!

I am not sure that the average man could work two jobs. Many of us have jobs that require putting in 45-50 hours at the office (including lunch break) and we are pushed to be as productive as possible. We work a lot harder these days when we are at our jobs than in years past.

And sadly, I know a lot of men who put in 60+ hour work weeks, barely getting by because their spouse refuses to stick to a budget and taking away her credit cards would be called abuse, whose wives constantly bicker about their husband not giving them enough time or not having any energy when they get home from work.

I disagree that we work a lot harder. There are plenty who do, but most of the time that's not true. I do agree the 2nd paragraph is a big, big problem. A symptom of the materialism we have in the Church and society at large. People would rather have a big house than lots of kids. As to high cost of living cities . . .there is a very, very simple solution to that . . .MOVE!! I've done it several times in my life, if I can't get what I want in the city I'm living in, I move. With the internet there is even less incentive than their used to be to live in major cities.

And if you look at the stats, economics has nothing to do with how many children you have (if that were the case-Africa and 3rd world countries wouldn't have any).

The number of children a society has on average is directly correlated to the educational level of women. Societies that have high educational levels for women (i.e. they emphasize that it is important for women to have a career, get educated, etc.) have less children. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. For a woman to have an education requires at least 4+ years after 18. So by the time they are done with education and ready to have kids they will be at least 22-23. By age 23 my mom had 2 kids already.

In effect, the Church has to a large extent actively encouraged smaller families by pushing education for women. I know it's done in the "just in case something happens" scenario. Except there was the "just in case something happens" scenario 100 years ago. If the husband died, the woman didn't try to support the family, she pretty immediately remarried.

I'm a TBM, but in many ways it is really quite sad. The Church is in general about 30 years behind popular culture. The current cultural attitudes towards families, divorce, roles of men/women are about where society was at large 30 years ago. We are already seeing a dramatic decline in birth rates in the church as the church members themselves get absorbed into popular culture . . . . Maybe the Amish have it right . . .

In Africa and other 3rd-world countries I can build a hut without 300 government interventions and hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention have beautiful weather most of the time.

If you want to live in the boonies in Missouri, Arkansas, or somewhere great like that, yes, you can live much more cheaply. Good luck with work, though. Even now in Utah places that used to be much cheaper have increased in price a lot, and two years ago prices increased by, I imagine, at least $20,000 all across the board.

[Sirocco]

Yeah there's a reason why I returned from living in Southern Ontario where I could far easier have gotten a house (to rent or to own) to the big city where I will live and die in an apartment, because there was no work there, and everyone there was a single mother or obsessed with redneck culture (generally both).
Not attractive.I mean eventually things will right themselves when there's no one to own the houses.
Though even if I got to marry the one I want to marry, that ain't improving anything much, though she doesn't seem superficial about all that, which is one of the reasons I fell for her.

[yjacket]

Don't worry generally anytime people really start complaining about housing costs . . . it means a crash is right around the corner. This same thing happened in '06-'08 and is happening now. If you don't have a place already, now isn't really the time to buy anyways-it will crash and then you can buy . . .if you are prepared for it.

If you already own as long as you aren't overleveraged it shouldn't matter.

[Fiannan]

The number of children a society has on average is directly correlated to the educational level of women. Societies that have high educational levels for women (i.e. they emphasize that it is important for women to have a career, get educated, etc.) have less children. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. For a woman to have an education requires at least 4+ years after 18. So by the time they are done with education and ready to have kids they will be at least 22-23. By age 23 my mom had 2 kids already.

The opportunity cost of education does indeed exist (ironic then that women serving missions is being pushed nowadays even though Pres. Hinckley said such a thing was wrong). However, many women I have known have obtained degrees and have families of 8 or 9 children. So something else is in play. Sure, a lot of women will never get to marry an LDS man, and thus many will remain single and raise cats instead. That really shoots down the birthrate.Yet too there are a lot of societal influences that push down people's expected births, and the Church does a pathetically poor job countering those influences.

