This year I decided to plug in the numbers myself and get a sense of the numerical tale of Mormon expansionism. Thanks to a trusty church almanac and some of my own digging, I was able to plot it all into a spreadsheet and run some numbers. Of course, church membership has grown rapidly in the latter half of the 20th century. But to get an idea of what that even means, I used a measurement that produced a very different-looking graph.

This measurement takes into account a 25-year span of raw numerical growth or decline. To explain, picture this. A ward of 100 persons in 1990 grows over a 10 year period. By 2000, the ward reports a membership of 200 persons. In effect, 50% of the ward in 2000 was not part of the congregation in 1990. Now, this does ignore many other factors, and it does not intend to address those, only to provide a picture of sustained growth trends over a longer period of time than just one year to the next. By no means does this measurement explain convert retention, baptisms, fluctuation in between years, etc. But I’m satisfied that it does point out key shifts in some growth trends.

The chart shows two curves. The blue shows how the percentages should appear in a situation where the population grows by the same number each year (e.g., each year the total membership increases by 500). The green curve shows the church’s actual growth rates. So, by looking at, say 1900, the value represents the percent of 1990’s membership that was not there 25 years prior. In raw math terms, the calculation is expressed as:

(Current Membership – Membership [25 yrs ago]) / Current Membership

Some insights include pointing out areas of sustained decline. Between 1855 and 1879, periods of decline brought the curve below the blue curve, meaning that the church grew less than a linear progression. In particular, 1855-57 experienced decline in church membership, and between 1858 and 1877 the church averaged a 4 percent growth rate. This points out not that the missionary work was not up to speed, but rather that in a 25-year span little by way of sustained population growth occurred. And with good reason. 1852, polygamy first officially sanctioned, takes a little while for a broader boom in population thanks to the practice; 1857-58, Mormon Reformation and Utah War; the first anti-polygamy law enacted in 1862, and missionary work in Mexico opens up in 1876. Once these historical events pan out, missionary work expands into Latin America, a critical mass of Mormons populate and settle the American west, and a steady program of international mission work gets put into place.

From 1922 to 1986, the systematic approach to world mission for Mormons receives heavy attention and becomes an institutionalized program which carries out consistent modes of proselytism. The graph demonstrates for this time period a large increase in raw numbers. We also see, after 1986, the curve move down, meaning that within 25-year chunks, the same level of sustained growth has not been maintained.

The rule of 70 says something, too, about what to expect in the coming years. This rule predicts how long it takes for a population to double by dividing 70 by the growth rate percentage. Using an average growth rate for the past 10 years of 2 percent, and the recent report of 2008’s number of church membership, this means that the current Mormon population will not double until 2043. By then, we’ll be 27 million strong. To put this in perspective, that’s about the number of today’s Seventh-day Adventists, or the Pentecostal World Fellowship (International Bulletin of Missionary Research, vol. 31, no. 1, p. 30). Or, that’s still less than the number of Baptists in the U.S. or Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians of the U.S. combined in 2001.

Working off this chart, I expect to identify factors that contributed to sustained growth for the church and periods of decline. Certainly worth noting how Latter-day Saints have kept themselves above linear growth, but find themselves also struggling to keep pace with previous periods of expansion.

I suggested Mormon mission history in the 19th century as an untapped field. As we chatted, I explained my own personal interest and what I intend to pursue in the coming years, but other potential avenues in this field crossed my mind, if only in passing. They certainly deserve repeating, especially since the Mormon mission effort is so expansive, systematic, and vital to our sense of identity and culture. Mormons would sooner divorce themselves from the New Testament than from mission work. Here are just a few of the many possibilities awaiting an extensive and academic study of Mormon missions.

