Hinckley blames Elders for poor retention!!!

[helemon]

Just happened to glance at the back of the most recent issue of the Ensign and it has a quote from Hinckley blaming the churches retention problems on the missionaries!!! :duh :mad:

If there is better teaching in the conversion process, there will be greater retention of those who are baptized. :Puking :Puking

First, if the prophet wants better teaching let him and all the apostles and GAs do it. Don't go blaming all these fresh faced, just out of high school, untrained, young men and women who are just trying to do what they believe is right!! The church should be damn grateful for any young person who is willing to give up 2 years of their life at their own expense to con more people into paying money to the morg.

The missionaries can't help it if they are selling a defective and misleading product. Don't blame the missionaries when people leave the church after discovering the things that church leaders so carefully edit out of church publications and deny on national television. Before pointing out the mote in the missionaries eye, Hinckley should try and remove the beam that is stuck in the leaders eye.

Typical mormon leader rhetoric! Blame the members. Lay the guilt on the members. If things aren't going well its all your fault!! It can't be the product or how it is packaged. It can't be the leaderships fault! Their perfect!

Stupid cult.

[flotsam]

Well, except that most retention problems aren't based on people apostatizing. People just stop coming. I know that pretty much all the people I baptized on my mission aren't going to church anymore. They just sort of lost interest, or didn't have a social circle there, or they moved and the overworked ward clerks couldn't keep track of them.

I think that's what the Hinckster's addressing. Instilling a testimony rather than just getting a baptism.

[Fredl]

I used to work for Shaklee Corp. I was in the Computer Systems (IT) Dept., and so I was only aware of the company's problems in a rather distanced, second hand sort of way. What was clear to many of us who weren't required to maintain a smiley face was that the company's basic business model, which had been very effective in years gone by, was simply no longer effective. More efficient channels of distribution were now carrying the sorts of products that the company had been built on and consumers of these products were becoming increasingly aware that Shaklee's products, while excellent products, were available for much less in regular stores. Distributors were also becoming aware that Shaklee Distributorships were a VERY hard way to make a living.

President Hinkly's comment reminds me of similar desperate comments made by top management figures at Shaklee who simply could not come up with an effective strategy based on the business model that was fundamental to the company in its waning years.

I see that even though Yamanuchi Pharmaceutical has dumped the company as a subsidiary, Shaklee does continue to limp along. No doubt, the Mormon Church will, too. I think its Glory Days of high growth are well behind it, however.

Fred

[Born Free]

Well, except that most retention problems aren't based on people apostatizing. People just stop coming. I know that pretty much all the people I baptized on my mission aren't going to church anymore. They just sort of lost interest, or didn't have a social circle there, or they moved and the overworked ward clerks couldn't keep track of them.

I think that's what the Hinckster's addressing. Instilling a testimony rather than just getting a baptism.
Flotsam,

I find the words I have underlined curious.

Surely the basic notion of a testimony as defined by Mo, is that the truth and beauty of the Morg and 'the Gospel' is just so apparent that the Spirit will bear testimony of that to you.

Since when did the onus shift to some wet-behind-the-ears missionary having to instil that from the outside.

It would make more sense to chastise the Holy Ghost for not stirring the converts sufficiently.

Sounds like a case of dumping responsibility here on the least powerful to mount a defence. Ah, well, I guess I should find some comfort in this development. In spite of the new higher standards for missionary calls, I predict this will lead to an acceleration of missionaries returning home disaffected and disillusioned with the Church, more prepared to research the negatives they got fed back on their missions and joining the throngs of Post-Mos.

Daryl

[helemon]

Since when did the onus shift to some wet-behind-the-ears missionary having to instil that from the outside.



Yep. How many FPRs did you hear about where the person testified that they didn't convert anyone the spirit did! Also the new discussions are even less structured than before giving more latitude for error and omission on the part of the elders. It is ludicrous to think these kids could be capable of convincing anyone of anything with only a quite months worth of training. Then you are also expected to only study in the morning before leaving the flat at 9am and afterwards when you get back at 9:30. Other religions expect their ministers to spend years in seminary training before they consider them fit to preach the gospel. I think it is reprehensible for the church leaders to try and pin this problem on the missionaries!

[helemon]

Instilling a testimony rather than just getting a baptism.

How can a missionary cause someone to gain a testimony? If every missionary waited until their investigators had a rock solid testimony before dunking them the convert baptism rate would plumit! I was paired up with the top baptizer in our mission for a while. The method was talk to as many people as possible and keep pushing them for a baptismal commitment. It wasn't about patiently working with them to gain a testimony or perfecting our knowledge and teaching style. It boiled down to churn rate. The more people you can churn through the more likely you will hit some quick committers.

