Why did the church lower the missionary age?

My dad once made the comment, "without new converts, this church would die on the vine. New members are what keep it going."

At the time I took him at his word and assumed he was right. But over the years I have watched and observed two things. First, how many new members do I personally observe getting baptized and second, in all the wards I have been in who are the main contributors and movers and shakers?

To the first question, in the last 12 years I have observed 4 converts be baptized. I'm referring to being in the same ward as the new concert, not physically observing the actual baptism. So, in 12 years there have been 4 converts. To be fair, 4 of those years were in student wards at BYU. But still, 4 converts in 8 years? That seems like very few. And one of them got baptized and never returned. Not even for a single meeting. And the other 3 are questionable. They still attend but I can't shake the feeling there is an ulterior motive for their conversion. They have connections to the polygamous community and are insisting on going through the Manti temple when they go through for the first time. Maybe they are 100% on the level, but something just seems "off" to me.

So, very few converts. One could argue virtually no church membership increase through converts.

To the second point, all of the main contributors have been lifelong members. The people doing the most work, serving in the highest callings, paying the most tithing have been members all their lives.

When looking at these two things, it makes me really question whether or not the church really gets anything from converts. Convert baptisms are lower than they've ever been. And retention rates are abysmal. It's very common to hear members say every one of their mission conversions are now inactive.

But there is one benefit to those missions. A mission takes those lifelong members and further binds them to the organization. Many members who would otherwise move on from the church end up getting pressured to go on a mission and ultimately end up staying with the church the rest of their life.

The recent age change for missionaries was simply a response to the high number of young men deciding between the ages of 18 and 19 that this church is not for them. So, the church needs to get them in a suit and a name tag before they get that opportunity to move away.

And then as soon as they return at the ripe old age of 20, it is imperative they get married as quickly as possible. Having a faithful spouse will further bind them to the church. After marriage, the cost of leaving the church rises exponentially.

From my viewpoint, the only benefit the church receives from a global missionary effort is to reduce the loss of members born into the church.

As the saying goes, 'it's much easier to get tithing from a lifelong believer than a convert.'

Faith vs facts

The most fundamental issue is that Mormons start and end with the conclusion that the church is true (period).

So, if there is any evidence to the contrary, the evidence must be a lie, from the devil, twisted, OR there is a perfect explanation but we do not understand it yet. Facts do not matter--only faith matters.

Why is information such a bad thing?

Why does the church advocate making life's biggest decisions based on the least amount of information possible?

Commit to baptism after the 3rd discussion.
Consecrate literally EVERYTHING in your life to the church in the temple, with no knowledge beforehand that this is what you'll be doing there.
Go on a mission as soon as you possibly can without investigating first and living life a little bit.
Get engaged as soon as you possibly can rather than take your time and discover who you are and what you should look for in a spouse.
etc, etc, etc.

Why are church leaders so anxious to have members move on these life changing events before looking for any outside information?

I can see why an outsider would look at Mormonism and say its crazy. But when you're on the inside, it's just what you do.

Do non-believers have an evolutionary disadvantage?

I wonder if religiosity is an evolutionary trait. Anecdotal and observational evidence suggests religious people have more children than non-believers.

If this is the case, non-believers may eventually be bred out of existence. And believers pass their beliefs down to their children thereby perpetuating beliefs down through many generations.

We can only hope the Internet and plentifully available information can stem the tide of beliefs that have no basis in fact.

What if I could somehow have my life back?

It is so very depressing to look back on my life and see every major life decision that I made. Because I made them all while operating under a false set of assumptions.

Every major decision I made appeared to be the right decision at the time. But now I look back and see how I have absolutely and completely blown any opportunity to lead a normal healthy life.

Even if I could somehow miraculously fix everything so that my life could be "right" from this day forward, that doesn't change the fact that multiple decades of my life are gone. History. Lost.

We only get one shot at this life and I'm not exactly off to a blazin' start. And the way things are looking, I fear the future decades will just be a repeat of the last decades. So very depressing.

The greatest tragedy would be if my children are subjected to the same life I've lived. Maybe somehow I can make a difference and break this destructive and harmful cycle. But again, history has shown that my children care very little for my opinions and ideas. But at least they'll have a choice. That's certainly more than I ever had.

More missionaries = the work is rolling forward!!

There is a saying in the church that if the church wasn't true, the missionaries would have destroyed it long ago. Maybe that day is quickly approaching. The lowered missionary age is going to result in an overall drop in the maturity levels of missionaries as well as an increase in the numbers of boys serving who really don't want to be there.