Beginnings of Mission

The best study of early Mormon missions, in my opinion, is S. George Ellsworth’s A History of Mormon Missions in the United States and Canada, 1830-1860, diss. (Berkeley: University of California-Berkeley, 1951). Unfortunately, this dissertation is extremely difficult to come by; I’ve only been able to manage inter-library loans that limit the book from leaving the library. David Whittaker told me of a project to reproduce the dissertation in book form, but I’ve not yet seen anything come from it. Certainly more research could be managed from Ellsworth’s 1951 study, even for the same time period and geography.

Imperialism, Colonialism, and Mormon Expansionism

Mormon missionaries were not altogether different from their Western counterparts in spreading not just Mormon gospel values, but American imperialist ideals. What’s more, they initially brought converts into America as part of the gathering, thus fully assimilating foreigners into American culture. This facet of early Mormon missions implicates them in criticisms of mission as imperialist and colonizing. I, for one, see a lot of potential in taking on these criticisms and exploring how they actually played out in Mormon missionary discourse, behavior, and missiology. This study needs not be overly damning for Mormon historians or theorists, in fact, I believe it would have incredible relevance and utility for today’s missionaries who still engage in foreign mission work, and possible help them curb their American (as opposed to authentic Christian/Mormon) zeal when in someone else’s country.

Missionary Curriculum

A documentary history of Mormon missionary curricula would profit many missionaries and historians. As of yet, little, if anything, has been made available. The most ambitious documentary projects compile diaries (like BYU’s Mormon Missionary Diaries project). Mormons from day one provided training materials to help missionaries along in the form of printed curricula. Unlike diaries, these source materials help to focus shifts in missiology that occurred at the institutional level (diaries are much more individualized, though they do reflect some of these general shifts). Furthermore, as foreign missions increased, missionary trainers negotiated many more cultures and languages, which generally impacts mission work profoundly (as in the case of Protestant and Catholic foreign missions since the Middle Ages).

Many Other Directions

Many other possibilities exist for the Mormon missiologist/mission historian. For one, a complete one-volume study of the whole Mormon mission experience hasn’t yet been attempted. This fact alone prompts a major mission history project for Mormon scholars. Sociological projects, like what Armand Mauss has done for general Mormon culture, or Terryl Givens’ People of Paradox find ample lines of inquiry in Mormon mission, to say nothing of the lack of contemporary histories of these missionaries. Spencer W. Kimball’s call for increased missionary manpower triggered a resurgence in Mormon expansion, yet little has been done to produce a history since this time. I imagine a history of Mormon missions from the 1970s to the present would meet with success.

He supports Mormons as restoration inclusivists with historical evidence, first pointing to Joseph Smith as a consummate inclusivist. Smith’s scriptural works, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, provide a framework for inclusivism (Alma 29:8; Moroni 7:16; D&C 93:2; D&C 84:45-47). Other Mormon leaders including Brigham Young, John Taylor, Orson F. Whitney and George Q. Cannon took up this light and spirit of Christ theory. Neilson cites the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions as the major point of contact for Mormon leadership with non-Christian religions and the site of a theoretical shift from the light and spirit of Christ theory to a diffusion theory that remains in force today for many (if not the majority of) Mormons. Regardless of their theoretical realignments over time, Mormons have maintained an inclusivist worldview and cosmology. To refine the category, Neilson adds the feature of restorationism to their inclusivism. This makes sense, given how unique Mormons are in their conception of the human family and how they go about “being inclusive” (for lack of a better phrase).

