The Church is trying to keep up with the rapidly changing situation on the ground around the world where LDS missionaries are assigned to labor. Just a little more than a week ago, most out-of-country missionaries were called home (if they could safely return). Those with more than six months remaining on their term of service were to be reassigned to home-counrty missions, after a self-isolation period of two weeks. Now there’s a new plan, as detailed at the Newsroom: “Church Offers New Option for Missionary Service.”
A four-cell matrix in the post lays out the new options for all missionaries: those returning, those presently doing MTC training online, those called but who have not yet begun their online MTC training, and prospective missionaries who have not yet received a call. Basically all of them have the same option: (1) be released now (or as soon as training is completed) and await reassignment as soon as it is available; or (2) be released now (or as soon as training is completed) and be reinstated as a missionary to be returned to the original mission or reassigned in 12 to 18 months.
Giving young missionaries this much control and choice is almost unprecedented. The last time this happened was in the early 1980s, when the Church implemented an optional 18-month mission for young men. As I recall (and these numbers may be a little off) the Church expected many or most young men to stick with the standard 24-month mission. Instead, something like 80-90 percent opted for the 18-month mission. After a couple of years, that option was discontinued, and it has been 24 months for young men ever since.
Now young missionaries have until April 30 to make their wait-or-go decision. The Church has shown admirable flexibility in quickly (by LDS standards) calling vulnerable missionaries (seniors and those who were ill) home, then calling all out-of-county missionaries home, and now giving all missionaries the option to stick with original dates or to defer their service. Those who defer can go work or do college for a year, then return to missionary service when the world has settled into the new normal (whatever that turns out to be) and in-person missionary work can again be performed in one manner or another.
For some that will be a tough choice, given the many uncertainties out there at the moment. Choose to stay and maybe it takes six months to get back in the game. Choose to defer and there is no guarantee universities will even resume classes in the fall or that work will be available. Stay or go? Or even exercise the self-release option? It’s going to be a tough year either way for most young missionaries. I hope that whatever their choice and whatever missionary service they have completed or are able to resume, now or later, they all feel good about doing what they could given the circumstances. My sense is the Church is giving young missionaries the flexibility to complete, whether now or later, a substantial portion of their called two years or eighteen months, then move on with their productive lives. That’s better than spending a year or two in limbo. And that’s better, I think, than giving a perfunctory “thanks, but you’re all released now” letter to all of them, the vast majority of which are very dedicated and really do want to complete their missions.
Do you have a missionary in your family facing this choice? What are they thinking? What are you thinking? Since the choice does not have to be made until April 30, it would be wise to wait three weeks and see what the world looks like then. In the meantime, get college applications reactivated and look for a job, to see what options are available if the choice is to defer.
And good luck to all missionaries who need to make that choice soon.
Wheat & Tares 
If you are correct that 80-90% of missionaries with the 18/24 option chose 18 months (note: I split the difference and did 21 because it got me home the day before Thanksgiving), I suspect that many missionaries will opt to basically cancel their missions. Why? Because just like the early 80s, there’s an “honorable discharge” option and many missionaries will gladly take it.
I would NEVER have considered leaving my mission early in 1986 had it not been for the honorable option. But there was no way I was going to stay for 2 years either. I suspect we will see the same general behavior from missionaries now, especially given the limbo that they are all in. If I had a kid on a mission now I’d probably tell him “nice job”, time to get back to real life. Can’t imagine waiting around months and months.
There are great advantages, I think, in having some experienced missionaries returning to their original missions in 12-18 months–especially foreign language assignments. Otherwise the entire mission would be composed of “greenies.”
Reading between the lines, it appears the Church is admitting (1) all missionaries will be “temporarily released” (2) virtually nothing will happen with missionary work for at least a full month. and (3) it will take 12-18 months at the earliest before things return to the new normal.
Our ward has one elder still in Honduras–Americans that didn’t get out before the borders closed are stuck until the government reopens them. Another is a West Point cadet, who is home after 10 months in Brazil. In his case, I think sticking with the original release date is the only option. I wonder how many others are in a similar situation due to athletic scholarships, etc.
The flexibility is nice. With the way the dates fell for me back in 1981 I had to give up a National Merit Scholarship. Fortunately, BYU swapped in a Dean’s Scholarship so I was OK. If it hadn’t been BYU I would have been hosed.
I think we will be surprised at how many do not return. Not having an asterisk by your name is very attractive for those missionaries that would have stuck it out, but aren’t really as into it as they (or their family) thought they would be. My son came home early for medical reasons and has felt somewhat stigmatized for many years. And then there are those for whom something better comes along.
I think it’s a very thoughtful and smart move. I imagine it also relieves the Church from potential liability arising from the actions of tens of thousands of unsupervised “official” representatives of the Church.
I do appreciate that the church both bringing home many missionaries and giving options for those that really strongly desire to serve a “full” mission. But I did notice that they didn’t really explicitly state an option of “You are released and done with your missionary service”.
My son is still out serving in Europe and has told us he doesn’t want to come home – even if he spends his mission stuck indoors for the year he has left (I think he underestimates how emotionally/mentally draining that can get).
I suspect he will be coming home soon and I will be pushing him like Joshua H said, “Well don thou good and faithful servant. Now go move forward with your life as you served a mission with an honorable release.” As BeenThere mentioned, that will be more common than I think the top leaders would like – which is why I think they didn’t mention it.
My daughter returned home last week after 3 months in Brazil. She told me today that she will serve a mission but has no idea which option she’ll choose – yet. She’ll wait until the end of April before deciding with the hopes that there may be some clarity by then.
