Rainbow flags, urban centers, and LDS

[Five Solas]

A large rainbow flag flies from the Space Needle today.  We passed it on our way to church this morning and my 7 year-old asked about it.  She’s already aware from school that a child can sometimes have two mommies or two daddies.  And (with help from my wife) I explained that the flag represents gays or homosexuals and we should treat people the way we would want to be treated.

Pride parades take place in major cities across the United States (and elsewhere) this time of year.  And it got me thinking—many if not most LDS eschew urban living, preferring sub-urban lifestyles (where the sight of a rainbow flag is a good deal rarer).  The LDS community within the Seattle city limits has been in gradual decline over the past couple decades, consolidating/closing wards (e.g., University 4th, the International Ward) while the city’s population has grown rapidly during this same period (meaning LDS per-capita in Seattle has been in a fairly steep decline).

Interestingly, the North Seattle Stake has done away with the old ward numbering scheme and given their remaining wards neighborhood names approximate to their boundaries—and that illustrates a problem.  With the exception of Magnolia (where a dedicated building has long supported a single neighborhood ward) and the three remaining "young single adult" wards that meet in the University of Washington LDS Institute building—everyone else from downtown to Northgate, Ballard to Sand Point is expected to pile into their cars and make the trip to the stake center each Sunday.   The key word right there is “cars”—an essential & expected tool in suburbia, but people in the city increasingly don’t have them (parking alone can cost up to $300/month).  And suffice it to say, mass transit accessibility wasn’t a primary concern for the location of the stake center.

Pride parades may be the proverbial red herring.  And Seattle may be a special case with zero application for the broader LDS religious community (some of you may hope so).  But my question is this:  Do you think there’s anything inherent in the LDS culture/religion that favors suburban lifestyles with its automobile dependency, relative conservatism, and other aspects of life associated with suburbs?

--Erik

PS.  I love the city!  

[VideoGameJunkie]

I will never support the rainbow flag.

[Storm Rider]

Seattle is a great. livable city and remains my favorite city in the United States.  

This is a perspective/preference thing.  Many would not want to raise children in place made of concrete.  Many feel that raising a family is more easily accomplished in the suburbs.  The growth of Seattle has motivated many people to move out to the 'burbs and enjoy that way of life.  Young professionals and empty-nesters wanting to downsize are moving back in to the city.  

I think this is more cultural than religious.  

I hope you and your family continue to enjoy the city.  

[smac97]

Most large urban centers do not particularly cater to families.  The problem lies not with Mormons per se, but with children (that is to say, families) and other factors which, cumulatively, are generally inimical to the raising of children in large cities.

This article, which was published in USA Today a few days ago, touches on this issue (emphasis added):

Quote

The 20th century French architect Le Corbusier, famous for his huge, inhuman structures, dedicated his first book To Authority. Too many of his successors seem to feel the same way. Now, in his new book The Human City: Urbanism For The Rest Of Us, Joel Kotkin says there’s a better way.

Today’s urban planners seem to favor high density. Like Le Corbusier, they’d like people to live in tall, densely packed buildings, take mass transit to work, and scorn the “fatter and slower and dumber” residents of the suburb, to use a description from Seattle’s The Stranger that Kotkin quotes.

The problem is that most people, especially people who have or want to have children, don’t like living that way, and that as American cities have become taller and denser, they have essentially become playgrounds for the rich and childless. “For all their impressive achievements, and sometimes inspiring architecture, high-density cores such as those in Manhattan, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C., have the lowest percentages of children,” Kotkin says in his new book.

This is, apparently, a world-wide phenomenon:

Quote

And it’s not just in America. Kotkin says big Asian cities have the lowest fertility rates on the planet, and in Hong Kong, 45% of couples say they’ve given up on having children. Yet politicians love these cities.

As Kotkin writes, “Around the world, planners, politicians and pundits often wax poetic about these massive new building projects and soaring residences made up of hundreds of tiny stacked units, but there’s just one problem with this brave new condensed world: Most people, including many inner-city residents, aren’t crazy about it. People care deeply about where they live, and they often aren’t thrilled with the kind of urban vision held by many city leaders.”

The article goes on to explain the political aspects of how and why large urban centers have become less family-friendly (to sum up: big cities = big opportunities for "snobbery, graft and politics").