In a missiology sense, Neilson has done a service with this paper. Though I am averse to the clichéd “exclusivism/inclusivism/pluralism” system, I agree that Mormon theories of Self and Other need to be addressed and worked out. Neilson advances this theory with solid historical evidence but engages little, if at all, in the theoretical task of outlining what exactly sets apart restoration inclusivism from other inclusivist theories, or even what role the theory plays in constituting Mormons as self and their relationship to non-Mormons. Because I want to keep postcolonialism involved (for reasons I probably ought to explain in another post) whenever we go about theorizing Mormon missiology, mission history, or expansionism, I want Neilson (though he primarily engages in historical method) to take up the task of theory, and I don’t think this is too much to ask. (He is advancing and defending here a new theory which should have implications for our interpretation of Mormon identity, history, and mission.) In short, postcolonial theorists effectively destabilize Western assumptions when doing systematic analysis; they point out inherent violence in the discourse that all too often keeps the missionary in a position of power or domination. We can’t ask questions of mission or of Mormon identity without embedding all sorts of colonizing attitudes and apparatuses to our analysis unless we at least take some of postcolonialism into account. Postcolonial critique points out all of the embedded imperialism that is manifest at the moment one relates himself or herself to what he or she deems as Other. From this perspective, I’m not sure how restoration inclusivism would hold up. Do Mormons really behave and think like authentic inclusivists? Or do they, like so many other missional Christians, still want to bestow their gospel to others in a parent/child mode of transmission?

I came across a criticism of the so-called “new missiology”, a series of doctrinal points aimed at undermining the work of what I would consider those non-theological missiologists. In particular, three points are attributed to the “new missiology”:

1. You can keep your own religion (just add Jesus)
2. You can throw out the term Christianity
3. You can throw out the term Christian

I thought it obvious the degree of their experience when under point #1, they mention: “Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism — you just need to add Jesus to the equation.” Initially, I scoffed at the idea that Mormons by default have not added Jesus to their equation (the official title of the mainstream Mormon church is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” as most of us already are aware). But the nuanced views of Buddhists, Muslims, and to a certain extend Hindus toward Jesus cannot be so easily dismissed. In many ways, these religions do add Jesus to the equation, just not always in the Christian way.

I only list this example here as one of the pitfalls of being too tangled up in mission theology and calling it missiology, or of thinking of missiology only in terms of theology. The “new missiology” actually is the attempt to solidify missiology as a discipline, the very same project of Gustav Warneck and other foundational missiologists. Missiology had its roots in theological hermeneutics, and not necessarily strict academic ones, but the foundational figures of missiology nevertheless saw themselves as participating in a nuanced and scholarly discussion of mission involving not only theology but history and anthropology as well. Since then, students of mission have broadened the study with more probing questions relevant in our time. I argue that this is nothing new, though the questions that are being discussed are.

Personally, I believe missiology benefits from more rigorous intellectual work, be it theological or not. All too often, one’s theology can be so rigid that it makes little room for intellectual rigor, and if that brings me under fire for saying so, then I guess I concede that I’m not tangled up in mission theology enough to care.

I applaud the book, and wish it had a more favorable reception among the Mormon faithful. In fact, I got my copy because a Deseret Book store was clearing them out for $4. It’s understandable why the critical motifs are only lightly touched; a first-of-its-kind offering ought not be obliged to appeal to all audiences, academic included. But from here, it’d be nice to see a project that attempts to synthesize a history like this text has done as well as work in contemporary issues surrounding Christian and Mormon mission work. Maybe something like Latourette’s History of the Expansion of Christianity but for Mormonism. Alas, few scholars appear to be fully engaged in Mormon missions to make the attempt.

Alas, I found nothing, really, that matched what I was looking for. Since then, I’ve come to understand that the discipline itself likely hasn’t progressed enough for this kind of approach. I certainly believe that there is enough material out there, and plenty of theories to go around to supply a semester of “Intro to Missiology,” but off-hand, I don’t recall anyone providing the kind of textbook I’m looking for.

Here are ten ways to get started in the scholarly approach (as opposed to institutional, theological, or apologetic approaches) to the study of mission.

1. Get Introduced to History of Christianity

An excellent documentary series Christianity: The First (and Second) Thousand Years is available through iTunes and produced by History Channel. It provides 8 hours of documentary that covers the beginnings of Christianity through the 20th century. Probably the best survey of Christian history, and inexpensive, too.

2. Take History of Christianity Courses from iTunes U

Two full-length college courses, History of Christianity I & II, are available through iTunes U. Grounding oneself in Christian history helps to contextualize the work of mission and the expansion of Christianity.

