I want to believe in miracles.
If you catch me in a thoughtful moment, I’ll probably tell you that I still do, in a way.
Here’s the deal, though. Every time I hold up a miracle to the light and examine it, I’m disappointed. In high school, for example, I remember being interested in near-death experiences (NDEs). I was intrigued by idea of a conscious essence leaving the body, hovering above it, being drawn down a tunnel towards a light, etc. I later read about an interesting experiment. A researcher placed a number of different messages and symbols in several operating rooms and other places where individuals were likely to have these types of experiences. The messages were not visible from the floors of these rooms, but they could be easily viewed by someone floating above it. The researcher reasoned that if even one individual, as part of an NDE, could describe these messages, it would prove that something left the body at death–and that would change everything.
I suspect we all know the outcome: Although several NDEs were reported, no one saw the symbols or the messages. The most likely explanation? Individuals didn’t see them because they didn’t expect to see them, and like dreams, the mind can only manufacter experiences for which it has context and raw material.
After reading about this experiment, my interest in NDEs waned. “I’ll wait until somebody sees those symbols,” I thought to myself. That was 15 years ago.
I’ve been hearing quite a bit about another miracle lately. It’s the recent spike in the number of Mormon missionaries. Here’s a conference talk on the subject: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/its-a-miracle?lang=eng.
Now, if the miracle is that young men and young women serve missions in the numbers they do, I might be able to go along with that. If the “miracle” is the recent spike in the number of missionaries, I’m not so sure.
Here’s what I did. I assumed, as a baseline, that we have 55,000 missionaries in the field (go here or here from some historical data that backs up that assumption). I then asked a basic question: What would happen, assuming nothing else changed, if the missionary age were lowered to 18 for young men and 19 for young women? In the jpg (and spreadsheet) linked below, I assumed that 65% of young men would decide to serve at 18 (instead of 19), and that 75% of young women would elect to serve at 19 (instead of 21).
Here’s what happens. Before the policy change, to keep 55,000 missionaries in the field, 5844 men and 1375 women need to enter the mission field every quarter (or three months). When the change is made, in addition to the young men and women entering the mission field at 19 and 21 (respectively), an additional 34,375 young men and women become available to serve (all the 18-year-old young men waiting to turn 19, and all the 19- and 20-year-old women waiting to turn 21). After a year of the new policy, assuming that 65% and 75%, respectively, of these “additional” young men and women elect to enter the missionary field earlier than initially planned, the total number of missionaries rises to 78,444. At then end of the second year, the number rises to 85,250. By the end of year three, however, once the “extra” missionaries that were moved up in the queue by the policy change begin leaving the field, the number drops to 64,556. By the end of year four, the system has returned to a steady state of 55,000 missionaries. The effect of the policy change is, in effect, like a snake swallowing an elephant.
Here is a large jgp of the entire spreadsheet: https://dovesandserpents.org/?attachment_id=5684
Here is a link to the actual Excel spreadsheet: https://dovesandserpents.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/missionaries.xlsx
Note: The Excel file is dynamic, change the numbers in yellow and everything changes (so you can play with the asusmptions).
A few quick observations:
The basic model, which assumes that nothing changes (i.e. the same percentage of young men and young women elect to serve missions, etc.), predicts nearly 80,000 missionaries in the field one year after lowering the missionary age (and this is almost exactly what has happened). If the model holds, this number should increase to 85,250 over the next year, and than rapidly decline to around 65,000 by the end of the 3rd year (and then drop to the initial number fo 55,000 by the end of the fourth year). So far, reality has confirmed the model.
It’s clear why the church chooses to focus on metrics that create the feeling that the church is an unstoppable movement. It’s because those kinds of feelings can become self-fulfilling prophecies (i.e. if everyone thinks that “everyone” is going on a mission, then individiuals will be more likely to choose to go, and if everyone makes the same decision, then everyone really will go). The church has been very careful about managing the metrics it releases (for a while it was convert baptisms, then when those numbers stalled, we moved on to the number of temples. That was great as long as we were opening 20 or 30 temples a year (after the church moved to a smaller temple format), but since that number has dropped to 3 or 4, we’ve moved on to the number of missionaries.
As I watch the snake swallow an elephant, I think two things.
First, I want to see a miracle. I want to see the missionary numbers keep marching upward in year three (even though spreadsheets everywhere say it shouldn’t happen). I want to see them defy gravity, and instead of returning to the baseline, I want to see them continue to climb. Then I’d buy the “miracle” rhetoric. Until then, every time I hear a church leader use the word “miracle” when talking about the spike in the number of missionaries, I cringe because it seems dishonest (and manipulative).
Second, I think we better find another metric to focus on before we get there (because I think we all know what’s going to happen).
