The Church is Losing Millennials?

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know the numbers for our entire stake but for the two wards that share our building, we've had 6 missionaries return home early in the past 18 months out of 14 that have gone out. That's a higher percentage than I would expect to see more generally but none have returned to their missions. All seem to still be attending actively. 2 returned for minor medical issues they knew about and were managing before they left. I'm wondering if missionaries are being sent home more quickly for medical if it appears they will slow down their companions and the work.

Something is broken in the missionary program.

I believe this too.  Maybe they will change the age again...I don't know the solution.  

None of the missionaries who have come early in our ward were for medical reasons, but I do know this happens too, of course.

I think sending them right out of high school (the young men) is not wise for some.  For many that is simply too young when they've never been away from home prior to this (for a year of college, etc.).  I see why the church tried this because they were also loosing some of these young people who went away to college.

I wonder what the ratio is for young men returning home early vs. young women? 

.

Edited April 14, 2016 by ALarson

[ttribe]

9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

You can't force them to come back.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

[bsjkki]

What is somewhat ironic about the missionary discussion is President Monson's history as a mission president.  This is a personal story so if someone wants to fact check it, please do.  President Monson was my father-in-laws mission president.  They go to all the mission reunions and love telling me all about them.  From what they have told me, President Monson refused to lose any of his missionaries and would not send anybody home.  As I've been told, "even if  they should have been."

[consiglieri]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In my experience people stop attending because the value they get from church isn't worth the cost. It's not so much about the burden of meetings or a busy schedule as much as a change in beliefs.

So I ask myself why so many people are shifting paradigms or belief systems. I think the answer is similar for millenials as well as other generations. The difference often is that millenials haven't invested as much as others so they are more open to considering alternatives.

 

I also think that more and more young people are unwilling to subscribe to the rigid black-and-white thinking mandated by the Church.

That in addition to the surrendering of their intellectual and moral agency to the dictates of the top leaders, all of whom are elderly white men who more and more seem rooted in their past-prejudices and personal cultural acclimatization rather than ongoing revelation from God.

At least, that's the way more and more youth seem to be seeing it . . .

[consiglieri]

Just now, bsjkki said:

What is somewhat ironic about the missionary discussion is President Monson's history as a mission president.  This is a personal story so if someone wants to fact check it, please do.  President Monson was my father-in-laws mission president.  They go to all the mission reunions and love telling me all about them.  From what they have told me, President Monson refused to lose any of his missionaries and would not send anybody home.  As I've been told, "even if  they should have been."

I think this has to do with supply-and-demand.

Currently there is an oversupply of missionaries. 

Hence the value of each individual missionary decreases.

And they become more and more expendable as a consequence.

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

A few comments:

1. Activity in the Church includes many, many hours of time wasted in meetings with no discernible purpose other than to check a box at the end.  The vast majority of these meetings accomplish very little if anything, and I have often found myself with the mental image of being a hamster on the hamster-wheel, running frenetically with the belief I am going somewhere but really just going around and around in a circle.

2. I find problematic your equation of Church responsibilities with family responsibilities, saying that to abandon one makes as much sense as abandoning the other.  Church meetings and callings typically take us away from our families.  So you can take your choice of spinning your wheels at meaningless Church meetings or spending time with your family actually doing constructive and important things. 

3. The choice between the two should be obvious, but no, the Church demands our attendance at all meetings that we are "supposed" to be at in order to show our loyalty to the Church, and through the Church, to God.  So attending meetings becomes equated with loyalty to God. 

4. Equating attendance at meetings (or Church "activity") with "sacred covenants" that we violate if we choose to take a break and be with our family is, in a nutshell, at the heart of what is wrong with the current LDS Church . . . and one of the reasons I think people are leaving.  I do not recall covenanting to waste my life in busywork at meaningless Church meetings while my family languishes.

5. Ultimately, this is about how the Church expects members to place loyalty to the Church above loyalty to family.  I know that over and over again, Church leaders have said the opposite, but when the rubber hits the road, the Church is supposed to be put first.  Over spouse and over family.  Which is one of the reasons the "milk-strippings" story is told over and over again.  If there is a conflict between supporting your wife and supporting the Church, whom should you support?  Why, the Church, of course.

I would phrase a lot of this differently, but I do feel like this is a major problem. I had a stint in a stake calling and it was miserable. Not because I didn't like the people I was working with, but because I felt panicked that I was missing out on my son growing up while I was stuck in endless meetings. 

[mtomm]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Previous generations were saying the same thing about pagers and cell phones when I, another Gen Xer, was young.