I know from my own experience on my mission there were many boys who really didn't want to be there. They had a knack for bringing others down to their level of faithfulness and work ethic, as opposed to more diligent Elders bringing the less stalwart up their level.

Yes, it's true, there are now going to be more young men serving missions. Are they going to bring a positive influence, or something else instead?

Is it too much to ask, for our prophet to be prophetic?

Why doesn't the Prophet speak out about critical issues that pose serious consequences for the country and the world? Global warming, national debt, etc.

And if he's really a prophet, maybe he could give some direction on how to go about curing cancer. We have the Word of Wisdom to help us with improving our health. Wouldn't some prophetic guidance for curing cancer be an even bigger step to improving health? Maybe even some counsel on what causes cancer so we can avoid those things?

Is it really too much to ask that we get more from our Prophet than another anecdote about visiting a widow or a simple motivational quote like, "Dont worry, everything will work out."

I think the world deserves more than that from the one person on earth with a direct conduit to mind and will of God.

We must be ever careful

Members of the church must be ever watchful and careful to avoid ANY information contrary to the teachings of the church.

The reason for this is that the information out there is so clear, so convincing. It is astounding how easily the fundamental claims of the church are so easily discredited.

Even a superficial study of the evidence debunking Mormonism will destroy a "testimony" very quickly.

BYU is the hope for the future of the Church

I believe BYU is the glue holding this church together. Statistically, I would imagine retention rates for BYU grads is higher than those attending other schools or no school at all.

And with a degree in hand, BYU graduates are going to earn more, thus increasing their 10% contribution to the church. The church may find itself in a cash and membership crunch if they ever did away with BYU.

Should we tell people the truth about the Church?

Who am I to knock cracks in the beliefs of someone else? If the church really works for someone, and they are genuinely happy, why would I want to rip their beliefs from them, even if it is all a mirage? At the same time, if someone really would be better off knowing the truth, I believe it is our obligation to inform them of the realities of the Church. But it's a fine line to walk. And you must be careful and deliberate.

Atheists are crazy!!! Right...?

I used to think atheists beliefs were just as unfounded as those who believe in God. Why is it any less unreasonable to believe in the existence of NO god as it is to believe in God? It is just as impossible to prove the existence of God as it would be to prove God does not exist. I realize now I misunderstood the position of an atheist. An atheist says, "I will believe in something when I see evidence to support its existence." This is why religions teach their members of the evils of "sign seekers." Yes, how dare someone ask for evidence to support the existence of a being whom they are expected to dedicate their entire lives!!!

I love the truth, but sometimes it gets you down

Of course I'm depressed. How else could I respond when I discover my whole life has been a sham, a mirage?

The true irony is how strongly I believed I really held the truth for what all of life means when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Why can't we leave it alone?

I would love nothing more than to "leave it alone." However, my wife still wants to attend. She also wants our children to attend and to be taught all the doctrine and to engage in all the rituals and rites of passage. (Baptism, priesthood, etc.)

I do so wish I could walk away and leave it alone. But it will continue to be an integral part of my life, whether I like it or not.

It's difficult to not become bitter towards an organization that misrepresents itself. It's hard to not resent the methods the church uses to retain members to the point where even when they learn the truth, they still want to be involved with it.

Mormons are very busy people

When you're completely consumed by administering the church and attending all the meetings, you have no time to investigate the claims and doctrines of the church. When you have no time to slow down, you risk missing the most important details. You risk not taking the time to take a closer look at the Church.

Some people stay in the church even after learning the truth

It's common to hear non-believers say things like, "Well, even if the church isn't what it claims to be, I still want to be a part of it."

The reasons for this may be they enjoy the social aspect of the church. Or maybe they feel their kids will learn good morals by attending.

But for me, I don't see it that way. Regardless of how much I loved and enjoyed the church, I feel absolutely no desire to associate with it after discovering it to be a fraud.

Would I continue to "invest" in a scam after being informed that it is in fact a ponzi scheme? No matter how good I previously felt about the investment, or how much of a return I thought I had received, I would want to get as far away from it as I could after discovering its true nature.

We must be careful what we teach our children

It's very dangerous to condition a child to "do the right thing" because the "prophet says so."

When the child discovers the prophet is just another man, and no different than anyone else, it's possible the child will lose their only motivation for making good choices.

The child may conclude that if the prophet does not actually speak for God then the only motivation to do good has been removed.

It's much better to teach a child to make good choices for the rational and logical reasons behind the good choices. This creates a much stronger foundation. Also, it teaches the child to think critically and trust their own abilities to analyze a situation.