I couldn’t get past your comments on NDEs without commenting. I think it’s a mistake to base anything on those ridiculous experiments with messages left for NDE-ers to see. It makes a HUGE assumption that someone experiencing an NDE wouldn’t be preoccupied with other things, especially since they wouldn’t be primed to look around for some hidden message left just in case they died on the operating table. I mean, really. There is much better evidence out there (I won’t say “proof,” that would be overstating it). People can still disagree on the topic, obviously, but this is a poorly designed experiment. There is much more interesting evidence out there. There has been lots and lots of research in this area since Raymond Moody first published Life After Life. I haven’t kept up with all the literature except to listen to many podcast interviews on the topic at Skeptiko. I started out skeptical of it because of course I’d read all the professional skeptics’ dismissals of NDE accounts, but they typically have their own biases and certainly aren’t the last word on the subject. There is some good research out there, but I think anyone that has already made up their mind on this subject won’t be persuaded one way or the other.
Great analysis, Brent! I think you’re spot on. There’s no way the missionary numbers aren’t coming back down in a couple of years. It seems kind of surprising to me that there would be so much discussion of this being “miraculous” when it seems obvious that it’s going to be temporary. I do wonder if the final state won’t be a little higher than the original (60,000 vs. 55,000 or something), but that would hardly qualify as a miracle.
I’ve never read much about NDEs or known anyone who had one; that’s not true; some people have told me that they have had them, but they have never gone into detail–
I would be cautious about using material standards to judge spiritual experiences–
or supernatural experiences–
Nice analysis. I guess every time I hear the missionary statistics I assume that both the speaker and the audience have enough common sense to understand that the numbers are obviously going to drop. Essentially they have expanded the age range of missionaries currently in the field and this will equilibrate back down as the avg age drops. I think the miracle is that so many people have literally just dropped what they were doing and put in their papers. I wonder what the statistics are for the number of new sisters vs brothers? Bet the increase for sisters is much higher, firstly, because its about freaking time women can go earlier! And secondly, the age decrease is by two years vs one. I would also guess that the long term number of missionaries might be slightly higher than the mathematical model because more sisters will go on missions than before the announcement.
Sorry your model addresses the point of sisters vs brethren. Nice! So women doubled and men increased by only 55%. Interested to see how that will play out….
“The wave” as Elder Nelson calls it, has the risk of being a terrible waste in resources. The number of baptisms per missionaries will drop significantly, if only because a larger percentage will be in the MTC at first. Further, sending twice the usual amount of missionaries to Utah and Idaho (where housing is more easily acquired for missionaries) or upping the number of missionaries from 4 to 8 will not automatically double the amount of converts baptised. There is a re-emphasis on member missionary work (check the choir of relief society conference, made up out of sister missionaries and sisters from a stake) to have more referrals for the missionaries.
A real miracle would be an increase in the number of baptisms per missionary.
Your representation of the NDE research mentioned really distorts the facts. Dr. Sam Parnia conducted this research. You can read all about it in What Happens When We Die. Basically, he didn’t have enough funding to conduct this research in enough hospitals to get any meaningful results. The criteria for the treatment group in the experiment was so narrow (only people who experience cardiac arrest with a completely flatlined EEG and then live to tell about it and then voluntarily choose to disclose NDE-type experiences) that it needed to be conducted on a much larger scale to get enough NDEs collected to even begin to examine whether or not they could see these signs.
So please, think twice before you claim that this research supports your conclusions. There is nowhere near enough data to reach any conclusions about NDEs.
Interesting to see the stats back up what I hope we all already knew. I agree that the miracle rhetoric is unfortunate though. I also agree with the previous comments that the number will not return to the original baseline (at least as a per capita amount).
I expect the percentage of young men going will change little and that we’re seeing the much of the bulge there. I do expect the percentage of sisters will be a permanent change (what the final baseline will be I don’t know). More sisters will go than prior to the change, both because it will be easier at the earlier age (fewer married) and the increased visibility of sisters. Many more YW will grow up seeing sister missionaires and thus more likely to see themselves as potential missionairies. Indeed I would not be surprised to see the sisters portion peak noticeably later then the brothers.
DId I miss the factor that takes into consideration the idea that the missionary #’s will stay elevated because more women will serve. at 19, women are less likely to be married before they have a chance to serve a mission so it’s possible those numbers stay up.
If this is the case then the field will be more gender equal. Which, if I remember what Packer said in a 1996 fireside to my seminary class, the missions will fail. The women are great at teaching but they can’t baptize or perform any other priesthood ordinance. If there is not enough men to do that, the missions will implode.
OR maybe they’ll leave the teaching just to the women and the men will be in charge of overseeing everything. :( bleh. OR maybe they’ll start ordaining women.) Time will tell.