There are many articles about this phenomenon.  Here are a few:

• City Kids: Why Parents Pick City Living Over the Suburbs (this one describes people who have bucked the trend and are raising their children in big cities)
• The Decline of the Family-Friendly City
• Southern California Becoming Less Family-Friendly

I think we should expect that, as big cities become less "family-friendly," we will see a lessened presence of family-centric institutions like the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 27, 2016 by smac97

[JAHS]

Soccer moms with lots of kids. They need those vans to get all their children to soccer practices and games.

[Five Solas]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

...

I think we should expect that, as big cities become less "family-friendly," we will see a lessened presence of family-centric institutions like the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

To be sure, there are challenges to raising kids in the city (we're raising 3 in Seattle's U-District).  But plenty of people are doing it--Seattle Public Schools has been making a lot of investment, opening a significant number of new schools across the city in recent years.  Contrary to some of what you cited, the number of families/children is actually on the rise in the city as evidenced by the growth in schools and number of students.  They just aren't LDS families, as evidenced by ward consolidations and absence of any net new wards.  LDS appear to prefer Seattle's suburbs and choose not to participate in the city's growth, including the growth of its many families.  Which is curious,at least to me, and is the object of this thread. 

But supposing you have it right, that cities are increasingly inhospitable for "family-centric institutions like the LDS Church."  Do you see any downside for the LDS Church, that their influence is effectively diminishing in our centers of culture?  Should the LDS Church try to mitigate and/or reverse this trend, or is it simply inevitable?    

--Erik

[Storm Rider]

Five, I think you are doing it the right way; however there are trade-offs. 

Our children attended Seattle Country Day school.  My wife would drive from North Bend to the school twice a day in order for them to attend a school we felt good about.  It was one of the mistakes we made when we built a house in North Bend.  We never really considered the true impact of a public school system that was not working to a standard with which we were comfortable.  

After Seattle Country Day we thought we might locate a private school on the Eastside, but ended up they both went to the Bush School.  Loved the educational standards and experience, but it was a major sacrifice driving them to and from school until they got old enough to drive themselves.  

We really enjoyed living in the country surrounded by wildlife; being 30 minutes from ski slopes in the winter and great hiking in the summer.  If we did over again I am not sure we would have made the same choice.  It was just too grueling on the transportation to schools. 

Yes, living in the city might be a concrete jungle, but the caliber of schools is vastly superior in Seattle.

[stemelbow]

Thanks for this thread.  I took my wife and kids to Seattle the week before last.  As we traveled trhough town at one point, the traffic got terrible and we had no way out, just waiting.  So we sat.  Then we spotted some super hero looking people riding bikes towards us, so I woke up the kids to get a gander of the fun super heros riding bikes.  But as they approached they were all naked, from head to toe.  Hundreds of 'em.  It was cute. 

My teenage son took a pic and insta-snapchattered or twittled it with the caption, "white people are crazy".  He and his diverse Utah buddies got a kick out of it. 

Here's my list of why LDS move to the suburbs in large cities:

1.  Status

2.  Perception.  City brings crime, violence and drugs to the uninitiated mind. 

3.  City wards tend to attract more of the needy members, making leadership even that more taxing. 

4.  Conservativism.  The story above had us trailing our in-laws who live in Woodinville, WA.  They were far more offended than we were with the bike festival.  We thought it cute and all of us had a bit of a desire to strip down and join in.  But they complain about how liberal Seattle is and they feel happy and safe in their quaint town out there swimming with the conservatives. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by stemelbow

[smac97]

On 6/26/2016 at 10:28 PM, Five Solas said:

But supposing you have it right, that cities are increasingly inhospitable for "family-centric institutions like the LDS Church."  Do you see any downside for the LDS Church, that their influence is effectively diminishing in our centers of culture?  Should the LDS Church try to mitigate and/or reverse this trend, or is it simply inevitable?    

--Erik

I'm not sure the Church's influence is heavily dependent on the presence of ward units within the boundaries of large cities, particularly where there are plenty of suburban sprawl places nearby.

I'm not sure what the Church can do as far as mitigation.  The Church maintains units where there are sufficient numbers of active Saints to support them.  The Church doesn't tell the Saints where to live, so as long as socio-political forces make large cities inimical to families, I think we'll see fewer Church units in those big cities.