[Yahtzee]

I'm in the midst of the childbearing years so as I look among my own peers I see quite a mix of reasons for smaller families.
By and large, most of my friends who have 1-2 children have problems with infertility. (FYI most infertility happens after you've already had a child so don't make assumptions). That is the majority.
Only a few simply don't want more than 2. They don't want to sacrifice and love when the school year starts back up so they have their "freedom." Their families go on lots of vacations.
In my area (BYU area) the main reason is economic. There's a few factors at play. Most families have 3. It's considered a respectable number. After 3 there's more to consider - like you can't fit everyone in a sedan anymore. Most of us who are "poor" are single income. But more and more are becoming dual income (mostly because of Obamacare) and childcare costs are high. It is much harder to have kids when you're working.
The only women in their 30s I know with more than 4 kids have husbands who make at least 65k. Or their husband are in school and they live on welfare.
One thing I'd like to note- Everyone here who has served as a bishop or stake president in the last decade is dual income and white collar, with the exception of the mailman (but still dual income).

[gardener4life]

Apologies, getting used to this. The bottom line that you comment on is what I'm referring to. But it's not just women . . .it's men too. Many men aren't willing to sacrifice. We hear stories from 20-30 years ago about fathers working 2-3 jobs working 80+ hours a week or more just so mother could stay at home. How many men do that today?? Most just want to work 40 hours and be done.

Much better, thank you!

I am not sure that the average man could work two jobs. Many of us have jobs that require putting in 45-50 hours at the office (including lunch break) and we are pushed to be as productive as possible. We work a lot harder these days when we are at our jobs than in years past.

And sadly, I know a lot of men who put in 60+ hour work weeks, barely getting by because their spouse refuses to stick to a budget and taking away her credit cards would be called abuse, whose wives constantly bicker about their husband not giving them enough time or not having any energy when they get home from work.

I disagree that we work a lot harder. There are plenty who do, but most of the time that's not true. I do agree the 2nd paragraph is a big, big problem. A symptom of the materialism we have in the Church and society at large. People would rather have a big house than lots of kids. As to high cost of living cities . . .there is a very, very simple solution to that . . .MOVE!! I've done it several times in my life, if I can't get what I want in the city I'm living in, I move. With the internet there is even less incentive than their used to be to live in major cities.

And if you look at the stats, economics has nothing to do with how many children you have (if that were the case-Africa and 3rd world countries wouldn't have any).

The number of children a society has on average is directly correlated to the educational level of women. Societies that have high educational levels for women (i.e. they emphasize that it is important for women to have a career, get educated, etc.) have less children. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. For a woman to have an education requires at least 4+ years after 18. So by the time they are done with education and ready to have kids they will be at least 22-23. By age 23 my mom had 2 kids already.

In effect, the Church has to a large extent actively encouraged smaller families by pushing education for women. I know it's done in the "just in case something happens" scenario. Except there was the "just in case something happens" scenario 100 years ago. If the husband died, the woman didn't try to support the family, she pretty immediately remarried.

I'm a TBM, but in many ways it is really quite sad. The Church is in general about 30 years behind popular culture. The current cultural attitudes towards families, divorce, roles of men/women are about where society was at large 30 years ago. We are already seeing a dramatic decline in birth rates in the church as the church members themselves get absorbed into popular culture . . . . Maybe the Amish have it right . . .

In Africa and other 3rd-world countries I can build a hut without 300 government interventions and hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention have beautiful weather most of the time.

If you want to live in the boonies in Missouri, Arkansas, or somewhere great like that, yes, you can live much more cheaply. Good luck with work, though. Even now in Utah places that used to be much cheaper have increased in price a lot, and two years ago prices increased by, I imagine, at least $20,000 all across the board.

Wow, there were so many interesting things to comment on here.

So the comment about 60 hour work weeks...

That's sad. It's true though. My dad, and my grandpas (both sides) both had to do 60 hour weeks just to get by (not being rich or well off but just to have a house.) I'm concerned about this though because many people don't have the health to do 60 hour weeks. And a lot of those are people who have been good people all their lives. That means society leaving a lot of people behind and I don't think that's right. I do also realize that its best to have women at home, but I don't think it's right for them to try to bypass good priesthood holders for a bad one just to stay at home. If she does her kids aren't going to stay in the church anyway from following a bad example.

