Agency Smagency - Why You Don't Get to Choose Your Ward

[HappyJackWagon]

The real shocker on this video was Elder Christofferson's claim that 72% of YSA leave the church/go inactive by age 20. That number is huge.

I realize that international numbers and the vast number of inactive youth will naturally become a part of this number but 72% !!! Wow! Clearly this was an important factor in restructuring the YSA program and also the mission age but I don't think they've gotten to the heart of the problem. I don't know that they have dug deep enough to understand the disconnect between younger generations and the church (and organized religion more generally).

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I like that they get together for our good in these meetings. Reminds me of meetings that different presidencies of auxiliaries in the church have. At least they take time out of their day and they're not running a corporation all day, which some believe is all they think about.

Of course I've only watched this video on Single Adults and don't know anything about the others. 

I always had a vague idea that, yes, the leadership of whatever ward I have resided in is concerned about my welfare (both temporal and spiritual).  Then, I was called into a position where I got to be "a fly on the wall," so to speak, where such matters are discussed, where sincere concerns and love are expressed, where potential solutions are discussed, and (perhaps most importantly) where people and their leaders are prayed over.  I think anyone who says, "Why isn't the Church more concerned about [x]?" or "Why doesn't the Church do more about [y]?" ought to have the opportunity to rotate through such positions.  They would develop, I think, a new appreciation for just how much goes on behind the scenes of which they previously were blissfully unaware.

And that's not something that takes place only on the local level.  As the incomparable, inimitable Elder Jeffrey R. Holland put it in his 2009 General Conference address, "Prophets in the Land Again":

Quote

As the least of those who have been sustained by you to witness the guidance of this Church firsthand, I say with all the fervor of my soul that never in my personal or professional life have I ever associated with any group who are so in touch, who know so profoundly the issues facing us, who look so deeply into the old, stay so open to the new, and weigh so carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully everything in between.

Anyone who is looking for "dirt" or a "scoop" from any of these videos about what goes on behind the scenes is likely to be sorely disappointed (except to the extent that he "sees what he wants to see" ).  The biggest revelation is likely to be, "You're kidding!  I thought that at least Church leadership meetings wouldn't be boring on the general level!  You mean the 14th Article of Faith ("We believe all meetings, we hope for more meetings, we have endured many meetings, and we hope to be able to endure all meetings.  If there is any meeting that is virtuous, lovely, of of good report, we seek after these meetings") applies on the general level, too, and not just the local level?"  

[Kenngo1969]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The real shocker on this video was Elder Christofferson's claim that 72% of YSA leave the church/go inactive by age 20. That number is huge.

I realize that international numbers and the vast number of inactive youth will naturally become a part of this number but 72% !!! Wow! Clearly this was an important factor in restructuring the YSA program and also the mission age but I don't think they've gotten to the heart of the problem. I don't know that they have dug deep enough to understand the disconnect between younger generations and the church (and organized religion more generally).

Yeah, I'm with ya there, buddy!  Church should change to be more popular! (Cf. Matthew 16:24, John 15:18-20, 2 Nephi 9:18, 1 Nephi 8:21-27).

Edited October 3, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yeah, I'm with ya there, buddy!  Church should change to be more popular! (Cf. Matthew 16:24, John 15:18-20, 2 Nephi 9:18, 1 Nephi 8:21-27).

You don't find 72% attrition to be extremely high? Is it that high because Satan and his minions are more persuasive than God and His angels? Or is there another reason?

Or is it possible that the church (among many churches) hasn't figured out how to connect with the rising generations? Is that somehow an offensive question? I don't recall mentioning popularity. I think it has more to do with relevance. The attrition is so high because the church isn't relevant to the rising generation. You can act offended by that or brush it aside with a snarky comment, but that doesn't help the 72% attrition rate.

Edited October 3, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[rpn]

The point that was being made in the YSA video is the reason why we don't let people choose.   That demonstration ended in acknowledgement that having all those people with keys, got in the way of any of those people with keys being able to shepherd the one, and maintain accountability for doing so.

There isn't any other faith that has centralized record keeping that follows every member, such that each can be assigned VTers and HTers to provide watchcare on behalf of their Savior.    If members were not officially assigned to a congregation by geography, it would be impossible to do that, and people would get lost more often than they do now.   I think this is a more critical reason than the others that pop up.   But church members do have agency, and some attend other wards than their assigned wards, with or without official approval.   So let's not pretend that people are forced to attend any specific ward.   They just cannot pick and chose where they are HT/VT and receive their TR's.

