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.