Asked to teach a class about answering and dealing with hard questions

[smac97]

On 2/14/2017 at 7:08 AM, rongo said:

Any recommendations to add to this list of resources (discussion will precede)?

1) Personal experience with the Holy Ghost (prayer, scripture study, living the restored gospel).

2) Parents

3) Church leaders

4) Friends

5) http://www.lds.org

5a) https://www.lds.org/topics/essays

6) http://en.fairmormon.org/Table_of_Contents

I would also recommend that youth consider turning to "analog" sources.  That is . . . books.  Many (most?) online resources simply summarize or skim off of more substantive printed materials.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

On 2/19/2017 at 8:44 AM, Five Solas said:

This is pretty insightful, rongo. 

Courtesy of "MormonLeaks" - we've learned the LDS Church has a big problem with retention among Millennials.  72% attrition by age 20 according to a speaker in one of the videos (I'm better at remembering numbers than names).  

That tells us a significant number of those kids aren't going to stick.  Perhaps not 72% in that particular room, but it will be a material number much greater than zero. 

As you fielded their questions, were there one or two topics where the audience reaction was less positive, more skeptical than with the others?  And on the basis of your experience, would you say the LDS Church's biggest problem related to Youth and YSA attrition is cultural (e.g., "modesty questions"), historical (e.g., multiple versions of FV), doctrinal/theological (including your temple questions, guidance on SSM), or something else?

I do realize that may be a lot to ask from a single data point. 

My father was a YSA bishop for six years, and I have been a bishop over two different wards, and a bishopric counselor in two different wards other than those. Retention and activity of youth and young adults is a major problem in the Church.

There were no worries, concerns, or skepticism (at least not apparent ones) from among the 242 that we had. If anything, several expressed that they have questions, but that they aren't doubts, concerns, or worries. I told them that that's a good thing --- people who think about things and have questions are a) interested in things, b) thinkers, and c) more likely to enjoy studying and learning about the gospel (and thus less likely to find anything in life "boring").

In my experience, the Church's biggest problem related to youth and YSA attrition isn't a unique problem for the Church --- it's a ubiquitous social problem. LDS families are to blame for our share of it, because we hope for better among LDS, but it is not an LDS problem. It is lack of resiliency, competency, and maturity --- and it impacts much more than simply testimony. I'm in my 14th year of public school teaching as well, and there has been a marked decline in these areas for all youth --- it's just tragic and disappointing when LDS youth are no better than their peers. 

The claim that the internet has eroded testimonies of our youth is wrong, in my view. That would imply that they (overall, as a whole) think about and process critical claims, compare them to their base of knowledge, and decide to abandon ship. In my experience, the large numbers of youth and young people who go missing or become inactive is overwhelmingly due to lack of life resiliency and competency, and not related to testimony concerns at all. And where this occurs, I blame their families and upbringings. There are still many LDS families that raise their children to be competent, sharp, resilient, ambitious young adults --- and these stand apart from the large number who are lackluster. The difference is obvious, and leaders can do as much as possible, but they can't ultimately live their lives for them or force them to live more effectively. 

[rongo]

On 2/18/2017 at 7:28 PM, rongo said:

The remaining time was reserved for questions. Some groups didn't have a lot of time; other groups had a lot more time. Here were questions I remember:

1. Lots of Word of Wisdom questions (why?).

2. Questions about what is done in the temple aside from baptisms and sealings.

3. Many gay marriage questions. The most memorable was from a girl who is less-active and comes from a bad home. She was apologetic for continuing to ask questions, but I encouraged her and told her her questions were good. She was sincere. I met her at girls camp this summer, and have covered for some of her teachers' classes on my free hour when needed. Once, when I heard her swear, I said to her, "Jasmine, CTR." People around her asked each other and me, "What does CTR mean?" and I answered, "She knows what it means." (I could see that she got the message and understood). Her grandparents had taken her out of the school because they didn't like the circle of friends influencing her. 

4. Some science vs. religion type questions.

5. A few Sabbath day questions.

6. *A lot* of modesty questions (including piercings, tattoos, clothing, etc.).