And if members were, it would make it so tempting for bishops to pull punches when God inspires them to do or say unpopular things.   Some would say that it would also curtail the overreaching and unkindness, but it isn't what they do that is the problem, it is whether they are really acting and speaking what the Lord wants them to do.

Edited October 3, 2016 by rpn

[ERayR]

17 hours ago, Five Solas said:

This seems like an expansion of BCSpace's initial view.  Do you really see Agency (Jesus's plan--see previous link in response to BCSpace) in tension with Order?  And in the case of Ward membership, the latter (order) is to be prioritized over the former (agency), for all the reasons you give?  

--Erik 

It does seem to me that those who make the most noise about agency are those most in favor of chaos.

 

[ERayR]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I always had a vague idea that, yes, the leadership of whatever ward I have resided in is concerned about my welfare (both temporal and spiritual).  Then, I was called into a position where I got to be "a fly on the wall," so to speak, where such matters are discussed, where sincere concerns and love are expressed, where potential solutions are discussed, and (perhaps most importantly) where people and their leaders are prayed over.  I think anyone who says, "Why isn't the Church more concerned about [x]?" or "Why doesn't the Church do more about [y]?" ought to have the opportunity to rotate through such positions.  They would develop, I think, a new appreciation for just how much goes on behind the scenes of which they previously were blissfully unaware.

And that's not something that takes place only on the local level.  As the incomparable, inimitable Elder Jeffrey R. Holland put it in his 2009 General Conference address, "Prophets in the Land Again":

Anyone who is looking for "dirt" or a "scoop" from any of these videos about what goes on behind the scenes is likely to be sorely disappointed (except to the extent that he "sees what he wants to see" ).  The biggest revelation is likely to be, "You're kidding!  I thought that at least Church leadership meetings wouldn't be boring on the general level!  You mean the 14th Article of Faith ("We believe all meetings, we hope for more meetings, we have endured many meetings, and we hope to be able to endure all meetings.  If there is any meeting that is virtuous, lovely, of of good report, we seek after these meetings") applies on the general level, too, and not just the local level?"  

 

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yeah, I'm with ya there, buddy!  Church should change to be more popular! (Cf. Matthew 16:24, John 15:18-20, 2 Nephi 9:18, 1 Nephi 8:21-27).

Popularity above all.   Sounds right if your address is Great and Spacious Building.

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, ERayR said:

 

Popularity above all.   Sounds right if your address is Great and Spacious Building.

Who is mocking who? Is it always the "other guy" in the great and spacious building or do active members sometimes join together to mock the spiritual efforts and journey of others.

Ironic, isn't it?

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You don't find 72% attrition to be extremely high? Is it that high because Satan and his minions are more persuasive than God and His angels? Or is there another reason?

Or is it possible that the church (among many churches) hasn't figured out how to connect with the rising generations? Is that somehow an offensive question? I don't recall mentioning popularity. I think it has more to do with relevance. The attrition is so high because the church isn't relevant to the rising generation. You can act offended by that or brush it aside with a snarky comment, but that doesn't help the 72% attrition rate.

Satan has almost always been more successful then God. Why should this generation be an exception? Jesus couldn't retain people all that well. We are supposed to try but should we expect to do better then he did?

[cinepro]

I used to live in a stake that had a university with a great student ward.  Everything was great until the university built new student housing on the other side of the freeway, in the neighboring stake! 

Within a few months, the Stake President was lobbying to get the student ward reassigned to his stake because many of the students lived there, but the other Stake President wanted them to remain in his stake (where the university, Institute and Church building were).  Ultimately the original Stake President prevailed, but not before there were some hard feelings between the two groups of stake leadership.

[notHagoth7]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

...hard feelings between the two groups of stake leadership.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

Why would there be hard feelings over something like that?

[ERayR]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Who is mocking who? Is it always the "other guy" in the great and spacious building or do active members sometimes join together to mock the spiritual efforts and journey of others.

Ironic, isn't it?

What is ironic is the constant cacophony to change the church so that it will be 'more popular'.  This call seems to emanate with those who think it is a hard thing that is required of them in supporting church leadership and are almost constantly in opposition in something or another.

[Rain]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The real shocker on this video was Elder Christofferson's claim that 72% of YSA leave the church/go inactive by age 20. That number is huge.

I realize that international numbers and the vast number of inactive youth will naturally become a part of this number but 72% !!! Wow! Clearly this was an important factor in restructuring the YSA program and also the mission age but I don't think they've gotten to the heart of the problem. I don't know that they have dug deep enough to understand the disconnect between younger generations and the church (and organized religion more generally).