One thing the Church can possibly do is rely more on smaller rented spaces in big cities rather than building traditional LDS chapels.  As I understand it, NYC has been something of a case study on this effort.  That is, the Church's traditional model is to establish branches and districts, which then mature into wards and stakes.  However, this does not work well in large cities because A) land values and use are prohibitive and impractical for ward buildings, B) many members that live in large cities rely on public transportation, such that C) merging several branches into one location can significantly lengthen and increase the cost of travel time necessary to attend church meetings at that location, which means that D) activity rates dwindle.  So the Church has reversed the trend and converted wards back into smaller branches, and these branches then meet in smaller rented spaces.  As I understand it, the activity rates have been improving.  (I can't recall who it was that told me all this, but it was a person who had served as a senior missionary in NYC, so he was speaking from experience).

I don't think we can simply write off the residents of big cities.  They are as valuable to our Heavenly Father as the rest of us.  I hope the Church pays attention to these issues and develops innovative approaches to addressing them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 7, 2016 by smac97

[Five Solas]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure the Church's influence is heavily dependent on the presence of ward units within the boundaries large cities, particularly where there are plenty of suburban sprawl places nearby.

Appreciate your responses, smac97.  But I think you're mistaken. 

Here's one reason: Millennials by & large aren't keen on suburbia with all it's sprawl (however exciting suburbia was for Boomers and Gen-Xers).  Millennials like to live in the city.  And increasingly, they aren't moving to the suburbs when they get married and have kids (which is why Seattle School District has been scrambling to open new schools to accommodate them).  If you doubt this fact, you should spend a little time at Amazon (located in Seattle's South Lake Union neighborhood) and then compare/contrast what you see going on at a certain software company with headquarters in an East-side suburb--Redmond (I'll let you guess who that might be).  I promise it won't take you long to figure out which one is attracting more Millennials vs. Gen-Xers.    

If the LDS Church can't figure out how to prosper in large and growing cities, it's in real danger of failing to reach the best & brightest of an entire generation.  Not that I'm in any way invested in its success (I'm not).  But I am genuinely curious if LDS are oblivious and/or feel they can safely ignore this hugely significant cultural trend in the early 21st century. 

--Erik

Edited June 28, 2016 by Five Solas
spelling

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Appreciate your responses, smac97.  But I think you're mistaken. 

Here's one reason: Millennials by & large aren't keen on suburbia with all it's sprawl (however exciting suburbia was for Boomers and Gen-Xers).  Millennials like to live in the city.  And increasingly, they aren't moving to the suburbs when they get married and have kids (which is why Seattle School District has been scrambling to open new schools to accommodate them).  If you doubt this fact, you should spend a little time at Amazon (located in Seattle's South Lake Union neighborhood) and then compare/contrast what you see going on at a certain software company with headquarters in an East-side suburb--Redmond (I'll let you guess who that might be).  I promise it won't take you long to figure out which one is attracting more Millennials vs. Gen-Xers.    

If the LDS Church can't figure out how to prosper in large and growing cities, it's in real danger of failing to reach the best & brightest of an entire generation.  Not that I'm in any way invested in its success (I'm not).  But I am genuinely curious if LDS are oblivious and/or feel they can safely ignore this hugely significant cultural trend in the early 21st century. 

--Erik

I will just point out that the LDS Church does quite well in several urban settings.  Portland, Phoenix and Las Vegas all come to mind.  On the other hand, it seems the information included in the “DCC Vision Prospectus” (to which you linked) corroborates what Smac is saying.  In fact, it indicates that precisely what you describe with respect to the LDS Wards in Seattle has apparently also happened to the city’s evangelical churches:

“Amidst the beauty, creativity, ingenuity, and passion of Seattlites less than 4% of the nearly 600,000 people here identify themselves as Bible-believing evangelical Christians...The majority of large evangelical churches have either left the city, have located outside the city or import their Sunday message by way of video.  To the average Seattlite, evangelical Protestantism is invisible.”

I really like and appreciate the kind of “city-love/commitment” expressed in the Prospectus.  I think wanting to bring the gospel to the people in the city is a worthy and admirable goal; however, I am wondering if you are comfortable with the idea that “replanting, revitalizing, or rejuvenating...dead or declining churches is next to impossible.”  