This too shall pass.

Thank you for this. It's just gets so tiresome. This may be part of why millennials don't want to come to church. Who wants to hear week after week how awful your generation is?  My millennial children spend a good chunk of Sacrament meeting rolling their eyes because it's turned into a "bash video games, cell phones, and the internet"  instead of a time of spiritual renewal and coming unto Christ. 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2016 by mtomm

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know the numbers for our entire stake but for the two wards that share our building, we've had 6 missionaries return home early in the past 18 months out of 14 that have gone out. That's a higher percentage than I would expect to see more generally but none have returned to their missions. All seem to still be attending actively. 2 returned for minor medical issues they knew about and were managing before they left. I'm wondering if missionaries are being sent home more quickly for medical if it appears they will slow down their companions and the work.

Something is broken in the missionary program.

For me the missionary experience was something that took many years to recover from, despite having many positive experiences. I really think things need to be overhauled. People should come back from missionary work in better emotional shape than they left, and I think many are coming back worse (I know I did). 

[bsjkki]

Do we set them up to fail?  One of my frustrations when serving in Young Women's was the endless challenges.  I remember going to a ward and seeing a challenge for the youth to read the Book of Mormon before trek.  This was before the Come Follow Me curriculum so I knew the youth were being challenged to read 3 different books of scripture at the same time.  One for Sunday School, one for Seminary and the trek challenge.  It's impossible.  My young women got told endless things to do and since I served in Young Women's, I tried to get my daughters to do them all.  I soon wised up and realized it was impossible.  They were much better at tuning it out than I was but I learned.  

[Duncan]

I asked my older and active sister what she thought about conference and this is in part of what she said,  "we only went sunday pm. I thought it went the same as every other conference. a bunch of old men gave talks. I don’t care about the announced temples because I will never have anything to do with them.  "

So, will that be passed onto her kids? I dunno

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Previous generations were saying the same thing about pagers and cell phones when I, another Gen Xer, was young.

This too shall pass.

I don't think so.  I think that young kids and youth having their own cellphones (and these phones almost being attached to their hand) and having such easy access to the internet and social media, etc., is definitely here to stay.  This is how most of them communicate and stay in touch now (texting, Instagram and so on...).  I do not see this changing.

Another Bishop in our stake told me that he knows someone who works at the MTC.  This friend told him that most missionaries go through a period of "tech withdrawals" when they get there and it's been a problem for them.  I believe this.

.

Edited April 14, 2016 by ALarson

[consiglieri]

I also think that even though we build up how exciting and spirit-filled church meetings will be, and General Conference, and the temple, the youth are nevertheless more likely to recognize that the reality is far different from the hype.

[Jeanne]

I look at these young faces very often; especially on "p" day..(is that they call it)? These guys look like 13 year olds..I just think they are way too young.  It is just my opinion but those fresh faces even at 19 are not equipped today as they may have been when you guys were missionaries.  So many more options and many more questions have changed.  For their sakes, I am hoping that service missions will be the rule soon.  My brother came home early years ago...it really messed him up for the reception he got.  Hope things have changed for the better.  But those young faces both male and female are hard to take seriously and I feel for them  Please give them a redeeming choice and maybe they will stay.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I also think that even though we build up how exciting and spirit-filled church meetings will be, and General Conference, and the temple, the youth are nevertheless more likely to recognize that the reality is far different from the hype.

This has likely always been true though. 

If this has something to do with it the question becomes, why are millenials less able to handle it?

Do they need to be entertained (in general) more than previous generations?

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

This has likely always been true though. 

If this has something to do with it the question becomes, why are millenials less able to handle it?

Do they need to be entertained (in general) more than previous generations?

While there may be some truth to this, I think it unhelpful to blame Millennials for the problems they have with the Church.

Speculating that they need to be "entertained" more than previous generations may make us feel better, but does little to deal with the problem.

If true, the Church would be better served in catering to their needs than refusing to change and watching them drift away in increasing numbers.

Speaking pragmatically, of course.

I am far from being a Millennial, but age and experience have demonstrated to me what Millenials appear to understand at a much earlier age.

 

 

 

[Sleeper Cell]

43 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I asked my older and active sister what she thought about conference and this is in part of what she said,  "we only went sunday pm. I thought it went the same as every other conference. a bunch of old men gave talks. I don’t care about the announced temples because I will never have anything to do with them.  "

So, will that be passed onto her kids? I dunno

Frankly, the part I bolded bothers me far more than the rest of her comments.  If someone does not find a talk or group of talks interesting, so be it.  Many believing Christians do not find parts of the Bible very interesting, either.