But I do see that the workweek expectation and cost of living is shooting up a lot. That figure of $20,000 for Utah housing prices is actually higher than just $20,000 and that is a big worry. That's too big of a hurdle right now and that hurdle keeps getting bigger and bigger. I wonder if maybe the Amish have it right too. Hell, I'd rather have a life with no electricity than no life, no family, etc. Do the Amish accept applications to join them? That sounds interesting in some ways. Most of us like to work anyway right? We would be working just the same if we have technology or not but if we're not then we'd have more autonomy. So why not live like the Amish? LOL

Economics not having to do with number of children isn't exactly true. 3rd world countries generally will always have way more kids per household than a developed country such as the U.S., or European countries. Sorry.

As to the comments on church being behind culture. That is always going to be the case because we are repeatedly taught to be separate from the world. We're lucky if its as little a gap as it is. But you know the longer I live the more I see we don't need all this stuff we have now. It's nice but it doesn't do much for us. Having a TV isn't a better life over someone without TV. I wonder if maybe those people with less distractions are happier than we are. We need shelter, food, fuel, and clothing and the belief of a future. But technology isn't 'belief of a future' because technology is used to turn people away and control them more.

[Fiannan]

The church has done no such thing _ people are getting married at much older age, there are severe economic issues. The church is still growing, you are just getting left behind, stuck in a rut with all you constant fault finding.

Growing in age you mean? True, it will take a long time for the members born in the 1940s through the 1970s to pass on, so benches may appear to be full...for the time being. Remember, the future of a culture is based on its birthrate. If we assume that is pretty good in our religion that we keep 2/3 of the people born into it then as long as members have 3 kids per woman then you at least remain stagnant. However, if it dips below 3 overall, all women combined, then you shrink. This is where biology and sociology slam right into each other.

People do not make a decision on number of children they are going to have, who they marry etc based on your misinterpreted message from PH leaders. Some of the apostles only have 2 children,, l suppose you condemn them to hel as well...

Maybe the apostle or his wife have fertility problems. With male testosterone and fertility levels dropping in the western world it would not be a surprise.

Also, tell me where I have misread prophetic counsel that preventing the birth of children (where health is not an issue) is a very grave sin?

[Spaced_Out]

Many Brits live an hour out of London and commute to their jobs.

.....Large families are a function of economics. The church needs to find means of addressing that be it with communitarian, or providing a means of affordable housing and education so that a yong family has the economic means to have more children.

It is being addressed as a very urgent matter in the church due to poverty etc... The church has put a lot of resources on employment and underemployment through many programs and stake positions. There is more talk on self sufficiency and improving your employment than on food storage etc... There is also the perpetual missionary fund etc... How can any person say that nothing is being done or that the church should follow the Jewish or some other religious model, many on this forum are walking blind in the noon day sun.

https://providentliving.lds.org/?lang=eng

[yjacket]

Much better, thank you!

I am not sure that the average man could work two jobs. Many of us have jobs that require putting in 45-50 hours at the office (including lunch break) and we are pushed to be as productive as possible. We work a lot harder these days when we are at our jobs than in years past.

And sadly, I know a lot of men who put in 60+ hour work weeks, barely getting by because their spouse refuses to stick to a budget and taking away her credit cards would be called abuse, whose wives constantly bicker about their husband not giving them enough time or not having any energy when they get home from work.

I disagree that we work a lot harder. There are plenty who do, but most of the time that's not true. I do agree the 2nd paragraph is a big, big problem. A symptom of the materialism we have in the Church and society at large. People would rather have a big house than lots of kids. As to high cost of living cities . . .there is a very, very simple solution to that . . .MOVE!! I've done it several times in my life, if I can't get what I want in the city I'm living in, I move. With the internet there is even less incentive than their used to be to live in major cities.

And if you look at the stats, economics has nothing to do with how many children you have (if that were the case-Africa and 3rd world countries wouldn't have any).

The number of children a society has on average is directly correlated to the educational level of women. Societies that have high educational levels for women (i.e. they emphasize that it is important for women to have a career, get educated, etc.) have less children. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. For a woman to have an education requires at least 4+ years after 18. So by the time they are done with education and ready to have kids they will be at least 22-23. By age 23 my mom had 2 kids already.

In effect, the Church has to a large extent actively encouraged smaller families by pushing education for women. I know it's done in the "just in case something happens" scenario. Except there was the "just in case something happens" scenario 100 years ago. If the husband died, the woman didn't try to support the family, she pretty immediately remarried.