If evangelical Protestantism is worth planting in a location in the first place, why is it next to impossible to revitalize it?  If I'm understanding the subtext here, this seems to be an invitation for folks to forget about their dead and dying church and focus on a new and exciting one.  Isn’t  that kind of a house of cards?  What will prevent DCC from becoming one of next year’s dead and dying?

Edited June 28, 2016 by Okrahomer

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Appreciate your responses, smac97.  But I think you're mistaken. 

Here's one reason: Millennials by & large aren't keen on suburbia with all it's sprawl (however exciting suburbia was for Boomers and Gen-Xers).  Millennials like to live in the city.  And increasingly, they aren't moving to the suburbs when they get married and have kids (which is why Seattle School District has been scrambling to open new schools to accommodate them).  If you doubt this fact, you should spend a little time at Amazon (located in Seattle's South Lake Union neighborhood) and then compare/contrast what you see going on at a certain software company with headquarters in an East-side suburb--Redmond (I'll let you guess who that might be).  I promise it won't take you long to figure out which one is attracting more Millennials vs. Gen-Xers.    

If the LDS Church can't figure out how to prosper in large and growing cities, it's in real danger of failing to reach the best & brightest of an entire generation.  Not that I'm in any way invested in its success (I'm not).  But I am genuinely curious if LDS are oblivious and/or feel they can safely ignore this hugely significant cultural trend in the early 21st century. 

--Erik

A few thoughts:

1. I think the Church is paying attention.  Hence my comments regarding NYC.  But the Church has very little control over demographic trends.  So if Latter-day Saints appear to be assessing their options and, in most instances, find that raising children (especially larger-than-average families, as is common in the LDS Church) is a life goal better suited to The 'Burbs, then the Church will take note of those trends and locate wards and stakes accordingly.

2. I can't speak to the prevalence of Millennials choosing "The City" over "The 'Burbs."  I would like to see demographic data about this.  Is Seattle representative of a larger trend?  I somehow doubt it.  I have not investigated the data about this very much, but my general sense is that the USA Today article accurately summarizes demographic trends of large urban centers, and those trends are, in the main, that places like San Francisco and other high-density cities, have "essentially become playgrounds for the rich and childless" and "have the lowest percentages of children."  

3. With respect, I'm not sure "the best & brightest of an entire generation" = Millennials who choose to live in The City.  Surely some of them are intelligent and hardworking, but I also think there are plenty of good and decent people who live in The 'Burbs.  And not because they are less intelligent or competent than The City folk, but simply because they have a different point of view.  

It is this kind of, if you'll excuse me, "snobbery" (perhaps unwitting?) that makes The City off-putting to some people.  Can't folks in The City allow for reasoned and principled diversity of viewpoints?  Must people who choose to not live in The City be denigrated?  Several of the articles I quoted here make note of this tendency.  In this article, for example, a lady who has chosen to live and raise her children in The City just can't bring herself to allow reasonable minds to disagree, to allow diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.  Nope, she says this:

Quote

Parents have to be happy too. We’re city people–I’ve lived in cities for the past 25 years. I agree with Ed Koch:

Quote

Have you ever lived in the suburbs? It’s sterile. It’s nothing. It’s wasting your life, and people do not wish to waste their lives once they’ve seen New York!

 

Snobbery at its finest, eh?

I am fine with people who choose to live in The City.  There are upsides, but also downsides.  The same goes for living in The 'Burbs, or in a rural area.  I live in Provo, which works well for me and mine.  My wife grew up in Federal Way and has fond memories of it, but she loves living in Provo and raising our children here.  We had planned on living on the Olympic Peninsula (my in-laws live in Poulsbo), but live didn't turn out that way. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[deli_llama]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Here's one reason: Millennials by & large aren't keen on suburbia with all it's sprawl (however exciting suburbia was for Boomers and Gen-Xers).  Millennials like to live in the city.  And increasingly, they aren't moving to the suburbs when they get married and have kids (which is why Seattle School District has been scrambling to open new schools to accommodate them).  If you doubt this fact, you should spend a little time at Amazon (located in Seattle's South Lake Union neighborhood) and then compare/contrast what you see going on at a certain software company with headquarters in an East-side suburb--Redmond (I'll let you guess who that might be).  I promise it won't take you long to figure out which one is attracting more Millennials vs. Gen-Xers.    