I think it’s funny how many people are focusing on the example of the NDEs at the beginning of the piece, and jumping down Brent’s throat about his personal conclusion regarding them. He didn’t say, “This is incontrovertible proof that NDEs don’t happen!” He said, “After reading about this experiment, my interest in NDEs waned.” He based a personal conclusion on evidence that he saw – that, since this experiment seemed to follow Occam’s Razor and made him question their existence, he might as well spend his energy on other intellectual pursuits – but he’s not saying you’re all horrible people for apparently believing in NDEs, guys.
There will be an incremental lift as a few more men and significantly more women choose to serve. But the surge is very time limited. Which is expected.
Braeden, I criticized Brent not for his disbelief in NDEs, but his incorrect reporting of the findings of Dr. Parnia’s research. His characterization is a strawman fallacy.
Sorry if I offended anyone with my comments about NDEs. . . For me, personally, until someone sees (anyone, just one person?) those symbols, then I think the application of Occam’s razor suggests a much more simple explanation than those typically offered by those who believe that these experiences represent a window into the afterlife (but again, that’s my take on it). I’m not suggesting that this research proves anything one way or the other (and given that belief in NDEs has a high “faith” component–again, my interpretation–I don’t think it’s something that could ever be settled definitively to everyone’s satisfaction).
Brent, I had this exact same thought, that we are seeing the leading edge of a statistical bubble. My question is will the missionary population rocket up and feather down (like gas prices) or will it follow a sort of bell curve like your graph suggests it might. I guess we’ll find out in a couple of years if a different statistic is announced in Conference.
Braeden, I agree with you. I’m just not sure that the particular experiment you cite is a good example to use, because you use it to demonstrate how potential proofs of divine intervention end up being disappointing. In this case, it just didn’t happen the way you say it did, so it’s unfair to draw either disappointment or excitement from it.
Shouldn’t the end state of the system have an increase over the starting state since the age was lowered and we’ll presumably see an increased percentage of missionary aged members who choose to go on a mission?
I would suggest two sets of percentages:
Pre-age change – men 60%, women 50% (whatever percentages keeps a steady state of 55k missionaries)
New-lower ages – men 65%, women 60% (estimated increase in numbers serving, presimably a higher increase in women given the two year drop in age)
I would suggest making sure the system is steady state at 55k pre-age change, apply the age change (see the bubble) and then the resulting slightly increased overall number of missionaries. I would assume that we’ll end up at about 65k missionaries.
I, too, have been puzzled by the classification of this very sensible policy change as a miracle. I don’t think President Monson presented it as a miracle when he announced the change a year ago ( I think he used the words “prayerfully considered” or something like that). I also wouldn’t characterize the rather predictable influx of missionaries into the field as a “miracle” either. It’s nice and it’s good to see young men and women respond to the call but “miraculous?” And, as you’ve pointed out, the high numbers are a temporary anomaly. Maybe they will go back to preannouncement levels or maybe they won’t but I doubt we’ll continue to see 80,000 plus missionaries out in the field. If we do continue to see such numbers over time, I would classify that as perhaps “miraculous.” But right now, I feel like telling everyone around to me to calm down.
They could (almost) double the number of missionaries if they encouraged women to serve in terms as strong as they encourage men, and extended sisters’ service times to equal elders. (A girl can dream, right?)
Of course numbers will go up at first, but then it will level off and be a bit more than current numbers as they are capturing women who may have been married or pregnant.
The reason the are was lowered, IMHO, is indoctrination. It is to breed the next generation of tithing payers. I am not even sure LDS inc cares if they convert or not, as long as the 55,000 come home knowing “the church us true”.
It might be fun to model a new baseline? Anyone up for it? I’ll be happy to post your modified spreadsheet (with attribution and any comments you’d like to add)?
So far no one has addressed the increased number of missionaries leaving the mission field early, which is bound to happen as younger, less prepared missionaries turn in their papers. Many members are already reporting missionaries from their wards returning after a few weeks or months. It is unlikely the church will publish these statistics.
Brent, Two points:
1.) I agree that the word, “miracle”, can be thrown around too casually, broadly, recklessly; and that a “good idea”, “smart plan” or “positive outcome” can receive that label. When I hear the word, I interpret the speaker’s intent to affirm belief in God and give Him credit for any positive outcome; yet the downside occurs when “miracles” turn poorly because they were simply bad/poor plans/ideas that were mislabeled at inception. I prefer sparing use of the word so that a real miracle will be recognized.
2.) On the missionary topic and your comparison of an elephant’s 3-yr passage through a snake. By lowering the male missionary age from 19 to 18, a higher percentage of males will pass directly from high-school graduation into the MTC, increasing the net male population beyond the 3rd year, and in theory, into perpetuity. In analogy, the elephant will pass in 3 years but leave its trunk behind, fattening the snake a bit.
Comments welcome.
More to above: Lowering the female age from 21 to 19 will attract significantly more women for the same reason as men, and further, many women will not feel they are choosing between marriage or mission by serving at 19.