I'm a TBM, but in many ways it is really quite sad. The Church is in general about 30 years behind popular culture. The current cultural attitudes towards families, divorce, roles of men/women are about where society was at large 30 years ago. We are already seeing a dramatic decline in birth rates in the church as the church members themselves get absorbed into popular culture . . . . Maybe the Amish have it right . . .

In Africa and other 3rd-world countries I can build a hut without 300 government interventions and hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention have beautiful weather most of the time.

If you want to live in the boonies in Missouri, Arkansas, or somewhere great like that, yes, you can live much more cheaply. Good luck with work, though. Even now in Utah places that used to be much cheaper have increased in price a lot, and two years ago prices increased by, I imagine, at least $20,000 all across the board.

As to the comments on church being behind culture. That is always going to be the case because we are repeatedly taught to be separate from the world. We're lucky if its as little a gap as it is. But you know the longer I live the more I see we don't need all this stuff we have now. It's nice but it doesn't do much for us. Having a TV isn't a better life over someone without TV. I wonder if maybe those people with less distractions are happier than we are. We need shelter, food, fuel, and clothing and the belief of a future. But technology isn't 'belief of a future' because technology is used to turn people away and control them more.

Church is definitely behind culture and this is a really good thing. But I agree, we are lucky there is a gap. Honestly it goes back to the fact that as members of the Church, regardless of all the excuses, we are not, have not been following the counsel of the prophets. Economics for not having kids is just an excuse . .. it really is. Kids are not that expensive-they really don't need that much, in fact the more you have the less they cost b/c of economies of scale. What kid today has heard of hand-me downs? No, parents want their cake, they want to be fat, dumb and happy. Have a nice house, drive nice cars, etc. etc. etc. It's just plain selfishness.

"I wish I had less kids" said no one ever. And the fact remains, women do not want more kids. After being indoctrinated for 12+ years that the best thing they can be is a scientist, a doctor, go in the work force, etc. instead of the greatest joy being a mother. And then tack on that most mom's today don't have a blooming clue as to how to actually be a mother. They can't take control of their kids and the kids run the roost, the kids never obey the mother so that at just 1 or 2 kids mom is totally exhausted, worn out and is done with kids. When raising kids is really not that hard . . .discard all the modern day crap, go back 50 years to a biblical parenting view and the modern day problems with kids would dissapear overnight.

Now just think what is happening socially in the church with open acceptance of homosexuals . .. give it 30 years. Hopefully Christ returns before that time comes.

[Yahtzee]

But I do see that the workweek expectation and cost of living is shooting up a lot. That figure of $20,000 for Utah housing prices is actually higher than just $20,000 and that is a big worry. My house in Provo is worth 45k more than it was a year ago. It's only 900 sqft That's too big of a hurdle right now and that hurdle keeps getting bigger and bigger. I wonder if maybe the Amish have it right too. Hell, I'd rather have a life with no electricity than no life, no family, etc. Do the Amish accept applications to join them? That sounds interesting in some ways. Most of us like to work anyway right? We would be working just the same if we have technology or not but if we're not then we'd have more autonomy. So why not live like the Amish? LOL

Economics not having to do with number of children isn't exactly true. 3rd world countries generally will always have way more kids per household than a developed country such as the U.S., or European countries. Sorry. this is because they don't have access to birth control. When they do, their birth rates drop. But this is more a factor of economic culture, maybe? They aren't expected to provide bedrooms, braces, and seatbelts for all their children.

As to the comments on church being behind culture. That is always going to be the case because we are repeatedly taught to be separate from the world. We're lucky if its as little a gap as it is. But you know the longer I live the more I see we don't need all this stuff we have now. It's nice but it doesn't do much for us. Having a TV isn't a better life over someone without TV. I wonder if maybe those people with less distractions are happier than we are. We need shelter, food, fuel, and clothing and the belief of a future. But technology isn't 'belief of a future' because technology is used to turn people away and control them more.

totally agree. But if the whole church lived more like that I'm not sure it would help the missionary effort, and that seems to be of greater importance right now. Being a little more "of the world" makes is more attractive an option to people in the world. I can't reconcile it. But I've turned my nose up at the brethren asking me to share the gospel on social media. It's brought nothing but depression.

[Fiannan]

No, parents want their cake, they want to be fat, dumb and happy. Have a nice house, drive nice cars, etc. etc. etc. It's just plain selfishness.

