The more flexible, decentralized firms allow for bottom-up, local problem-solving and experimentation on a more pragmatic basis. They implicitly accept that tacit, non-scientific knowledge is often superior for problem-solving.

The church’s shift to the latter mode (if that’s what is happening, and I’m not too sanguine on that) might have interesting implications for issues of local control and voice in the church.

In this context, the call to have every young man be a missionary set a social norm. Once that norm was set, which took a generation or more, the bar for qualifying is raised, which causes youth to scramble upwards (and some to fall) in order to meet the norm of serving a mission— because they want to serve just like their dad and older brothers and uncles and two aunts and maybe their mom and most of the young men older than them in the ward did.

During the period of establishing a mission norm, keeping standards lower (and doing more hand-holding for discussions) helps to establish the norm because more people can serve missions. Some of them were not very good at it. But it all helped establish a norm. Now that the norm is established the higher bar increases effectiveness and pulls up some people who would otherwise not have lived up to the higher bar. Either way, the Church starts the new century with more and better missionaries than if they hadn’t gone through this process. These missionaries are sufficiently qualified to handle a more “teach by the spirit” approach, because they are, as a group, more righteous and better trained through seminary and their homes.

In this reading of the changes, there is no reason to posit sharp reversals of policy. There is only a steady continuation of changes with an eventual goal. The whole point of prophecy is that one can act slowly because one’s foresight gives one more time to prepare. I’m perfectly willing to believe that mistakes were made along the way, and that many people at Church headquarters did not have this vission of what was to happen. But I believe that God knew and guided the program such that what happened over the course of the century was according to his will.

Clearly, with the changes not only in American society as well as others throghout the world, there is a need to do things differently. Certainly our non-LDS Christian friends have seen the need to break out of the traditional, proselytization mode. The need to adapt missionary conversations to the individuals being taught (based on the Spirit), rather than rote, memorized discussions; adaptation of the work to the individual cultural conditions of each mission; a change of emphasis from numbers of baptisms to fewer baptisms but better retention; greater emphasis on preparing the convert for membership *before* their baptism, etc. I’m thrilled–and I think the results of these changes (and we’ve not seen all the changes that are coming, I believe) will be better rentention of converts, fewer “missionary disasters”, and more stabilized and productive level of Church growth.

However, let me add this observation to the mix: Is it possible that one reason for the move away from canned discussions is because of the increasing number of areas where the Church exists but cannot proselytize? In addition, there are many areas of the world where the Church cannot enter, but may be able to soon, possibly very suddenly (hence the need to send missionaries at a moment’s notice, with very little preparation). So, the need has never been greater for missionaries who are in tune enough to the Spirit, and morally straight and above reproach, who can be sent to areas of great danger and with little prep, where the Church must be built from scratch, where communication with Salt Lake may be sporadic, and where the preaching style of ancient times (think of Nephi in the book of Heleman being carried by the Spirit from place to place) may be more appropriate. Interesting….

With respect to changes in the teaching methods, I am also puzzled. I was a missionary about 25 years ago and teaching by the Spirit was not exactly an unfamiliar concept. I had the discussions memorized perfectly, but almost never taught them that way. I always thought we were supposed to tailor the discussions to our audience, so I am not sure what has changed. Most missionaries are not terribly articulate. I hope that “teaching by the Spirit” does not become a euphemism for “completely unprepared to teach”.

Why is there too much labor? Because underpriced factors get overused in production. Missionary labor is way underpriced (unpaid, volunteer labor, no wages to pay and families even pay room and board!) so it gets way overused. The Church has too many missionaries, but can’t bring itself, seemingly, to make significant cuts in recruitment.

It’s odd, really, that every calling in the Church is initiated from above except being a missionary, where one volunteers and the Church doesn’t say no. What would happen if people could volunteer to be Sunday School teachers and the Church couldn’t bring itself to say no? Probably too many teachers.

So maybe the solution is to make a mission calling no different from standard church callings (including leadership callings). This would also take some of the present social stigma out of not going on a mission. It seems like the most direct and straightforward way of achieving a smaller, more productive missionary corps.