My heart aches for her and all missionaries in the situation. She can’t look for a job or enroll in college or even date. If it were me I’d probably choose the option to return as soon as possible but if I didn’t go back to the mission by end of summer I’d go back to school. It’s just too disruptive and difficult to ramp up again for a mission in 18 months.
These are precious, and difficult years for our young people and I notice that this system can be made use of to delay making steps towards what is , even in better times, an uncertain future. I think it’s important to be aware of this and encourage our young people into getting on with their lives in terms of relationships and establishing careers. If now isn’t the time for a mission and you have work to do in that area of service, I’m sure those opportunities will present themselves with peers and in the community. There’s more than one way to be a missionary.
I have a missionary serving stateside. The mission is quarantined obviously but the Sister Mission President sends out updates that miracles are still happening! One companionship has 21 virtual visits scheduled! (my son has 2 total for the week). Baptism is scheduled for another companionship! The work moves forward! (These are the remnants before social distancing took effect, obviously.)
Of course, underlying all this are missionaries who are so frustrated and so bored. I’m sure many feel like failures for wondering when to call it quits.
If the church wants any hope of missionaries feeling “worthy” then the church should recommend ALL missionaries return home too. This way they don’t sit for months on end in an apartment and loose their minds.
“The last time this happened was in the early 1980s, when the Church implemented an optional 18-month mission for young men. As I recall (and these numbers may be a little off) the Church expected many or most young men to stick with the standard 24-month mission. Instead, something like 80-90 percent opted for the 18-month mission. After a couple of years, that option was discontinued, and it has been 24 months for young men ever since.”
I was a missionary in Sweden when this policy was implemented in the first half of 1982. The only missionaries who had the option to choose between 18 months and 24 months (or anytime between 18-24 months) were those already out in the field and who had started their mission in 1980. I started in December 1980, so I had the option. I came home one month earlier than planned (23 months). The missionaries in the group who arrived the month after me did not have a choice – they had to come home at 18 months, so they actually came home before I did. No one else had a choice during this time period and all missionaries entering the field once the policy was announced were called for 18 months. This I believe was deliberate because there would have been a two tiered “righteous/more righteous choice”. I recall most who had the choice stayed longer than 18 months.
I served my mission during the time when missions for Elders was 18 months. I served stateside English and I felt like 18 months was PLENTY. If they would have given me the option of 12 months, I would have taken it. I am glad I went on a mission, but I was absolutely fine with it being shorter. One issue for me was it was a real financial hardship on our large family.
Will not receive an “honorable” release if they exercise option C: call it over?
J – I think you might be correct. It does say “temporary release”.
I wonder if they get released and give their selection for option 1 or 2, then when they are un-furloughed they decline. Will that move them to “dishonorable release” or can that be considered an “honorable release”? I wonder who makes that call? Would it be the SP? I wonder what guidance and discretion the Missionary Department will give?
I have thought about this more and like I said, I am glad I went on my mission. But I can’t say that I enjoyed it. There was only 1 person that was baptized that I felt any connection to . I had 2 companions that I really liked and other 2 that were good, but not enough for either of us to even join up on facebook.
When I left on my mission I was expecting to start feeling the holy ghost and seeing where it’s promptings led to wonderful experiences. What I found was that I still couldn’t figure out what was my wondering mind vs the spirit. Each day was about 8 hours of tracting (generally in the heat) and only about once or twice a week would we get in the door. It quickly moved to be just determined to complete my duty.
Maybe I am discounting that my son might actually really enjoy being a missionary.
But I also wonder after being back home a while and knowing what a mission can be like if many just say, “No thanks.”
It takes a great deal of mental energy and focus to prepare for a mission, endure the three or eight weeks in the MTC, and then get out to the mission. It also takes a great deal of mental energy to readjust to “normal” life back home–I see this with university students who have only been home for days or weeks and look like deer in the headlights for much of that first semester back.
I cannot imagine that a significant percentage of missionaries who come home and opt for waiting 12-18 months to resume their service will actually do so. The re-readjustment to mission life and rules–especially after a period of stress at home (COVID-19 related concerns, working or going to school, the stress of the ambiguous position they will be in at home or in a YSA ward…just to name a few)–might be a bridge too far for most.
The concern about having a completely inexperienced missionary force is a real one, but it is also a unique opportunity to reimagine and reconceptualize the nature of LDS missionary activities. Not that such a transformation will happen, of course, but it might be the only way for fundamental changes to occur–the inertia is too great otherwise.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Dave C., thanks for adding correcting details to my faulty recollection about the 18-month mission era. This is why historians don’t trust late reminiscenses as historical sources. Such as the Utah-era stories told and retold about the life of Joseph Smith. The kind Richard Bushman declined to use when writing Rough Stone Rolling.
DJ, I think you’re right that after a “temporary release” which allows TRMs (temporarily returned missionaries) to resume work and college and dating for a year, it would be tough to jump back into life as a missionary a second time. Who knows, maybe the temporary releases will morph into permanent releases if stay-at-home orders get extended and there is nowhere to go and nothing to do for any recalled missionaries. I expect we’ll hear something about this in Conference.
It will be interesting to see if those who opt for shorter missions will be treated the same as those who don’t. While the Church may officially give honorable and dishonorable releases, it wouldn’t surprise me if a holier-than-thou culture arises in which those who stick it out for the whole two years are seen as more righteous and worthy than those who don’t. There’s so much one-upmanship on the mission already.
Does the church give honorable and dishonorable releases?
I don’t know of any way to find out if a person got an honorable release, other than maybe if they were denied an opportunity to speak in church after their return. Honestly, members treat the honorable release as a thing, but it seems like it may only exist in our minds.
(Heard some years ago: “yeah, I served a mission. Best eight months of my life.”)