7. Two women and the priesthood questions. The kids actually gave the answers adult apologists would give on their own, without prompting. For one of the classes asking about this, I shared the fact of Eliza R. Snow's efficacious healings for cholera in Morgan, Utah (family history, plus a history of the stake in my possession). I emphasized that I have never been able to find where women who healed by the laying on of hands stated priesthood authority, and that it appeared that it was done by faith in this case as well. 

8. One kid asked a specific question about Book of Mormon names that showed some erudition on his part (background study and knowledge). I am getting back to him personally with information for him.

I remembered another question that led to a good discussion. A girl asked when the Holy Ghost would get a body. We were able to see what the scriptures say, and I emphasized that we don't know a lot about this and that much of what there is outside of scripture is speculation.

[Kevin Barney]

I'm glad it went so well, rongo. I did something sort of like this (albeit longer and on a much smaller scale) about a decade ago. Here is my report on that event:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2007/10/22/youth-fireside-report/

 

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, Kevin Barney said:

I'm glad it went so well, rongo. I did something sort of like this (albeit longer and on a much smaller scale) about a decade ago. Here is my report on that event:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2007/10/22/youth-fireside-report/

 

I read this.  You did a good job.  Is there anything that you would change now after 10 Years?

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

There were no worries, concerns, or skepticism (at least not apparent ones) from among the 242 that we had. If anything, several expressed that they have questions, but that they aren't doubts, concerns, or worries. I told them that that's a good thing --- people who think about things and have questions are a) interested in things, b) thinkers, and c) more likely to enjoy studying and learning about the gospel (and thus less likely to find anything in life "boring").

In my experience, the Church's biggest problem related to youth and YSA attrition isn't a unique problem for the Church --- it's a ubiquitous social problem. LDS families are to blame for our share of it, because we hope for better among LDS, but it is not an LDS problem. It is lack of resiliency, competency, and maturity --- and it impacts much more than simply testimony. I'm in my 14th year of public school teaching as well, and there has been a marked decline in these areas for all youth --- it's just tragic and disappointing when LDS youth are no better than their peers. 

The claim that the internet has eroded testimonies of our youth is wrong, in my view. That would imply that they (overall, as a whole) think about and process critical claims, compare them to their base of knowledge, and decide to abandon ship. In my experience, the large numbers of youth and young people who go missing or become inactive is overwhelmingly due to lack of life resiliency and competency, and not related to testimony concerns at all. And where this occurs, I blame their families and upbringings. There are still many LDS families that raise their children to be competent, sharp, resilient, ambitious young adults --- and these stand apart from the large number who are lackluster. The difference is obvious, and leaders can do as much as possible, but they can't ultimately live their lives for them or force them to live more effectively. 

Blue section.  I completely agree this problem isn't unique to the LDS church, you can see this in countless studies out there, the rise of the "nones" in the younger generations.  Religions have a harder time connecting to these people, and they don't find that religions are as relevant or necessary in their lives.  This is a problem for these religions, they need to find relevancy in order to continue to be viable for large numbers of people in a changing world.

Green section.  I disagree in that I don't think this is a lack of resiliency, competency, and maturity on the part of the individuals, but I would turn this around and say that those descriptions are true with respect to the institutions.  The LDS church itself and other religious institutions are showing their lack of resiliency, competency and maturity by specifically not responding to the changing environment in a digital communication age, and the needs of the younger generation.  

This is precisely why this generation is leaving organized religion in droves.  Not because individuals aren't mature, I think quite the oppose, they may be acting more maturely than the institution in many ways.  Institutions haven't responded to the society at large, we are way behind the cultural trends, stuck in the past on so many issues, fighting positive changes culturally, fearful of these changes labeling them as satanic and evil.  We need better leadership, we need a leader like Pope Francis(not perfect by any means) at the helm who can take the LDS church in a bold new direction.  

Red section.  This one is very sad to me.  You claim to want to help those struggling, but this quote shows lack of empathy and understanding on your part.  When you are willing to just blame the individuals that leave and their families as lacking life resiliency and competency, this truly is not what the gospel message of love and charity is all about.  Looking at active LDS as superior to those that leave the faith is prideful and hurtful to those that choose to live their lives outside the LDS tradition.  Very sad that you would see things in such judgmental terms.  