That is basically one of my children in that group.  Yes, it concerns me.   I don't know how the changes would affect things though.  He is very different than his 2 younger siblings.   

[silvermoon383]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Leadership is tough and leaders are fallible

Sometimes that's the way it goes.  On the other hand maybe others were blessed by the changes.  IMO singles wards in many cases should be disbanded.  All that talent would do wonders for local wards here in the "mission field" and in my experience, the few- very few- marriages that result from them hereabouts do not warrant their existence

Right, the Primary is always in need of more YSAs to get dumped into.  Does wonders for everyone. /sarcasm  I was one of the lucky ones out here (and I completely abhor the referring to the land outside of Utah as "the mission field".  This is 2016, not 1850), the limit of my Primary callings as a YSA was pianist and cub scout den leader.  After about a month after I was called as pianist they announced the formation of the YSA branch in town.  My first thought was a big cheer, the second was "I can't go since I have a calling."  The Bishop learned of that and told me straight away that he can get a new pianist, so go to the branch if I wished.  That was one of the best things a bishop has ever told me.  Going to the YSA branch in 3 different cities has given me far more life experience in professional and social respects, having been called to be an Executive Secretary and Branch Clerk in 3 different YSA branches.

Long story short, the family wards can handle themselves just fine.  Based on my own life experiences and the experiences of friends and acquaintances, staying in a family ward is hardly an ideal situation for a YSA.  More on this later.

22 hours ago, Calm said:

I suspect each area's dynamics shift the needs.  Sometimes it is possible to make decisions on that level, other times the global approach is necessary to meet the most needs in the best possible way.

I don't see ward hopping as inherent to single wards, but rather it is how much local leaders tolerate it.  If bishops assigned someone in each ward in an area to pull a new face aside each Sunday for an interview asking their name, etc. and asking what interests they have and suggesting they would be called shortly, many might get tired ward hopping perhaps.  There might be other things that made ward hopping less attractive that others could come up with, no doubt, in the areas it is a problem.

Singles wards where there are less population may help the other wards, but if instead the singles just don't show up no one benefits.  If single wards are disbanded, the family stakes really need to step up to replace the lost social contact and not just assume the singles need to adapt to the way the family ward does stuff.

Your last line is something that I've had extensive discussions with my Branch Presidency.  Some backstory: a year ago, while attending the family ward (the city where I live never had a YSA branch), I was about ready to go completely inactive.  There was nothing for me on Sundays, I'd sit alone in all 3 meetings, and my calling with the Cubs was for the mid-week.  Then right before last October's General Conference it was announced that a YSA branch was going to be formed at long last (it had been pushed for for years, but the Stake always resisted for whatever reason.)  Of course everyone asks me if I was going to attend, and every time I have to explain that being 32 I was over the age limit.  About a month after the formation though, the Stake calls me, and I'm once again the clerk (I had been the clerk before while in college, something they didn't even realize.)  Everything's changed.  Overnight I went from some face in the crowd to one of the old men in the room.  I'm now in a unique position where I can use my experience to help direct how the branch runs and even how things work between us and the Stake.

Why do I share my story?  Because unless you have a truly exceptional Bishop and ward, there won't be any stepping up to make the YSAs feel socialized.  As President Hinckley said: "Every member needs three things: a friend, a responsibility, and nurturing with the good word of God."  Sure the ward will easily do the last two (almost always with the Primary in the case of the calling, I've found it to be quite rare for a YSA to be called into any other program), but there are reasons why "a friend" is listed first.  Is this because of any issues with bishop training or program layout?  No more than the kind of issues that crop up when the majority of a leader's focus is on families.  YSAs (especially in low member populations like where I live), don't fit in the traditional ward layouts, so they all too often fall through the cracks.

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, ERayR said:

  Sounds right if your address is Great and Spacious Building.

I know the former Bishop of that ward.  He is very active on youtube.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know.

This seems to be a different generation.

"Ask not what your ward can do for you, ask what you can do for your ward".

Quote

 

 1 Now behold, a marvelous work is about to come forth among the children of men.

 2 Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day.

 3 Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are calledto the work;

 4 For behold the field is white already to harvest; and lo, he that thrusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul;

 

Because you can't make friends you find no reason to go to church?

Odd.

 

 

[Five Solas]

9 hours ago, ERayR said:

It does seem to me that those who make the most noise about agency are those most in favor of chaos.

Agency (LDS used to call it "free agency") is one of the hallmarks of the LDS religion, is it not?  Just go to lds.org and type it into the search box.  Whether it's fair to call the results "noise"--it certainly generates an awful lot of links & content. 