If the LDS Church can't figure out how to prosper in large and growing cities, it's in real danger of failing to reach the best & brightest of an entire generation.  Not that I'm in any way invested in its success (I'm not).  But I am genuinely curious if LDS are oblivious and/or feel they can safely ignore this hugely significant cultural trend in the early 21st century.

I wasn't sure what post to quote you on. Consider this a quote of pretty much all you posted here.

Ravenna Park here, though we attend WP most often because of work (until the times change again). We live right in the thick of it, and I very much agree with your observations, and concerns.

[Avatar4321]

I would just add any snobbery is likely why the church doesn't have success amongst some people. Pride makes it difficult to take the gospel seriously

[mnn727]

SMAC  said it. Cities (major metropolitan areas) are no longer family friendly. The families have moved to the 'burbs

Cities services and entertainment are geared to adults, not to families with children.

These are of course "in  general statements" - your city may vary.

Edited June 28, 2016 by mnn727

[Five Solas]

9 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I will just point out that the LDS Church does quite well in several urban settings.  Portland, Phoenix and Las Vegas all come to mind.  On the other hand, it seems the information included in the “DCC Vision Prospectus” (to which you linked) corroborates what Smac is saying.  In fact, it indicates that precisely what you describe with respect to the LDS Wards in Seattle has apparently also happened to the city’s evangelical churches:

“Amidst the beauty, creativity, ingenuity, and passion of Seattlites less than 4% of the nearly 600,000 people here identify themselves as Bible-believing evangelical Christians...The majority of large evangelical churches have either left the city, have located outside the city or import their Sunday message by way of video.  To the average Seattlite, evangelical Protestantism is invisible.”

I really like and appreciate the kind of “city-love/commitment” expressed in the Prospectus.  I think wanting to bring the gospel to the people in the city is a worthy and admirable goal; however, I am wondering if you are comfortable with the idea that “replanting, revitalizing, or rejuvenating...dead or declining churches is next to impossible.”  

If evangelical Protestantism is worth planting in a location in the first place, why is it next to impossible to revitalize it?  If I'm understanding the subtext here, this seems to be an invitation for folks to forget about their dead and dying church and focus on a new and exciting one.  Isn’t  that kind of a house of cards?  What will prevent DCC from becoming one of next year’s dead and dying?

To be sure, many Christians have struggled to adapt to increasing urbanization and density.  And DCC doesn't flinch in its description of the challenge.  Note that.  And note too how it explicitly calls out some previous efforts haven't worked (the line you quoted in your third paragraph) and that a different approach should be made to reach the city.  Regardless what you may think of church planting as a method for outreach, it's refreshing to read such candor, is it not?  (I'm not seeking to dodge your questions, but church planting vs. other missionary type activities is a topic for another thread.)

Compare what you read on DCC's site with some of the responses here.  Aside from some downsizing in NYC to adapt (described by smac97), it's not at all clear LDS think there's much of a problem for them--and therefore they can carry on much as before.  Because things are pretty good in a few places, right?

I'm certainly not calling on the LDS Church to change.  But I do think this topic reveals something about the LDS worldview--and is therefore worth the exploration we're giving it here.

--Erik

 

[Five Solas]

8 hours ago, deli_llama said:

I wasn't sure what post to quote you on. Consider this a quote of pretty much all you posted here.

Ravenna Park here, though we attend WP most often because of work (until the times change again). We live right in the thick of it, and I very much agree with your observations, and concerns.

We're neighbors! (or a least in adjacent Seattle neighborhoods).  Shoot me a message & I'll buy you a drink (beverage of your choice).

--Erik

[Five Solas]

PS. for smac97.  Ed Koch had a point.  And yes, I've been there.

:0)

[Gray]

On 6/26/2016 at 9:17 PM, smac97 said:

Most large urban centers do not particularly cater to families.  The problem lies not with Mormons per se, but with children (that is to say, families) and other factors which, cumulatively, are generally inimical to the raising of children in large cities.