[rongo]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Blue section.  I completely agree this problem isn't unique to the LDS church, you can see this in countless studies out there, the rise of the "nones" in the younger generations.  Religions have a harder time connecting to these people, and they don't find that religions are as relevant or necessary in their lives.  This is a problem for these religions, they need to find relevancy in order to continue to be viable for large numbers of people in a changing world.

Churches that try to "connect with" and appeal to the "nones" don't have any lasting vitality --- precisely because they are trying to appeal to the "nones." In 2117 (assuming that Christ hasn't come yet), people will still debate whether the Church has relevance to and is reaching the "nones," but the churches in 2017 that have flash-in-the-pan short-lived success at temporarily holding their interest won't even be a thought. I think everyone knows and agrees that if we were having great success attracting the "nones" to us, the commitments, commandments, and covenants of the restored gospel would soon have them looking for something less demanding.  

Green section.  I disagree in that I don't think this is a lack of resiliency, competency, and maturity on the part of the individuals, but I would turn this around and say that those descriptions are true with respect to the institutions.  The LDS church itself and other religious institutions are showing their lack of resiliency, competency and maturity by specifically not responding to the changing environment in a digital communication age, and the needs of the younger generation.

That's an interesting thought. It is the institutions, not the youth of today, that are immature, non-resilient, and incompetent. That doesn't square with my experience at all, but it's an interesting take.

The Church, and other churches, sure are "responding to the changing environment in a digital communication age." At least, they are trying to. Old-fashioned fossils like me don't find these forms of outreach appealing, but a lot of time, effort, and money are being directed at precisely that. 

This is precisely why this generation is leaving organized religion in droves.  Not because individuals aren't mature, I think quite the oppose, they may be acting more maturely than the institution in many ways.

Again, an intriguing thought and take on this. Again, it doesn't square with my experience. The extreme short attention spans and lack of commitment on the part of most young people doesn't strike me as very mature at all, but you give me something to think about.  

We need better leadership, we need a leader like Pope Francis(not perfect by any means) at the helm who can take the LDS church in a bold new direction.

Gag. I know Catholics who are troubled by the direction Pope Francis is taking the Catholic Church, too.

Red section.  This one is very sad to me.  You claim to want to help those struggling, but this quote shows lack of empathy and understanding on your part.  When you are willing to just blame the individuals that leave and their families as lacking life resiliency and competency, this truly is not what the gospel message of love and charity is all about.  Looking at active LDS as superior to those that leave the faith is prideful and hurtful to those that choose to live their lives outside the LDS tradition.  Very sad that you would see things in such judgmental terms.

I think you're confusing seeing things as they are as "being judgmental." If you think about it, that sword cuts in all possible directions. Was your response to me "being judgmental?"  Of course not! 

I have nothing but empathy and understanding for families and individuals who don't get the full (or very many at all) blessings of the restored gospel because they don't live it, and observing that this is the case doesn't mean I lack empathy and understanding. I also didn't have those who leave the faith in mind --- I was much more thinking of those who are nominally active in the Church (attendance), but who don't instill a lasting legacy in their children. 

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

Churches that try to "connect with" and appeal to the "nones" don't have any lasting vitality --- precisely because they are trying to appeal to the "nones." In 2117 (assuming that Christ hasn't come yet), people will still debate whether the Church has relevance to and is reaching the "nones," but the churches in 2017 that have flash-in-the-pan short-lived success at temporarily holding their interest won't even be a thought. I think everyone knows and agrees that if we were having great success attracting the "nones" to us, the commitments, commandments, and covenants of the restored gospel would soon have them looking for something less demanding.  

I think the "nones" represent a trend in culture in the modern western world and especially in the USA.  If you believe that churches should not try to become relevant to the younger generations, then you are essentially signing up for a niche irrelevant church that appeals to very few people. Look at today's Western Europe if you want to see what Christianity in the USA will be come if things continue on this trajectory.  This is a poor strategic move, if the church does indeed believe the same way you do.  

15 hours ago, rongo said:

That's an interesting thought. It is the institutions, not the youth of today, that are immature, non-resilient, and incompetent. That doesn't square with my experience at all, but it's an interesting take.

The Church, and other churches, sure are "responding to the changing environment in a digital communication age." At least, they are trying to. Old-fashioned fossils like me don't find these forms of outreach appealing, but a lot of time, effort, and money are being directed at precisely that. 