But for someone  to proclaim that they do not care about something because it doesn’t directly benefit them … 

Edited April 14, 2016 by Sleeper Cell

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This has likely always been true though. 

If this has something to do with it the question becomes, why are millenials less able to handle it?

Do they need to be entertained (in general) more than previous generations?

I think it's less about Millenials being "able to handle it" and it is more of being "willing" to handle it.

They can do it if they find value and therefore want to. So why aren't they finding the value? Why aren't they as willing to handle certain things? Better education and access to information? A culture of instant gratification? A less authoritarian culture? 

We can blame them all we want but that blame won't solve any problems.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

While there may be some truth to this, I think it unhelpful to blame Millennials for the problems they have with the Church.

Speculating that they need to be "entertained" more than previous generations may make us feel better, but does little to deal with the problem.

If true, the Church would be better served in catering to their needs than refusing to change and watching them drift away in increasing numbers.

Speaking pragmatically, of course.

I am far from being a Millennial, but age and experience have demonstrated to me what Millenials appear to understand at a much earlier age.

 

 

 

I'm just going off of your post where you stated that boring church meetings are a problem. 

Church meetings are the same as they have been for decades and previous generations did not respond as you say millenials are responding. 

Asking why millenials struggle more with boring meetings than previous generations is a reasonable question. 

We can't deal with the problem until we know why it's a problem to begin with  

 

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm just going off of your post where you stated that boring church meetings are a problem. 

Church meetings are the same as they have been for decades and previous generations did not respond as you say millenials are responding. 

Asking why millenials struggle more with boring meetings than previous generations is a reasonable question. 

We can't deal with the problem until we know why it's a problem to begin with  

 

I understand you better now.

 

But I think that, if the past is any predictor of the future, the response of the Church will be to ignore the problem and blame the people who are leaving.

This seems to be the LDSSOP.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it's less about Millenials being "able to handle it" and it is more of being "willing" to handle it.

They can do it if they find value and therefore want to. So why aren't they finding the value? Why aren't they as willing to handle certain things? Better education and access to information? A culture of instant gratification? A less authoritarian culture? 

We can blame them all we want but that blame won't solve any problems.

I'm not blaming them. They are, for better and worse, how their parents made them. But, to quote Dr. Phil, we can't change what we don't acknowledge, so understanding "why" is paramount.

Just like the parenting combination of excesses and limits of the 1950s created the protesting/anti establishment generation of 1960s, the millenials are a result of specific parenting styles that we are just now starting to recognize the consequences of (both good and bad).

 

[Boanerges]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

For me the missionary experience was something that took many years to recover from, despite having many positive experiences. I really think things need to be overhauled. People should come back from missionary work in better emotional shape than they left, and I think many are coming back worse (I know I did). 

I agree and the same is true for me. One way I think that could be improved is to make missions more about service than trying to get people to join the church. Looking at overall activity rates, only a little over a third in most places are going to remain active, and in some places (Chile) only 10%.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I understand you better now.

 

But I think that, if the past is any predictor of the future, the response of the Church will be to ignore the problem and blame the people who are leaving.

This seems to be the LDSSOP.

Given the huge emphasis on the youth and YSA right now (something that didn't exist when I qualified for that title in the 90s and early 2000s) it doesn't seem like the church is ignoring it though.

 

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Given the huge emphasis on the youth and YSA right now (something that didn't exist when I qualified for that title in the 90s and early 2000s) it doesn't seem like the church is ignoring it though.

 

I think there is a difference between a "huge emphasis" and a change of program that will be more appealing to the youth and YSA.

Doing more of the same thing is unlikely to have a salubrious effect. 

 

Edited April 14, 2016 by consiglieri

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think there is a difference between a "huge emphasis" and a change of program that will be more appealing to the youth and YSA.

Doing more of the same thing is unlikely to have a salubrious effect. 

 

They aren't doing more of the same thing though, that's what I mean. They've completely overhauled the curriculum, they are giving kids more interactive time with apostles, they changed the age for serving missions, and the ensign now has whole sections dedicated specifically to YSA, for example. 

[Duncan]

39 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Frankly, the part I bolded bothers me far more than the rest of her comments.  If someone does not find a talk or group of talks interesting, so be it.  Many believing Christians do not find parts of the Bible very interesting, either.

But for someone  to proclaim that they do not care about something because it doesn’t directly benefit them … 

that's what I said as well, I find it super interesting and am happy for my brothers and sisters in those countries