3. Take the History of Missions Course

Also on iTunes U is a full-length college course, History of Missions. By now, you’ll have solid grounding for understanding the historical events leading to the rise of global Christianity and mission work over time.

4. Begin with Exclusivism Missiology

Because exclusivist missiology has been, and in many ways continues to be, the predominant theory for Christian missionaries, I believe it’s a good place to start. Check out J. H. Bavinck’s Introduction to the Science of Missions for a good look at a traditional approach to missiology.

5. Learn the Development of Missiology as a Discipline

Exclusivism gives way in the 20th century to several other theories of mission. Timothy Yates’ Christian Mission in the Twentieth Century gives an excellent survey of how mission develops throughout this time period and, roughly, into the present. This book will also introduce you to the key players in the discipline of missiology and give some background as to how and where current discourse about mission got started. Two excellent sources for mapping the discipline include Missiology: An Ecumenical Introduction and Missiology: An Introduction.

6. More Mission History

I’m a believer in historical method for informing theory. To see how various mission theories have been applied over time, first check out Stephen Neill’s History of Christian Missions. (This book, in fact, is indispensable for anyone interested in missiology.) Then, when you’re feeling more ambitious, take on Kenneth Scott Latourette’s pathbreaking study History of the Expansion of Christianity (7 vols). By now, you’re as versed in Christian mission history as anybody

7. Learn Postcolonial Theory

By now you’ll be well aware of Christian mission’s shady past as a force for imperialism and colonialism. I believe missiologists do themselves a disservice when they neglect postcolonial critique and insist on maintaining an exclusivist or passé response to mission’s complicity with violence and global oppression. This does not mean we need to only criticize mission, but we certainly must be aware of what postcolonialists are saying about mission work if we are to respond intelligently and honestly. I recommend the following books in order for grasping postcolonial critique:

• Robert J. C. Young’s Very Short Introduction to Postcolonialism
• Young’s Historical Introduction to Postcolonialism
• Catherine Belsey’s Very Short Intro to Poststructuralism
• Gary Gutting’s Very Short Intro to Foucault
• Meyda Yegenoglu’s Colonial Fantasies
• Donaldson’s and Pui-Lan’s Postcolonialism, Feminism, and Religious Discourse”>
• Musa Dube’s HIV/AIDS Bible

8. Deconstruct Missiology

Given the history of mission and contemporary debates, an excellent exercise is to deconstruct the discipline. What I mean is that by turning missiology on its head, I believe you can introduce more academic objectivity and honesty into the work of studying mission. All to often, missiologists involve only theology and call it academic work. Only when theology is questioned and analyzed objectively can missiologists call it honest academic work. Well, take it a step further, and I consider it immoral to a degree to study mission, argue in its defense, and remain unaware of the implications of mission for violence and oppression. Deconstruction provides a healthy look at missiology that in the least will alert us to problems inherent in the discipline, and as a result we might keep ourselves in check a little more often before rushing to conclusions. (Off of my soapbox now )

Jorgen Skov Sorensen provides an excellent “mutilation” of missiology that illustrates what I’m describing. It’s proven helpful for me in making sure I’m not overly dogmatic in my presumptions of the good mission work does in the world.

9. Subscribe to an Academic Journal on Missiology

A handful of journals will keep you up to speed in the current discourse, depending on your interests.

• International Review of Mission
• Missiology: An International Review
• Missionalia
• International Bulletin of Missionary Research
• Mission Studies
• Dharma Deepika: A South Asian Journal of Missiological Research
• Rethinking Mission
• Journal of Applied Missiology out of print

10. Work with a Mission Organization

This will depend on your own faith tradition. Most missiologists who want to do field work do so within the institutional structures of their religious affiliation. Look into what options are available to you, and volunteer some time in mission work. Even if you spend only one day as a missionary, the experience is invaluable for understanding mission work on a practical and real/lived level.