I find this remarkable, ERayR.  The whole debate in the "Council in Heaven" was over this very question of agency (LDS Jesus wanted it, LDS Lucifer didn't).  This was soon followed by a "War in Heaven" over the same question.  And here you seem to be playing devil's advocate--those who favor agency, favor chaos.  Ergo, LDS must not be permitted to choose their wards (even though some on this thread tell us they have done exactly that, with good results).     

You're not a secret hyper-Calvinist masquerading as a Mormon, are you?  How else do you explain yourself?

;0)

--Erik

[notHagoth7]

 

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

...Because you can't make friends you find no reason to go to church?

Odd.

While I agree that each person has an opportunity to find their own way to pitch in and contribute, there's nothing odd about someone whose social connections are fading with an organization to *want* to withdraw further.

Sometimes, those who lack most in the social graces have the *strongest* need for association - because it is one of the things that is most rare (and therefore precious) to them. 

(Speaking from personal experience.) 

 

Reminds me of something my father taught long ago...

Edited October 4, 2016 by notHagoth7

[Curious_About_Everything]

10 hours ago, ERayR said:

What is ironic is the constant cacophony to change the church...

I am curious about that as well.  I asked somebody here about the idea of joining an organization while hoping it will change to their liking.  This practice is prevalent in our time.

However, I am now wondering how this declaration might be giving the parishioners the idea that they indeed can change the institution.

2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

Source: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/26?lang=eng

Does this mean the church cannot change without member approval?

If that is true, does it work retroactively?  That is to say, if the managers of the church move forward with a decision without seeking common consent first, are they obligated to rollback the decision if the people rebel against it?

Does this foster the idea that the church is malleable by the members?

If that is true, why is there an abundance of rhetoric on strict obedience?

If power is in the hands of the people, why are the people reprimanded for exercising the power given to them?

[Five Solas]

On 10/2/2016 at 11:32 PM, mfbukowski said:

He's just lurking and cleaning up some loose ends and last minute questions before he comes back.  

Any time you'd like a guest speaker for your Gospel Doctrine class, just let me know.

:0)

--Erik

[Five Solas]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The real shocker on this video was Elder Christofferson's claim that 72% of YSA leave the church/go inactive by age 20. That number is huge.

I realize that international numbers and the vast number of inactive youth will naturally become a part of this number but 72% !!! Wow! Clearly this was an important factor in restructuring the YSA program and also the mission age but I don't think they've gotten to the heart of the problem. I don't know that they have dug deep enough to understand the disconnect between younger generations and the church (and organized religion more generally).

Happy to have the thread address other implications from the video--and not just be a discussion of agency. 

Regarding 72% attrition, I will say it feeds a suspicion I've held for some time that the LDS Church's claims of growth are a fabrication, not subject to any sort of independent verification.  Just think about the math here--how many new converts would you have to generate to offset this much loss?  I'm gonna guess it's a good deal more than the LDS Church claims in its annual review. 

I don't think the math works--and I'd love to see someone take the trouble to prove it either way. 

--Erik

[ERayR]

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Agency (LDS used to call it "free agency") is one of the hallmarks of the LDS religion, is it not?  Just go to lds.org and type it into the search box.  Whether it's fair to call the results "noise"--it certainly generates an awful lot of links & content. 

I find this remarkable, ERayR.  The whole debate in the "Council in Heaven" was over this very question of agency (LDS Jesus wanted it, LDS Lucifer didn't).  This was soon followed by a "War in Heaven" over the same question.  And here you seem to be playing devil's advocate--those who favor agency, favor chaos.  Ergo, LDS must not be permitted to choose their wards (even though some on this thread tell us they have done exactly that, with good results).     

You're not a secret hyper-Calvinist masquerading as a Mormon, are you?  How else do you explain yourself?

;0)

--Erik

It has always been agency(the right to choose).  The Church, as an entity, also has the right not to offer you everything you want.  That leaves you with the choice you have always had, to accept or reject what is offered. Agency(free agency if you will) does not entitle you to everything you want.  It only entitles you to be able to choose between what is available.

[Five Solas]

18 minutes ago, ERayR said:

It has always been agency(the right to choose).  The Church, as an entity, also has the right not to offer you everything you want.  That leaves you with the choice you have always had, to accept or reject what is offered. Agency(free agency if you will) does not entitle you to everything you want.  It only entitles you to be able to choose between what is available.

