Now that the LDS Church has raised the

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas

What is the protocol for a mission field confession? Does the MP have to call the Area Presidency, the Missionary Department, the 12?

There was a rumor my new MP that took over towards the end of my mission wanted to send home 9 elders when he came to the mission but Elder Maxwell (who was over our area) wouldn't let him. Don't know how true it was.

[SoonerCoug]

I was mission secretary for 6 months. When I had this job, I typed emails to GAs (for the MP) about troubled missionaries. That was a dang interesting experience. Of course, all the communications were to remain confidential.

It was common practice in our office to read missionaries' letters to the mission president for recreational purposes, and also statements from bishops and stake presidents in mission papers. (I didn't engage in this practice, but the rumors flew just the same. Let me put it this way: we all knew which sister missionaries weren't virgins.)

Assuming confidentiality when you confess something...well, it's a pipe dream. Example: MP let me know loud and clear which missionaries engaged in self-gratification.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Anecdotally, I've seen the soft approach and never seen it fail,

I've seen the soft approach fail. We had an elder who made it clear to any other elder he spoke with that he was only on a mission to get his BMW from dad when he got home. No mission, no BMW. He was always getting into trouble for not doing any work, and had a couple of sit downs with the MP who told him that he really didn't want to send anyone home, but that to stay in the mission he needed to get working and stop with some of the behaviors he'd been caught in. Finally, after about 1 1/2 years in the field he ditched his comp, went to a rock concert and got wasted including smoking some weed. That one got him sent home.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I've seen the soft approach fail. We had an elder who made it clear to any other elder he spoke with that he was only on a mission to get his BMW from dad when he got home. No mission, no BMW. He was always getting into trouble for not doing any work, and had a couple of sit downs with the MP who told him that he really didn't want to send anyone home, but that to stay in the mission he needed to get working and stop with some of the behaviors he'd been caught in. Finally, after about 1 1/2 years in the field he ditched his comp, went to a rock concert and got wasted including smoking some weed. That one got him sent home.

That seems like a different scenario to me. It seems like we are talking about folks who have committed serious sin but have repented and desire to serve. Big difference, IMO.

[Ace Tomato Co.]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What??? And it just happened to correlate with the "raising the bar" issue?

Indy is right. The church has known for some time that missionary numbers would be dropping due to demographics. It is relatively easy to measure in the church; we keep good membership records, and they know how many primary boys there are, and they know historically how many of those boys will make it all the way up to Elder.

I doubt that number of missionaries in the field had very much to do with the decision to raise the bar.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

No, that's not the important part of the guideline. The guideline is very specific. It forces a bishop to deny a prospective missionary no matter how deep the broken heart and contrite spirit is. I don't have a copy of the handbook but when I read it before I recall it being "multiple" partners or "multiple" incidents with same partner. I could be wrong on the latter, but I know that's how my bishop interpreted it.

Originally Posted by Adam

You are correct. That is the language.

Here is the paragraph in question:

Individuals who have been promiscuous with several partners or who have been with one partner over an extended period of time in either a heterosexual relationship outside of marriage or a homosexual relationship with not be considered for full-time missionary service. Stake presidents and bishops should help these individuals repent and should help provide other meaningful ways to serve the Lord.

A few things to note:

1. This is one paragraph among about 2 pages of discussion of missionary worthiness and preparation.

2. Note the open term "several" partners. Does 2 qualify? Does 10? Seems there is a degree of latitude for the priesthood authority to make a determination.

3. Note the term "over an extended period time" rather than "more than once". Again, priesthood leadership has some latitude in determining what is considered extended.

4. Note the final sentence. Those who have these circumstances can still serve in other meaningful ways.

5. Though I didn't quote it, the next paragraph discusses the option of applying for an exception from the First Presidency, if there is an unusal circumstance.

This doesn't sound like anyone is being "forced" into any decision. Quite the contrary, it seems like bishops and stake presidents are being given a charge to be judicious and wise in their judgments.

More to the point of this thread, I reiterate my disbelief that there are a significant enough number of young people who fall into this category AND have repented and desire to serve, such that worldwide missionary statistics are affected.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Ace Tomato Co.

Indy is right. The church has known for some time that missionary numbers would be dropping due to demographics. It is relatively easy to measure in the church; we keep good membership records, and they know how many primary boys there are, and they know historically how many of those boys will make it all the way up to Elder.

I doubt that number of missionaries in the field had very much to do with the decision to raise the bar.

I can verify this. I saw a presentation several years ago where they predicted that the number of missionaries would go down due to demographics.

[MikeWaters]

We had a 70 tell us this 2 years ago as well. about demographics.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

We had a 70 tell us this 2 years ago as well. about demographics.

Is "demographics" another way of saying that active membership in the north american church is stagnant or declining?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Is "demographics" another way of saying that active membership in the north american church is stagnant or declining?

The wives are too busy working outside the home to be popping out the 5 to 8 kids they used to 30 to 40 years ago.