What is the point of sharing their faith and the message of Christ if not to convert? The denial of this basic motivation is simply missionaries trying not to come off as intrusive. Of course they want baptisms.

Our current Church president has a famous quote about how when we measure performance, performance increases, and when we measure performance and report it, performance increases at a faster rate.

Yes, that sounds corporate, and it is. But in the next breath, he emphasizes that we are focusing on people and their salvation.

Of course it’s about gaining converts. And home teaching, at its core, is about helping people stay close to the faith. And assignments to serve in the temple is to help the deceased receive ordinances.

It’s a different eternal model than casual Church.

I’m starting out in Knowledge Management, and I’m itching to apply KM theory to some aspects of the Church, especially the Missionary system.

One recent concept that just came up is that when we measure something, that is what becomes important. This is often to the detriment of the core mission of the organization when the measure is not well thought out and tied to the core mission.

So, measuring numbers (quantitative) is a quick way to measure how well missionaries are doing. It’s fast, it’s like the acid test ratio in investing. And, in the early days of the church where there was mass conversions just about everywhere. However, it also leads to abuse like the Baseball Baptisms

However, there are better ways to measure intangibles like the way the Church can change peoples lives. Qualitative measurement, anecdotal evidence, stories,and best practices are all effective ways to measure the effectiveness of the Missionary program. The problem is is that it requires time, patience and a bit of a change of mindset.

So, we have two schools of thought… and the RM’s will probably all have similar experiences. You have the stories in the Ensign about good missionary work that most members think exemplify missionary work… then you have the Bizzaro-world of quickie baptisms and dodgey emotional manipulation that characterizes most missions (at least it did mine and a significant number of people that I’ve talked to.)

@queno (3) Of course missionaries are all about getting converts but the core mission of the church is to change lives. But when you measure the # of converts instead of the quality of converts (which is one heck of a lot harder) you get Baseball/Football baptisms or the corporate equivalent.

The problem is that there is a lot of official material that missionaries are exposed to in their training that emphasizes the “softer approach” and that your goal is to testify and share, and all that nice stuff.

But then you turn in your weekly reports and it is almost ALL focused on results – how many conversions? How many investigators? How many Book of Mormons?

So, while the missionaries are being told one model overtly, their incentives program is completely geared toward another model.

So, I don’t think the missionaries are being dishonest, they’re just dealing with a bit of cognitive dissonance.

I think we shouldn’t forget here why it’s important to have converts–we want people to have the true Gospel of Christ in their lives so they can have joy.

Somewhere in the middle of my mission, I decided that my focus was not on baptizing people, but helping each person I ran into to live a little better. For many, this would mean baptism and getting on the path to temple attendance. But for others, it was fostering understanding, or just lifting a burden.

Were I in mfranti’s position, I would have said that a missionary’s goal should be helping people move a little bit closer to God. Often, this involves baptism. For serious investigators, a goal will always be to prepare them for baptism and the path to the temple.

One reason baptism stories are often used in talks is that the conversion and covenant-making process is often dramatic and moving. But I can’t see how it would be appropriate to use baptism statistics in RM talks. It seems like a poor teaching technique, and a poor way to help members feel the Holy Ghost.

I was a fairly succesful missionary on my mission. One of my tactics after a discussion or 2 was to have an open conversation about my intentions and why we kept coming around.

“Brother Jones. We are missionaries for our church the reason we speak to people is to grow the local congregation of our church. Are you interested in being a member of our church? Do you want to become a Mormon?” Etc. If they indicated yes. I would generally tell them that they needed to start coming to church every week and that after a month or 2 of study and church attendance they could get baptized. I also at this point would discuss at length any family situations, wow issues, LOC issues that would make it hard to be a Mormon. I would then also start with letting them ask any question they wanted about LDS beliefs and practices and ignore the suggested 6 lesson plan and cater the entire teaching plan to what they needed to become converted.

People really appreciated the honesty of the approach and we quickly determined how serious they were as well.

FWIW my mission did not have quickie baptisms or dodgy manipulative ones.