Sad but true for most people - even Mormons who should know better:

[Fiannan]

But I've turned my nose up at the brethren asking me to share the gospel on social media. It's brought nothing but depression.

I have seen three types of sharing the Gospel on social media:

1) Fluffy memes with quotes of GAs at Conference. Cute but totally a waste of time except for getting likes or retweets from fellow members.
2) Sharing news articles or videos with some sort of positive message, like why families are important. Pretty good.
3) Sharing quotes from the past leaders regarding freedom and deep doctrine. I have had fantastic response from even atheists in my social media doing this.

[Yahtzee]

But I've turned my nose up at the brethren asking me to share the gospel on social media. It's brought nothing but depression.

I have seen three types of sharing the Gospel on social media:

1) Fluffy memes with quotes of GAs at Conference. Cute but totally a waste of time except for getting likes or retweets from fellow members.
2) Sharing news articles or videos with some sort of positive message, like why families are important. Pretty good.
3) Sharing quotes from the past leaders regarding freedom and deep doctrine. I have had fantastic response from even atheists in my social media doing this.

Sorry, I should have elaborated. Social media itself brings nothing but depression for me. I have had some great conversations about the gospel, but its not worth the sense of being back in junior high.

[JohnnyL]

I am glad for the redistribution. I've had people tell me they did little good on their missions--they had tracted the entire town three times, knew many by name, etc. Nothing was going to happen... Or people like my relative who put up fences for people--no one in the area (entire state/ mission?) wants to talk to the Mormon missionaries! (And another guy who used to live there confirmed that the other night.)

[Robin Hood]

I am glad for the redistribution. I've had people tell me they did little good on their missions--they had tracted the entire town three times, knew many by name, etc. Nothing was going to happen... Or people like my relative who put up fences for people--no one in the area (entire state/ mission?) wants to talk to the Mormon missionaries! (And another guy who used to live there confirmed that the other night.)

Without wanting to appear offensive in any way, my reaction is "so what?".
The missionaries are sent out to call everyone to repentence, not simply to talk to those who will listen.
The people in that town deserve the same chance as those who frequent social media.

[JohnnyL]

I am glad for the redistribution. I've had people tell me they did little good on their missions--they had tracted the entire town three times, knew many by name, etc. Nothing was going to happen... Or people like my relative who put up fences for people--no one in the area (entire state/ mission?) wants to talk to the Mormon missionaries! (And another guy who used to live there confirmed that the other night.)

Without wanting to appear offensive in any way, my reaction is "so what?".
The missionaries are sent out to call everyone to repentence, not simply to talk to those who will listen.
The people in that town deserve the same chance as those who frequent social media.

They've had the chance, over and over. No need to stick two missionaries in one small town for that. But I'll bet you already knew that little town was in England, huh?

No need to spend $10,000 to "call someone to repentance,", that can be done at home and from home.

Especially when other areas could really use the missionaries. It's allocation of resources.

[Robin Hood]

I am glad for the redistribution. I've had people tell me they did little good on their missions--they had tracted the entire town three times, knew many by name, etc. Nothing was going to happen... Or people like my relative who put up fences for people--no one in the area (entire state/ mission?) wants to talk to the Mormon missionaries! (And another guy who used to live there confirmed that the other night.)

Without wanting to appear offensive in any way, my reaction is "so what?".
The missionaries are sent out to call everyone to repentence, not simply to talk to those who will listen.
The people in that town deserve the same chance as those who frequent social media.

They've had the chance, over and over. No need to stick two missionaries in one small town for that. But I'll bet you already knew that little town was in England, huh?

No need to spend $10,000 to "call someone to repentance,", that can be done at home and from home.

Especially when other areas could really use the missionaries. It's allocation of resources.

Which town?

[JohnnyL]

I am glad for the redistribution. I've had people tell me they did little good on their missions--they had tracted the entire town three times, knew many by name, etc. Nothing was going to happen... Or people like my relative who put up fences for people--no one in the area (entire state/ mission?) wants to talk to the Mormon missionaries! (And another guy who used to live there confirmed that the other night.)

Without wanting to appear offensive in any way, my reaction is "so what?".
The missionaries are sent out to call everyone to repentence, not simply to talk to those who will listen.
The people in that town deserve the same chance as those who frequent social media.