I don't know of anyone who would describe church as "fun."

Membership in the Mormon church means meetings. Lots and lots of meetings. More meetings than you can imagine. Take a look a look around while you sit through one. You'll see a lot of glazed-over looks. Everyone is pretty much mentally checked out.

Prepare to be astounded by the sheer boredom of it all. Church meetings are neither fun nor enjoyable. A lot of clock watchin' is the norm.

But we do it because the meetings are so inspirational and it's only in the meetings where you can really feel the spirit and God wants you in those meetings to worship him.

At least, that's what we've been told...

We need to look objectively at Joseph Smith

The most damning evidence against Joseph Smith is the fact there is not a single instance where one of his translations has been proven correct.

On the contrary, there are many examples where experts have compared the original text with his translation and proven his translation to be a complete fraud.

Book of Abraham
Kinderhook plates
Bible
Greek psalter

How many failures, without a single success, do we allow this guy and still continue to believe his claims of divine authority and communication with God?

Mormons are the happiest people on earth!

If the gospel according to Mormonism really is the source of the greatest happiness we can experience in this life, why aren't people lining up at church buildings to be baptized? Are people really so resistant to happiness?

Why is everyone not jumping at the opportunity to be happier than they could possibly imagine? Why is depression and prescription drug abuse running so rampant in Utah?

Can you imagine how much MORE miserable people would be if they didn't have the ultimate happiness of the gospel? *sarcasm*

Why does the Church advocate a flawed method?

The method for gaining a testimony is diametrically opposed to the scientific method. To gain a testimony, you start with the assumption something is true and then work to find some sign or feeling to confirm that truth. If you receive any feeling or evidence that opposes the original assumption, then you go back and pray more until you receive the "correct" answer and you're convinced it's true.

The scientific method starts with a hypothesis and then performs experiments to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. Empirical data is used to measure truth and it is acceptable for the hypothesis to be proven false.

Fast and Testimony meetings have always puzzled me

How many groups of people have to constantly hold meetings where everyone gets up and publicly states their belief in the law of gravity? They have to continually reaffirm their testimony that gravity exists and is a force in their life. If something is really true, why would it be necessary to constantly re-convince ourselves of its truthfulness?

Do we really honestly want to know?

For the honest seeker of truth, nothing should be exempt from critical examination. Even if this means examining things you absolutely "know" to be true. (ie, Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, etc. )

The Church's rigid structure can be detrimental

The Church does a disservice to its members by prohibiting growth through experiencing life. When there is a set rule for every behavior, situation and experience, the Church circumvents the learning process and inhibits any personal growth an individual may gain through making mistakes and actually learning.

We are like trees. The church props us up as we grow. The church guides us to grow in a specific way. And we depend on the church to hold us up. If the props suddenly get shown to be a mirage, the tree may collapse if it doesn't have the strength to stand on its own. We need to teach our kids to think for themselves and to create their own identity, outside of just being a member of the church.

The "Anti-Christ" gets it right

-This thought was borrowed because I like it-

“That Korihor didn’t really believe what he was saying transforms him from a heroic champion of empiricism into a mentally unbalanced con man. But it doesn’t invalidate his implicit claim of a potentially more fulfilling life outside religion. In Gospel Doctrine on Sunday, I asked what a person who believes has to fear from the words of a person who doesn’t? The answers I received were as troubling as they were predictable. And they were all based on this idea that there is no good alternative to full belief and participation in the Church. So the question I’m left with is this: how meaningful can active Church membership be if you are afraid that every possible alternative leads to misery?"

God is an interesting entity

We are taught God will answer our prayers on his timeline and in his own way, and not necessarily when and how we want them answered. Why should I be expected to worship such a fickle and/or powerless god?

We must be willing to question everything

For many, the scariest thought is to question WHY they believe what they believe. And for this reason so very few are willing to explore it.

But when you really get to the very core of the basis for your beliefs, it opens up a whole new world. You can then step outside yourself to question and analyze all of the things you have been told your entire life.

I noticed an interesting line in a hymn during Sacrament Meeting

I was sitting in Sacrament Meeting, singing the opening hymn, when the words jumped off the page. "Truth shall triumph as the light. Chases far the misty night." - Truth Eternal, hymn no. 4 I firmly believe the internet, and its easily accessible information, is finally chasing the darkness and fog away. More and more members of the Mormon church are finally discovering the information that has been hid from them by their church leaders. And once they have that information, they then have the truth about the Church. And the fog is finally lifted.