Now that the LDS Church has raised the

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Adam

This is very true. Working moms almost always stop at 3 kids. Stay at homes typically have at least 4.

Part of the reason this is true is because the women who can't have kids or struggle to have kids tend to go get jobs rather then sit home while the one kid or two kids are at school, so it isn't always causation one way. But a lot of the time it is choice--probably most of the time.

But because you can never be sure, you should never assume.

I'm sure that contraceptive use is at an all-time high now too. 30 to 40 years ago, the timing method was considered state of the art.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't buy the argument that the decline in the number of missionaries is due (by a large margin, according to Indy) to smaller family sizes.

The raising the bar announcement was made, I believe, in 2002. Here are the missionary numbers from 1999-2005 (as reported in General Conference):

1999:58,593
2000:60,784
2001:60,850
2002:61,638
2003:56,237
2004:51,067
2005:52,060

You can see that 2002 was the highest number of missionaries in that time period (and likely ever). It dropped pretty sharply right after that, down 5,000, with another 5,000 drop the following year. Are you really going to try and convince me that family size is still the largest contributing factor?

Is it a mere coincidence that the drop occurred the year of the announcement? Did small family size suddenly become an issue in 1984? I would think with all the celebrating going on in 1984, some extra children were bound to ensue...

Is it not also possible that some of the decline is due to a short term demographic hiccup that mirrors the population pyramid of Utah (which is the polity that obviously most directly tracks the churches age cohorts)?

I have read a number of times that number of children per grade is exponentially higher in the younger grades in Utah and that there will be a demographic explosion starting in about five years and spanning about 15 or 20 years.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And, by the way, the following is the exact language from the FP letter to bishops and stake presidents re missionary service after Elder Ballard announced the "raising the bar" agenda:

“Moral Worthiness. Prospective missionaries who have been guilty of fornication, heavy petting, other sexual perversions, drug abuse, serious violation of civil law, and other transgressions are to repent and be free of such for sufficient time (not less than one year from the most recent offense) to prepare themselves spiritually for the temple and a sacred mission call. 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 or homosexual relationship will not be considered for full-time missionary service. Stake presidents and bishops should help these individuals to repent and assist in providing other meaningful ways in which to serve the Lord."

The same language that's in the handbook, some of which I posted earlier.

[SeattleUte]

I haven't paid attention to this thread. Somebody succuingly tell me why it rates five stars or I'm giving it one which will automatically knock it downt to three.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't buy the argument that the decline in the number of missionaries is due (by a large margin, according to Indy) to smaller family sizes.

The raising the bar announcement was made, I believe, in 2002. Here are the missionary numbers from 1999-2005 (as reported in General Conference):

1999:58,593
2000:60,784
2001:60,850
2002:61,638
2003:56,237
2004:51,067
2005:52,060

You can see that 2002 was the highest number of missionaries in that time period (and likely ever). It dropped pretty sharply right after that, down 5,000, with another 5,000 drop the following year. Are you really going to try and convince me that family size is still the largest contributing factor?

Is it a mere coincidence that the drop occurred the year of the announcement? Did small family size suddenly become an issue in 1984? I would think with all the celebrating going on in 1984, some extra children were bound to ensue...

It's not an "argument", it's the findings of in an internal study done by the church. Look at how the numbers were already flattening in 2000 and 2001.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Just to increase again in 2002 and then drop by 5,000 the next two years (immediately following the announcement)? If demographics were the reason, we would have to accept that 1981 and 1982 were fairly fertile years, 1983 was the most fertile year ever, and 1984 was a terrible year for fertility, as was 1985. Stand by your internal study all you want, but that sounds silly. Demographics may play SOME part in the drop, but you aren't going to convince me that it played an overwhelming majority part in the drop. It seems pretty clear to me that the announcement had the greatest effect.

I didn't do the study, so I don't know who did it or what their methodology was. I just know what I was told.

With US convert baptism rates flat or decreasing and the fertility rate decreasing, it's certainly not as out of the realm of possibility as you might think.

One thing I do know: way too many people were being sent on missions that had absolutely no business being out there. Hopefully that number has been improved since the "raise the bar" initiative.

[Indy Coug]

In the absence of having any hard data, to discuss this any further at this point is essentially meaningless. As a life insurance actuary, I understand the mathematics of this kind of stuff enough to know it's entirely possible that the drop in missionaries is primarily for the reason the church has stated.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

In the absence of having any hard data, to discuss this any further at this point is essentially meaningless. As a life insurance actuary, I understand the mathematics of this kind of stuff enough to know it's entirely possible that the drop in missionaries is primarily for the reason the church has stated.

If I recall correctly, the church wasn't arguing that the drop was "primarily" due to demographics. Rather, they were indicating that it was a significant factor.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

If I recall correctly, the church wasn't arguing that the drop was "primarily" due to demographics. Rather, they were indicating that it was a significant factor.

I asked the person who had access to the study, if the drop was PRIMARILY due to "raising the bar", or barring admittance to a large number of missionaries. His response was no, that it was PRIMARILY due to a shift in demographics.

In the absence of being able to see the study myself, I can only go by what he said, but he clearly indicated that demographics was the leading cause.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I asked the person who had access to the study, if the drop was PRIMARILY due to "raising the bar", or barring admittance to a large number of missionaries. His response was no, that it was PRIMARILY due to a shift in demographics.

In the absence of being able to see the study myself, I can only go by what he said, but he clearly indicated that demographics was the leading cause.

Interesting. Well, it's been a while so I may not have remembered it correctly.

From my limited perspective, I think the bar has gone back down after the initial "raising" and we aren't that far off from before. I have seen quite a few young men go out that I thought for sure wouldn't make it.