I think I get what you're saying.  The LDS Church, as an "entity," has agency too--and its agency takes precedence over the individual.  It's an interesting idea, for sure. 

--Erik

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

I think I get what you're saying.  The LDS Church, as an "entity," has agency too--and its agency takes precedence over the individual.  It's an interesting idea, for sure. 

--Erik

Agency is not having everything you want.  It is being able to make choices.  Ones right to agency ends where it infringes on an others agency.

The Church's purpose and goal is to preach the gospel, teach its members and provide the saving ordinances to its members.  It is within the agency of the Church to accomplish that in the manner that its leadership deems best (Officers guided by the best revelation they can receive).  They do not force you to accept it(thus preserving your right to choose (agency).  There is no 'taking precedence' each has their agency preserved.  Thee Church to offer what they want, the way the want and you and me to reject or accept what is offered.

[Kenngo1969]

 

Quote

 

The real shocker on this video was Elder Christofferson's claim that 72% of YSA leave the church/go inactive by age 20. That number is huge.

 

 

Quote

 

Yeah, I'm with ya there, buddy!  Church should change to be more popular! (Cf. Matthew 16:24, John 15:18-20, 2 Nephi 9:18, 1 Nephi 8:21-27).

 

 

Quote

 

You don't find 72% attrition to be extremely high? Is it that high because Satan and his minions are more persuasive than God and His angels? Or is there another reason?

 

No, I’m not suggesting that neither the Church of Jesus Christ nor its leaders should be concerned about retention rates among youth and young adults (or about retention of people of any age, for that matter).  However, my outlook, attitudes, and perspective on a number of things have changed significantly since I was a young teen, an older teen, and a young adult.  (And that is so even though I was never particularly rebellious or lacking in faith during that period.)  Still, the intervening years have brought a certain perspective and wisdom.  As perceptive and receptive as I was of the things of God in my youth, I like to think that with my advancing age has come a certain amount of wisdom, and that (my imperfections notwithstanding, and surely, those are legion) I am even more perceptive and receptive of the things of God today.  For instance, while I never doubted that President Benson was a Prophet of God and, while, on a certain level, I appreciated his seminal sermon “Beware of Pride” when it was first delivered, I have come to appreciate its increasing salience more and more as the ways of God and the ways of the world have continued to diverge in the intervening years.  The same is true of The Family: A Proclamation to the World.  And those are only two of many such examples I could cite.

I think the Lord’s invitation to Israel, delivered through Moses 4,000 years ago, has continuing relevance to Latter-day Saints of all ages today.  “Now, therefore,” said the Lord, “if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then shall ye be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people” (Exodus 19:6).  I think Paul’s invitation to the Corinthians in Chapter 6 of that letter, even though it was delivered nearly 2,000 years ago and to a different audience, is relevant and applicable to Latter-day Saints of all ages today.  “Come ye out from among [the world],” he wrote, “and be ye separate” (v. 17).  Similarly, I think Peter’s description of the Saints of his day ought to apply with equal force to the Saints (of all ages) of our day.  He wrote, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (2 Peter 2:9; this is actually a reiteration of what Moses told the House of Israel: see Exodus 19:6).  Not impressed or persuaded by the words of Moses, Peter, or Paul?  OK.  How about the words of Jesus Christ Himself?  While this counsel was directed specifically to the Apostles, I think it can and should be applied to the Church’s membership at large (see 1 Nephi 19:23).  Said He, “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.  If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (John 15:18-19).

No, no one likes to be scorned, or ridiculed, or made fun of.  No one likes to be thought of as less popular (or in any other way less acceptable) than one’s peers or associates, and this is especially so among the young.  However, changing the Church and Kingdom of God on the Earth to meet the world’s whims or to gain its acceptance is not the answer.  The Church is commanded to be “a light unto the world,” “a city that cannot be hid,” a beacon on a hill (Matthew 5:14).  It cannot do that if it is simply one dim light among, and on the same level as, many other dim lights.  (See Matthew 5:14.)  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be a beacon if the Brethren falter in courage and cease to call the Saints and the elect forth out the world.  As long as the Church of Jesus Christ maintains its distinctiveness, there will always be a hope that the lost sheep and the prodigals (young and old) will return.  “Train up a child in the way he should go,”  wrote the writer of Proverbs, “and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).  Of course, the writer of Proverbs said nothing about a temporary departure from the path by the young, who (we hold out hope) will return later.  If, however, the Church of Jesus Christ changes after the fashion of the world, there will be nothing left for the lost sheep and the prodigals (of all ages) to return to.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Kenngo1969