We had strict enforced guidelines on how a missionary proceeded with potential converts. Church attendance was key to the whole process.

Also what is the point of laying out your own money and spending 2 years if you are not serious about what you are doing? (in other words conversions) One of the issues I noticed is that it was easy to tell who was paying for some of their mission and who was not. I had multiple 25-27 year old comps who had paid their own way who were extremely effective elders.

I really believe we’re also trying to help people take more, rather than just something different, I think we’re offering something additional. Yes, there are some beliefs that will change, but I truly believe the Latter-day Saint faith offers not just something different, but something more.

My thought are similar to Duke of Earl Gray’s. It isn’t dishonest to have the objective of a street encounter to be the introducing someone to the gospel in the larger context of the overall missionary objective of bringing souls to Christ.

If the message is received well initially then the missionaries and investigators progress together toward eventual conversion.

A iffy analogy would be Mongolia, where missionaries were (maybe still are) restricted from actively pursuing investigators, but are allowed to teach those how ask to be taught. Proselyting missionaries are sent to Mongolia as English instructors in the universities, and spend a large amount of the time doing just that. They make many contacts and the growth of the Church in Mongolia is strong. The a fortiori objective of bringing souls to Christ doesn’t mean that people aren’t learning English.

The numbers issue of missionary work often rankles me but I had an RM friend who’s explanation put it in a humbling perspective for me. After sharing my “issue” with quotas and quick baptisms, he defesively said,
“My job, as a missionary, was to share the gospel and get them baptized and to church. It is YOUR job, as a member, to fellowship and help them actually learn and grow in the gospel as a fellow brother or sister. Of course we don’t have time to do it the way it should be done. We are only given 2 years and are moved around all the time. But the ward is there and it is up to them to do what we can’t.”

I have also met missionaries that had differing ideas on what their purpose was. Some were all about obedience, some about numbers, some about showing the world that Mormons were human too, etc. In the end, I try not to be to hard about the numbers issue because I realize that these are a bunch of 19 year old boys/men being thrown out there and the church has to try and regulate, motivate, and keep them all in line somehow.

I have to admit that as a member, to me it was obvious that the missionaries were out to convert people. I mean, when they came to our house for dinner, that’s what they talked about. I wasn’t even aware that some missionaries said things like they said to mfranti’s husband.

I can see how someone in his position would feel manipulated if an Elder said this to him–especially considering he’s married to a member and knows how most members feel about the role of missionary work. However, most of the missionaries I grew up around would never have purposefully manipulated anyone (or if they did, they truly believed it was for a greater purpose).

Perhaps to non-members this makes them question the sincerity of missionary friendship and service. For example, if the missionaries help out a family often, and the family still refuses to convert, and so the missionaries finally stop coming around, is that family going to feel like the missionaries’ (or to their point of view the church’s) interest in them extends only so far as their potential for conversion?

In situations like these, perhaps the service the missionaries render looks less like genuine service and more like a favor for which they expect conversion in return.

We lost a missionary from our MTC branch whose main problem was the “commitment process.” He had felt coerced to go on a mission, and didn’t want to coerce others to get baptized. Along the same lines, a missionary currently in the field reported that one investigator was quite disturbed by the Mormon phrase “I know the Church is true” (or whatever else is being testified to). These are not easy issues to answer. We train our children to recite phrases which might not actually reflect their developing sense of what comprises truth and what doesn’t.

I love the emphasis in _Preach My Gospel_ on acquiring Christ-like attributes. That’s the section I read most frequently, and need the most. I love having our missionaries be involved in service. Service changes lives–and then missionaries are free to answer questions about why they are devoting two years of prime time to their Church.

I wouldn’t go on a mission with the purpose of changing lives. I’ve already done far too much passenger-seat driving in my children’s lives–with little success. (They tend to turn when they want to turn.) I would happily go to be a resource for anyone who might want to discuss Mormonism with me, but I wouldn’t go to change people–especially since I realize that such a goal is arrogant and impossible. The Spirit changes people; people choose to change or not to change. My presence might inspire, or it might hinder. (I frankly have found some of the more zealous members of the bloggernacle to be a hindrance to my belief in Mormon goodness, because they are often so very unkind. I would hate to see them become missionaries unless they really focused on those Christ-like attributes.)