[peter_mary]

While I understand the consternation regarding flotsam's suggestion to "instill a testimony," I think his basic premise is right on...and the reason why the basic approach to missionary work is probably not going to serve the Church for very much longer.

See, the "push for baptisms" is a hard-sales approach to getting people "wet", but it's not an effective way to make them into "water." It's evidence of what ultimately matters to the Church...the body count. But when the water dries, nothing really changes.

If the Church really CARED about people, and the members really loved their neighbors, people wouldn't be able to resist the draw of the gospel. If the gospel really made saints out of sinners, and if people really were a "cut above" the rest, then everyone would be clammoring to see what's so damn special.

But that's not what's happening. The members and their missionaries talk a fast line, flash a few images and mutter a few prayers, and end up baptising a few folks who think they might have seen something special. What those converts all too often find, once the water dries, is that Mormons really aren't any different than every other denomination they ever checked out, they just have a different set of secret handshakes.

So yeah, those poor kids in white shirts with name tags are hardly to blame...they are merely the outward manifestation of a deeper problem. The Church so often fails to cause a deeply seated change in a person, and when the water dries, they find themselves fundamentally unchanged. And they quit coming to Church, realizing that it simply doesn't matter.

And I don't really expect anything to change. Not without some serious self-reflection, but how do you DO that when you believe that God himself inspired everything about the Church? All you can do is work harder in the existing paradigm, but in the end, it accomplishes very little, beyond exhausting the few faithful you have.

Peter_Mary

[helemon]

but how do you DO that when you believe that God himself inspired everything about the Church?

I think that is where the church has the largest problem. Their whole arguement for conversion is that the Catholic church fell away from the true teachings of Christ, but Christ has restored them to us!! So naturally if you want to truly follow Christ you must join us!

Sounds nice when first told to you. Makes some sense that we should have modern day prophets and apostles. Most the stuff your told about isn't too wacky or different from what you already believed. But then you hear from friends, relatives, the internet about some of the stuff they didn't tell you. You start reading up on past teachings, science, and archeology, and you realize that this divine restoration story is a crock!

But then there are likely just as many people who once baptized realize they don't really like all the responsibility the church places on its members and the time commitments and keeping them from spending time with their family. The cost of tithing may be too high for them. etc.

I do agree that the age of the door to door preacher is over. The way to reach the masses is through the internet, through television, and through the occasional large group meeting where people can come to hear and maybe meet a real apostle or Donny & Mary! Our society today is all about celebrity. That's why Scientology tries to recruit so many actors. Send Gladys on a world recruiting concert! But even if that boosted baptisms I still think the retention rate would be low. I think all Christian churches in general are going to start seeing a falling away. The current fervor I think is a clear sign that people are fighting to hang on to tradition in the face of increasing pressures from science and secularism.

[Born Free]

While I understand the consternation regarding flotsam's suggestion to "instill a testimony," I think his basic premise is right on...and the reason why the basic approach to missionary work is probably not going to serve the Church for very much longer.

<snip>

Peter_Mary
P_M,

I am in total agreement that the underlying 'offer' is 'broke', and one of the downsides of having a leadership of very, very old men, as Mormonism does, is it tends to think very conservatively about its problems and therefore possible solutions. That is compounded by a congregation that is also conservative, so resistent to radical innovative developments.

Back to basics; stick to the proven recipe, makes great sense to old men, who had success doing it a particular way in a particular context. Their whole religous culture trains them to think and function in very conservative terms.

What they will be the last to see and appreciate is that the context has changed, so large parts of the old approach no longer fit.

Daryl

[flotsam]

How can a missionary cause someone to gain a testimony? If every missionary waited until their investigators had a rock solid testimony before dunking them the convert baptism rate would plumit! I was paired up with the top baptizer in our mission for a while. The method was talk to as many people as possible and keep pushing them for a baptismal commitment. It wasn't about patiently working with them to gain a testimony or perfecting our knowledge and teaching style. It boiled down to churn rate. The more people you can churn through the more likely you will hit some quick committers.


Boy do I sympathize with that! When I first entered my mission, having not slept in like 36 hours (I'm terrible at sleeping on planes) they ushered us into the mission president's house and presented us with the "true" missionary method. Essentially: contact 300 people, get 20 first discussions, 10 second discussions, 5 baptism committments, 4 thirds, 3 fourths, 2 fifths, and 1 one baptism. Therefore, contact 300 people a week, and get a baptism each week.

Man, they pounded that thing into our head. At mission conferences they'd bear fervent testimony that God had promised that we could baptise weekly. Turned out, as the god of bad puns would have it, we baptized weakly. :o Even though we got our 300. Which meant we weren't being faithful - blah blah blah.

I asked my companion once why it was that we prayed in all faith every day to be led to someone who would be baptised, but consistently didn't find him or her. "Oh, we find them all right. Three hundred each week in fact," he said, "They just don't accept."