I think they are trying to respond, but again the phenomenon of the "nones" is the evidence that they aren't succeeding at becoming relevant to this younger generation, no matter how hard they may be trying.  

15 hours ago, rongo said:

Gag. I know Catholics who are troubled by the direction Pope Francis is taking the Catholic Church, too.

Yep, there will always be a portion of people uncomfortable with bold changes in direction, thats to be expected.  

15 hours ago, rongo said:

I think you're confusing seeing things as they are as "being judgmental." If you think about it, that sword cuts in all possible directions. Was your response to me "being judgmental?"  Of course not! 

I have nothing but empathy and understanding for families and individuals who don't get the full (or very many at all) blessings of the restored gospel because they don't live it, and observing that this is the case doesn't mean I lack empathy and understanding. I also didn't have those who leave the faith in mind --- I was much more thinking of those who are nominally active in the Church (attendance), but who don't instill a lasting legacy in their children

I can't blame you for thinking in these terms, these terms are commonly spoken within Mormon culture.  But I see things from a different perspective.  I do think you're being judgmental, and yes, that is a judgment on my part to point it out, so you got me there.  The thing is, this is a common problem for members, I think its a prideful position to say things like "families and individuals who don't get the full blessings of the restored gospel because they don't live it".  Turn that statement around completely and a person could say that Mormons don't get the blessings of a secular life because they don't live it.  Its the starting position that puts your perspective on a higher pedestal, this position of God's favor.  It goes back to the Jewish tradition, and its common among many faiths.  I personally see it as prideful, judgmental and divisive.  

As for those members who are "nominally active... but who don't instill a lasting legacy in their children", your assumption is a prideful one of superiority.  You assume that those people are missing a more enlightened view that you possess.  Perhaps those people see things quite differently.  Perhaps you could learn from these nominally active people, and perhaps their nominal activity isn't missing out on anything at all, perhaps its just a different way of living that has its pros and cons, just like your chosen path has pros and cons.  This is what I'm hoping you can see.  Seeing others as different, not inferior, not missing blessings that you are so lucky to have, not as less than.  

Edited February 21, 2017 by hope_for_things

[juliann]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  Seeing others as different, not inferior, not missing blessings that you are so lucky to have, not as less than.  

I didn't see his observations setting up a scale of inferiority. Do we really want a system in which no one is allowed to express "blessings" from our own experience?  Different social groups are going to value different blessings, LDS expressing their priorities does not prevent other groups from expressing theirs. And this is an LDS board.

What Rongo has, aside from a vantage point of bishop, is a long career in the school system. That makes the difference, in my opinion. He has a unique view that few can share. So perhaps it isn't  fair to deny his real life observations a result of Mormon church culture only.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

I didn't see his observations setting up a scale of inferiority. Do we really want a system in which no one is allowed to express "blessings" from our own experience?  Different social groups are going to value different blessings, LDS expressing their priorities does not prevent other groups from expressing theirs. And this is an LDS board.

What Rongo has, aside from a vantage point of bishop, is a long career in the school system. That makes the difference, in my opinion. He has a unique view that few can share. So perhaps it isn't  fair to deny his real life observations a result of Mormon church culture only.

Certainly we will be biased towards our preferences.  This is totally understandable.  I just think that in order to show mutual respect we need to be careful not to marginalize others by considering our perspectives as superior.  Honestly, this is super hard and I fail at it on a regular basis, and likely am failing at it in this very conversation.  I think that this is what it means to empathize truly as well as love unconditionally.  To me, those are central pillars in the Christian gospel, and that we should aspire to as Mormons.

I think our Mormon culture, because of severe persecution over the years, has developed a mentality of divisiveness and sensitivity that has exacerbated this us vs. them mentality.  Why can't our Mormon blessings, just be different (not superior), but different than the blessings of others.  We can call something good, without also calling the other bad or less than.  That's all I'm getting at here.  

Not meaning to call out Rongo too severely other than to just raise this to his attention, that as a person who's gone/going through a faith deconstruction/reconstruction, I'm sensitive to how some of that language feels to me, and how it might feel to others as well. 