I

The Spirit changes people; people choose to change or not to change.

This has not been my experience as a missionary. My sample size is admittedly pretty small, but the experiences which the LDS church connects with the Spirit didn’t correlate very well with the people who actually changed their lives.

For example, I was once out with an Aaronic priesthood holder following up on referrals. We contacted a man who had requested a video. He didn’t have a VCR handy to play it on, but we had a very inspiring First Discussion. We helped him recognize the feelings of the Spirit which he readily agreed were of God. He was excited by what we had to say, and so was my young companion after we left that home. He was certain that this man would be baptized since he had felt and recognized the Spirit. Match point.

Two weeks later, this young priesthood holder asks me how this man was doing. I regretfully had to inform him that he hadn’t returned our calls, answered the door, etc. Feeling the Spirit didn’t actually change this man’s life. Some may deny that he truly felt the Spirit, but I have no way of discerning the difference.

In the end, those feelings were only a small part of what went into changing a person’s life. In my experience, it has a lot more to do with the skill and personalities of the missionaries, the person’s social situation, and how they currently felt about their life. I wouldn’t even say that having those feelings was necessary to make a lasting change in a person’s life.

can someone clean up that mess up there? thanks

My comment was missing a sentence it should read:

“It’s those missionaries that serve a mission to serve Jesus Christ, in what ever capacity He need them, and not to specifically baptise- that are superb missionaries. You’ll never about number from them, you’ll hear about people.”

I joined the church at 20 and left on my mission 18 mos. later. I did not have a single baptism during that time. Three of the young women I taught were eventually baptized when they were fully committed not only to the gospel to the the LDS lifestyle that comes with it. I am not sorry. I went on a mission so that I could introduce others to the gospel just as my friends had introduced it to me. I knew from my own experiences that all I could do was love and teach and that the rest was up to them. I’m not at all ashamed of my ‘numbers’, or the lack thereof. For me, it was all a labor of love from start to finish. Any conversions were incidental to the work I was doing ever day, and that includes a continuation of my own.

I think it would be great if the missionaries were focused on conversion, not baptism. They are two very different things and it’s a bit sad to see them used interchangeably here. We all know tons and tons of people who were baptised but not converted. Unfortunately it’s harder to measure conversion.

We all will know how converted we are or were at about the moment we die. Instances of great spiritual insight do change us for that moment–and the impact can last for hours, but these are the peaks in a very long journey, arduous journey.

One reason we get so upset with Church leaders’ misbehavior is that we expect their “conversions” have somehow permanently changed them rather than simply opened their eyes to the “better angels” within them (and outside them as well). We expect better-ness in our parents, and we hope we can find it in ourselves. But ultimately, we are all pretty big disappointments. Otherwise, grace would mean very little. But it means EVERYTHING.

A missionary may bring someone to the pool of Bethesda, but that person will have to independently–and repeatedly–answer the question, “Wilt thou be healed?”

Jonathan Blake,

I love that scripture, and it can be used to pound the baptismal numbers pulpit, but I think one can focus on the fact that first, it is given to know the mysteries of God, and then SECONDLY, it is GIVEN to bring souls to repentance. I think that scripture is open to interpretation, especially when put into proper context.

I remember some Elders, especially, who set a goal to fast ever Sunday so that the Lord would give them the 5 baptisms they set a goal for. That’s silly, to me. And it never seemed to work. But if they didn’t feel in control of what work was being done, they felt like slackers.

Since I’m wearing my MTC tag and am on my way to visit with our missionaries, what I’ll answer, Jonathan, might sound strange. No, I do not believe that anyone who doesn’t die Mormon was never truly converted in the first place. I don’t actually believe that “conversion” to Christ needs to be in the Mormon form. A truly Christian life is one of fighting a good fight and finishing the race. I believe all else will be worked out. I believe it already has been worked out.