This article, which was published in USA Today a few days ago, touches on this issue (emphasis added):

This is, apparently, a world-wide phenomenon:

The article goes on to explain the political aspects of how and why large urban centers have become less family-friendly (to sum up: big cities = big opportunities for "snobbery, graft and politics").

There are many articles about this phenomenon.  Here are a few:

• City Kids: Why Parents Pick City Living Over the Suburbs (this one describes people who have bucked the trend and are raising their children in big cities)
• The Decline of the Family-Friendly City
• Southern California Becoming Less Family-Friendly

I think we should expect that, as big cities become less "family-friendly," we will see a lessened presence of family-centric institutions like the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

I very much agree - big cities are not friendly for parents with young children. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

PS. for smac97.  Ed Koch had a point.  And yes, I've been there.

:0)

Glenn Reynolds (the author of the USA Today article) also had a point:

Quote

Today’s urban planners seem to favor high density. Like Le Corbusier, they’d like people to live in tall, densely packed buildings, take mass transit to work, and scorn the “fatter and slower and dumber” residents of the suburb, to use a description from Seattle’s The Stranger that Kotkin quotes.

The problem is that most people, especially people who have or want to have children, don’t like living that way, and that as American cities have become taller and denser, they have essentially become playgrounds for the rich and childless. “For all their impressive achievements, and sometimes inspiring architecture, high-density cores such as those in Manhattan, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C., have the lowest percentages of children,” Kotkin says in his new book.
...
So if people are lukewarm, why are politicians so enthusiastic about big urban development? I think there are three reasons: Snobbery, graft and politics.

The snobbery comes from the fact that most media are headquartered in big cities and the people who work there are the kind of people who like big cities — often people who, as one of Taylor Swift’s songs has it, move to a “big ole city” in part as revenge on the places they come from. As Kotkin notes, the writers, pundits and academic types who write on the subject of cities tend to live in big cities; suburban and rural people are treated as losers, or just ignored, despite the fact that most people don’t live in big cities.

Ed Koch's quote typifies the mentality of that last sentence (city folks treating non-city folks "as losers, or just ignored").  Such overtly-expressed and unapologetic contempt for non-city folk is snobbery at its finest.  Respect for diversity of viewpoints?  Nah.  Allowing for principled disagreement over families choosing their preferred living arrangements?  Fuggedaboutit.  Snobbery uber alles.

Oh, well.  I quite enjoy living in Provo.  It's a mid-size city, but I live on a 1/2-acre lot that backs to the Provo River.  Our backyard has shade trees, fruit trees, a garden, a fire pit (right next to the river), a trampoline, a swing set, a playhouse, a rope swing, a fully-shaded cement patio for barbecues or just hangin' out, and more.  We also have a dog, who gets all sorts of exercise by both being taken on walks by the kids, and also by running around on his own in our backyard.  We've lived here for ten years and our children love it.  We also have the Provo River Trail.  And BYU and UVU.  And high speed internet access.  And far more shopping venues than we ever use.  And movie theaters and grocery stores and pharmacies and most of the other amenities of modern life.  And Provo Canyon, with its waterfalls and hiking trails and reservoir, and river, and parks, and ski resort.  

Could I have such things if I were living in The City?  Nope.  No way.  I'm way too middle class.  I couldn't afford it.  Rich people could, perhaps (or else they'd have a second home outside The City), but middle class folks?  No way.  They can choose such a lifestyle, but it's only practically and financially viable by living outside The City.  And for this, we are looked down on by the Snobs in The City.  Glenn Reynolds nails it: "And there’s a class thing going on, too. As Robert Bruegmann noted in his book, Sprawl: A Compact History, nobody minds when rich people build houses in the country. It’s when the middle class does it that we get complaints."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 28, 2016 by smac97

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

To be sure, many Christians have struggled to adapt to increasing urbanization and density.  And DCC doesn't flinch in its description of the challenge.  Note that.  And note too how it explicitly calls out some previous efforts haven't worked (the line you quoted in your third paragraph) and that a different approach should be made to reach the city.  Regardless what you may think of church planting as a method for outreach, it's refreshing to read such candor, is it not?  (I'm not seeking to dodge your questions, but church planting vs. other missionary type activities is a topic for another thread.)

Compare what you read on DCC's site with some of the responses here.  Aside from some downsizing in NYC to adapt (described by smac97), it's not at all clear LDS think there's much of a problem for them--and therefore they can carry on much as before.  Because things are pretty good in a few places, right?