Huh.

[flotsam]

Sounds nice when first told to you. Makes some sense that we should have modern day prophets and apostles. Most the stuff your told about isn't too wacky or different from what you already believed. But then you hear from friends, relatives, the internet about some of the stuff they didn't tell you. You start reading up on past teachings, science, and archeology, and you realize that this divine restoration story is a crock!



That reminds me a lot of myself. I think, deep down, I'm still looking for the "true" story. And so when the Mormon story turns out to be filled with holes once any attention to detail is paid, I wonder where the truth is too.

Where is the story that will make me feel like my life is worthwhile?

So then you say:

I think all Christian churches in general are going to start seeing a falling away. The current fervor I think is a clear sign that people are fighting to hang on to tradition in the face of increasing pressures from science and secularism.

And I wonder, what do secularism and science (so helpful in describing empirical phenomena) have to offer as far as giving me a story worth living for? That's a real question.

'Cause, see, that's what Mormonism and Catholicism and Hinduism etc offer, is a story worth living or dying for. It makes your life important in the long run. Which people really want.

Why go in and interrupt their rejoicing? And that's a real question again. What can you offer? And how does it help people change in a transcendent way?

[why me]

That reminds me a lot of myself. I think, deep down, I'm still looking for the "true" story. And so when the Mormon story turns out to be filled with holes once any attention to detail is paid, I wonder where the truth is too.

Where is the story that will make me feel like my life is worthwhile?

So then you say:



And I wonder, what do secularism and science (so helpful in describing empirical phenomena) have to offer as far as giving me a story worth living for? That's a real question.

'Cause, see, that's what Mormonism and Catholicism and Hinduism etc offer, is a story worth living or dying for. It makes your life important in the long run. Which people really want.

Why go in and interrupt their rejoicing? And that's a real question again. What can you offer? And how does it help people change in a transcendent way?
i don't know if there is a story that will make life worthwhile. Nothing is without holes...holes are a part of life. I don't think that postmormonism can offer anything to an individual. Most head toward something else or nothing at all. Or we may rely on the beauty of life until we no longer see the beauty in life. Or we come to our own conclusion about what god is and what god is not. Postmormonism is not about making people feel comfortable in their mormonism both past or present. It is about taking the mormon out of the person in my opinion. Which is okay I suppose because it serves a purpose of helping those who need that sort of help. You are right about the what religion in general has to offer someone...making life just a little more meaningful and important because there is a reason for being. I dont know if the majority of people can live without faith in something or someone. "Why go in and interupt their rejoicing?" is a good question. I know that I try to interupt no one's rejoicing. Why should I? I can only help those who are no longer rejoicing about anything that life has to offer as human beings...at least I can try to do so. Thanks for the post flotsom...

[hitchiker]

Well, except that most retention problems aren't based on people apostatizing. People just stop coming. I know that pretty much all the people I baptized on my mission aren't going to church anymore. They just sort of lost interest, or didn't have a social circle there, or they moved and the overworked ward clerks couldn't keep track of them.

I think that's what the Hinckster's addressing. Instilling a testimony rather than just getting a baptism.they have apostacised , its just done in a nice quiet secret way

[helemon]

Where is the story that will make me feel like my life is worthwhile?

In your own heart and mind? It is something you must discover everyday.

'Cause, see, that's what Mormonism and Catholicism and Hinduism etc offer, is a story worth living or dying for. It makes your life important in the long run. Which people really want.

Why go in and interrupt their rejoicing? And that's a real question again. What can you offer? And how does it help people change in a transcendent way?

I think Christianity is going to experience some rocky times because they have pinned a date on the calendar for the return of their God. The longer it goes with that not happening the more followers are going to become disillusioned and the less leaders will be able to use it as a whipping post to fire up people to get in line. Granted they can always perform some more creative math to argue that their calculations were wrong. I think Christian groups that do not put as much emphasis on this event will fair better. Religions who offer sound moral and ethical teachings I think will persist. But the new priesthood is the scientist. It is the products of science that we turn to when we need to be healed. It is the scientist we look to when wanting to know about the future. It is science that is making real progress toward unlocking the mysteries of the universe and eternal life.

I would much rather have people rejoice in the wonders of life and the universe through science where truths can be discussed and debated rather than rigidly enforced without room for debate. Why waste your time uncritically repeating what some guy centuries ago thought reality was like? Why not encourage people to stretch their minds and grapple with the theories of today and maybe even contribute some ideas of their own!

Religions dogmatic adherence to the whims and fantasies of an original charismatic founder, with its tendency for tight control and harsh penalties for disenters, is not a healthy paradigm to encourage. We are currently reaping the fruits of the fanaticism this type of unbending attitude toward reality engenders. Why not encourage people to be fellow explorers of thought and consciousness, each contributing their unique perspective to the group.