This mission consolidation as well as others that will occur this July are part of a redistribution of mission resources from less productive, more self-reliant areas to more receptive, less self-sufficient areas and also represents the challenge of expanding mission outreach worldwide with a finite number of LDS missionaries. The consolidation of missions in less productive nations often does not significantly affect the number of convert baptisms and often convert retention rates remain constant or improve as a result of greater involvement of local members in mission activity. Consequently, we are most likely to see additional mission consolidations in North America and Europe in the coming years. The primary reasons for the limited number of LDS missionaries include a decline in LDS birth rates in the United States, consistently low rates of North American members serving full-time missions (where the bulk of the LDS missionary force originates), and the failure of developing totally self-sufficient missionary manpower in the nations which draw the greatest numbers of missionary resources. In 2010, all new missions that were organized were created in nations which have seen increasing numbers of full-time missionaries serve or supply a large number of full-time missionaries, such as Guatemala, Mexico, the DR Congo, and Nicaragua. Below are a list of some potential new missions we may see organized in the coming years.
- Angola Luanda
- Brazil Fortaleza South
- Cameroon Yaounde
- Ethiopia Addis Ababa
- Ghana Kumasi
- Mexico Toluca
- Peru Iquitos
- Tanzania Dar Es Salaam
- Togo Lome
That's slightly disappointing. A friend of mine was just called to the Geneva Mission. At least the new mission is still French-speaking, which is what she wanted in the first place.
ReplyDeleteMatt--Any recent whisperings on any of the Scandinavian missions being consolidated? I was in Denmark about a decade ago and at that point there were rumors going around that the Norway and Sweden missions would be combined. Given the small populations and very similar languages of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, it seems like these missions may be prime candidates for consolidation in the near future. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAbout a year ago, on my mission in Denmark, I heard from my mission president how this had been proposed a few years earlier (Denmark, Sweden and Norway combining to create one mission) but had been decided against. There were no plans for doing that at the time (at least as far as my mission president knew) although I wouldn't be surprised if it happened some time in the future. If it happened, though, there would likely have to be a separation between the missionaries within single national zones - though the languages are fairly similar I don't find them similar enough to have the same missionary transferring across countries. If I remember right, this was the exact reason the idea of a single Scandinavian mission was dropped in the first place. (Btw, a Scandinavian mission would also include Iceland, which is within the current Danish mission).
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know if this consolidation and movement of mission headquarters is at all influenced by the Swiss government's new position on foriegn missionaries from outside the EU?
ReplyDeleteOne statement I read would cause me to suspect that it would be easier to have non-EU missionaries serve for short periods of time in Switzerland if the mission headquarters was outside of Switzerland. I am not very familiar with this mission although one of my mission companions in Las Vegas was from the French suburbs of Geneva, so I am reporting what I deduced from reading someone else's assement of the relevant law.
Many years ago I was called to the Paris, France mission. It was then split a few months later to make a "southern" France mission which was seated in Bordeaux. Apparently, in more recent years the seat was moved (back) to Toulouse where it had been many, many years ago. Now they want to combine southern France with Francophone Switzerland? Wow, it's as if they can't make up their minds about how it should best be done. The explanation they give just sounds like spin to me. Maybe each mission President gets to say how and where he wants to serve ..... ?
ReplyDelete