They've had the chance, over and over. No need to stick two missionaries in one small town for that. But I'll bet you already knew that little town was in England, huh?

No need to spend $10,000 to "call someone to repentance,", that can be done at home and from home.

Especially when other areas could really use the missionaries. It's allocation of resources.

Which town?

Don't remember, heard it years ago from a roommate who had served there. He and his companion (not including the missionaries before them) had tracted the whole town three times, walked around all day saying hi to everyone on the streets, often knew their names. They were chastized for not working. He told the mission president all that; he just kinda scratched his head...

It's just hard to justify keeping missionaries in places like that, where people know and don't want, than to send them to places where hundreds of people are on the waiting list for being baptized because there aren't enough missionaries to teach them the discussions.

In some places, though, I think it's more about the mission and the mission president, and the missionaries. Who wants, or can even stand, to be outside tracting for hours when you're frozen through in the first 15 minutes?

[Robin Hood]

Without wanting to appear offensive in any way, my reaction is "so what?".
The missionaries are sent out to call everyone to repentence, not simply to talk to those who will listen.
The people in that town deserve the same chance as those who frequent social media.

They've had the chance, over and over. No need to stick two missionaries in one small town for that. But I'll bet you already knew that little town was in England, huh?

No need to spend $10,000 to "call someone to repentance,", that can be done at home and from home.

Especially when other areas could really use the missionaries. It's allocation of resources.

Which town?

Don't remember, heard it years ago from a roommate who had served there. He and his companion (not including the missionaries before them) had tracted the whole town three times, walked around all day saying hi to everyone on the streets, often knew their names. They were chastized for not working. He told the mission president all that; he just kinda scratched his head...

It's just hard to justify keeping missionaries in places like that, where people know and don't want, than to send them to places where hundreds of people are on the waiting list for being baptized because there aren't enough missionaries to teach them the discussions.

In some places, though, I think it's more about the mission and the mission president, and the missionaries. Who wants, or can even stand, to be outside tracting for hours when you're frozen through in the first 15 minutes?

So this is second hand information at best.
I don't actually believe this account. No town in England which has assigned missionaries is so small that it can be tracted through 3 times during one missionaries assignment there. I think your friend was pulling your leg somewhat.

I tracted practically all day every day for 2 years, worked an average of 70-75 hours a week (did 110 hours once or twice), taught hundreds of discussions, placed many, many Book of Mormons, and baptised 9 people... all mostly in the very cold north of Scotland.

It was worth every minute.

[gkearney]

So this is second hand information at best.
I don't actually believe this account. No town in England which has assigned missionaries is so small that it can be tracted through 3 times during one missionaries assignment there. I think your friend was pulling your leg somewhat.

I tracted practically all day every day for 2 years, worked an average of 70-75 hours a week (did 110 hours once or twice), taught hundreds of discussions, placed many, many Book of Mormons, and baptised 9 people... all mostly in the very cold north of Scotland.

It was worth every minute.

I’ve been in plenty of tiny English villages where I could have covered the whole place in a day. A pair of missionaries could likely do the whole country of Mann in under two years.

[Robin Hood]

So this is second hand information at best.
I don't actually believe this account. No town in England which has assigned missionaries is so small that it can be tracted through 3 times during one missionaries assignment there. I think your friend was pulling your leg somewhat.

I tracted practically all day every day for 2 years, worked an average of 70-75 hours a week (did 110 hours once or twice), taught hundreds of discussions, placed many, many Book of Mormons, and baptised 9 people... all mostly in the very cold north of Scotland.

It was worth every minute.

I’ve been in plenty of tiny English villages where I could have covered the whole place in a day. A pair of missionaries could likely do the whole country of Mann in under two years.

That wasn't the claim.
The claim was that a missionary tracted through a whole town 3 times while he was there. This is not credible.
Missionaries are not assigned exclusively to "tiny English villages".

[JohnnyL]

So I wonder if there is a thought-out plan for the smartphones and "tech savviness", or if this is another "pilot" program where every missionary pays $400 for a phone (hopefully no kick-backs) and then the mission president doesn't know what the missionaries are supposed to do with it...

I'm assuming the church will rely more heavily on internet signups for more information and missionaries. But I thought they were doing that already (BoM referrals, for example)?