I'm certainly not calling on the LDS Church to change.  But I do think this topic reveals something about the LDS worldview--and is therefore worth the exploration we're giving it here.

--Erik

 

I do appreciate the candor of the DCC prospectus, and it was interesting to read.  I also agree that this topic is worth exploring. 

I don't however see a problem with the LDS worldview where families are concerned.  Smac has pointed toward fairly concrete data that shows that families of all kinds (not just LDS families) find it easier/better to raise their families outside the city.  The result is that almost 50% of the population of metro Seattle is single.  Since LDS folks tend to marry and have more children than other people, it stands to reason that one will find more of them outside the city than in.  When the perception changes and folks begin to see the city as offering more of the things they want for their children, then I think you'll see a shift in where people are living. 

A more interesting question about the Church's response to urbanization should probably focus on how we serve and fellowship all those single adults who increasingly dominate the urban landscape.  One cannot avoid the fact that many of these people have to work very hard to feel welcome and valued in the LDS setting, and far too many of them have given up.

[Doctor Steuss]

12 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I will just point out that the LDS Church does quite well in several urban settings.  Portland, Phoenix and Las Vegas all come to mind.

[...]

 

As a somewhat-on-topic-aside:  A few months back, I was looking to find a chapel in the downtown Las Vegas area to see if the bishops/stake pres of that particular chapel would mind if a local charity group used the parking lot once a week to distribute food/resources to those in need in the area.  Much to my surprise, there were absolutely no chapels -- it was like a black hole in the otherwise polka-dot disbursement of chapels in the valley.

[Okrahomer]

2 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

As a somewhat-on-topic-aside:  A few months back, I was looking to find a chapel in the downtown Las Vegas area to see if the bishops/stake pres of that particular chapel would mind if a local charity group used the parking lot once a week to distribute food/resources to those in need in the area.  Much to my surprise, there were absolutely no chapels -- it was like a black hole in the otherwise polka-dot disbursement of chapels in the valley.

I did a google search of LDS meetinghouses in Las Vegas--there are several; however, I see what you mean.  It's kind of a black hole right in the center.  Las Vegas is an interesting place.  One of my LDS cousins raised his family there.  I also have some very close LDS friends from Oklahoma who live there.  These people absolutely love it there.  They say they seldom, if ever, go downtown or anywhere near the strip.  Perhaps that explains the black hole?

[USU78]

11 hours ago, deli_llama said:

I wasn't sure what post to quote you on. Consider this a quote of pretty much all you posted here.

Ravenna Park here, though we attend WP most often because of work (until the times change again). We live right in the thick of it, and I very much agree with your observations, and concerns.

Young marrieds often stay in town, even after the first child, but if further children come, they flee the noise, sprawl, mess and moronic politicians in major cities for the suburbs  ...  this isn't exactly a new phenomenon, and the fact that feckless, inexperienced millennials stay in town longer (if they really do) is evidence of their cluelessness and, perhaps, selfishness.  Moving out of the city (SLC) to the suburbs (Farmington) was tough for me, but by the time our second child came, I couldn't have been more relieved.

[Doctor Steuss]

2 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

I did a google search of LDS meetinghouses in Las Vegas--there are several; however, I see what you mean.  It's kind of a black hole right in the center.  Las Vegas is an interesting place.  One of my LDS cousins raised his family there.  I also have some very close LDS friends from Oklahoma who live there.  These people absolutely love it there.  They say they seldom, if ever, go downtown or anywhere near the strip.  Perhaps that explains the black hole?

I don't know that I really have any answers.  My immediate thought was demographics (i.e. old Vegas tends to be predominantly African American at the core, and Latino as you move outwards).  Interestingly, part of the area I was hoping to find a chapel in has a Catholic church, two Baptist churches, and a Mosque within a stone's throw.

Anecdotally, we go downtown a lot.  My son absolutely loves the Container Park.  I took him to Mandalay Bay last week to see the sharks.  He really likes seeing the birds at the Flamingo.  My wife has been taking him to the Hard Rock pool several times a week (they have a sand beach, and a center pool that is only a few feet deep).  There really is a lot of family-friendly stuff downtown... traffic just sucks.