![\"\"](\"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/jesus_at_the_door-535x800.jpeg\")
<\/span><\/p>\nMissionary methodology is one of those things in the Church that people have strangely strong opinions on.\u00a0<\/span>For my part, on a meta-level I recognize that\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Context matters<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n What works in one location (and time) might not work in another.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Missionary strategy is complex<\/em><\/p>\n Because of #1, figuring out optimal missionary strategy is hard, and I have no desire to expend mental energy trying to figure it out now that I\u2019m a civilian. If there was some blatant error in how it was being done I\u2019d have no compunction saying something, but as far as I can tell the people whose mantle it is are doing the best they can, and I have no reason to think that I would do it any better.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n There is no magic pill<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Greenie mythology holds that if a missionary is righteous enough or if they follow the five steps of successful blah blah then they too could become a Dan Jones 2.0, but the fact is that Dan Jones-level success has as much to do with the mission field\u2019s society as much as the missionary.<\/span><\/p>\n Missionaries are for missionary work<\/i><\/p>\n While it\u2019s become popular to suggest that all missionaries should be humanitarian missionaries, my prior here is that missionary work is primarily for converting people to the Church. While there\u2019s a hypothesis going around that humanitarian work focused missionaries would actually yield more converts, I\u2019d have to see some hard nosed evidence that a primarily humanitarian approach yields more conversions than direct proselytizing before I\u2019d buy it. I think the Salvation Army is great (the old <\/span>Guys and Dolls<\/span><\/i> movie is on my children\u2019s required watching list because the Salvation Army character is such an inspiring religious character), and they may have some people joining them because of their humanitarian reputation, but probably not as many as the direct proselytizing faiths. (Of course, I\u2019m not suggesting what the optimum mix is for their particular mission\u2014not my place\u2014just making a statement about the connection between humanitarian work and converts).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Missionary work is often a schlog, and the optimal approach is often a matter of choosing the least inefficient among inefficient options. While I generally refrain from getting into the missionary methodology fights for the reasons above, I do think it has become fashionable to disparage tracting as a method when there are good reasons to retain it in the missionary repertoire.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n English lessons, going through the ward list, etc. are often valuable methods. They require much more energy per contact, but their conversion rate is much higher. However, tracting has the benefit of volume. When you tract out a neighborhood you can contact a lot of people.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The more productive methods often require having scheduling or logistical ducks in a row. If a dinner appointment falls through you can\u2019t just do an impromptu English lesson on the street, but you can always knock doors. Tracting was a nice way to fill in the cracks leftover after the more productive methods are used.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s become a truism that working with the members is more efficient (I suspect this philosophy has its intellectual genealogical roots in the religious-growth-through-networks work of Rodney Stark, my adviser from my Baylor postdoc days). It might be true that member referrals are much, much more effective, but in the discussion of missionary\u2019s time there\u2019s the divisor of <\/span>how much the missionary contributed to that referral<\/span><\/i>. In these discussions it\u2019s sort of implied that the multiplier is 1, when it\u2019s below 1. Again, that\u2019s not to disparage member, missionary work, just to point out that it\u2019s not a magical pill. There are drawbacks with that approach too such such as the fact that the confidence of the members is probably only weakly a function of how much time missionaries spend with members. Matter of fact, it might be a U-shaped relationship, with missionaries dropping by too much being counterproductive. Depending on the locale, I suspect you can easily max out English lessons, going through the ward lists, and all the other productive things and still have time left over.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n