[Gray]

18 hours ago, rongo said:

Churches that try to "connect with" and appeal to the "nones" don't have any lasting vitality --- precisely because they are trying to appeal to the "nones." In 2117 (assuming that Christ hasn't come yet), people will still debate whether the Church has relevance to and is reaching the "nones," but the churches in 2017 that have flash-in-the-pan short-lived success at temporarily holding their interest won't even be a thought. I think everyone knows and agrees that if we were having great success attracting the "nones" to us, the commitments, commandments, and covenants of the restored gospel would soon have them looking for something less demanding.  

 

What churches do you have in mind?

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

I think our Mormon culture, because of severe persecution over the years, has developed a mentality of divisiveness and sensitivity that has exacerbated this us vs. them mentality.  Why can't our Mormon blessings, just be different (not superior), but different than the blessings of others.  We can call something good, without also calling the other bad or less than.  That's all I'm getting at here.   

I think the best place to demonstrate that is in church. Whenever possible, I follow up a "the world" trope with positives about "the world." 

This, however, is a message board and to come down that hard and personally on standard LDS belief is to also invalidate that viewpoint. I also struggle with this because there is a point where it will become impossible to even converse when we are saddled with the obligation to express everyone else's viewpoints. I think, at least here, there is a pretty clear gulf between those who like to demonize the other side and those who are merely expressing their own side, if that makes sense. 

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think the best place to demonstrate that is in church. Whenever possible, I follow up a "the world" trope with positives about "the world." 

This, however, is a message board and to come down that hard and personally on standard LDS belief is to also invalidate that viewpoint. I also struggle with this because there is a point where it will become impossible to even converse when we are saddled with the obligation to express everyone else's viewpoints. I think, at least here, there is a pretty clear gulf between those who like to demonize the other side and those who are merely expressing their own side, if that makes sense. 

Thanks, I'll think about what you're saying here, and I appreciate the feedback.  I find that I end up trying to stand up for the minority opinion, but the audience on this message board is much different.  I really do appreciate the work Rongo is doing, I have shared earlier comments, suggestions and thoughts on this thread.  I wasn't trying to invalidate his viewpoint, and I see what you're saying.  

[rongo]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 Not meaning to call out Rongo too severely . . .  .  I wasn't trying to invalidate his viewpoint

No worries at all, hope! I don't feel called out, or invalidated at all. This is a good discussion!

I think the "nones" represent a trend in culture in the modern western world and especially in the USA.

Yes, they do. For now. I think it's too early to say just how the pendulum is swinging, and for how long, and for how long it will.

If you believe that churches should not try to become relevant to the younger generations, then you are essentially signing up for a niche irrelevant church that appeals to very few people.

I don't think anyone is saying or thinks that churches shouldn't try to become relevant to younger generations. I think the line of demarcation is the lengths that should or should not be gone to. And opportunity cost of different options. 

And, despite unpopularity with liberal/progressive elements of society, it is completely inaccurate to say that we "appeal to very few people." Somehow, we manage to convince 200-300,000 people per year to get baptized --- mostly in Western countries. 

And, would it actually be a positive development if we were able to convince 1,000,000+ people per year, mostly "nones," to be baptized?

Look at today's Western Europe if you want to see what Christianity in the USA will be come if things continue on this trajectory.  This is a poor strategic move, if the church does indeed believe the same way you do.

One positive thing about the Church (and missionary-oriented Christianity --- i.e., LDS, JW, 7DA, Pentacostals, etc.) in Western Europe is that it/they stand in stark contrast to the surrounding culture. People who are searching for traditional, conservative churches are drawn to them --- they are easy to find, due to the contrast. I loved my time in Germany, and one thing that impressed me was how many "searchers" there are who are dissatisfied with the trajectory of society. We didn't always win in vying for them, but there are many people, still, who are a good fit for Mormonism and other authoritative, conservative churches that do missionary work.

I think they are trying to respond, but again the phenomenon of the "nones" is the evidence that they aren't succeeding at becoming relevant to this younger generation, no matter how hard they may be trying.

Again, I think it's much too early to say confidently where this "nones" trajectory leads. Many young people see things very differently decades later --- in spades when the experiments of youth don't end up very well. It could be that the "nones" experience pulls people back to authoritative churches later.

Yep, there will always be a portion of people uncomfortable with bold changes in direction, thats to be expected.  

I do think you're being judgmental, and yes, that is a judgment on my part to point it out, so you got me there.

I didn't really get you there --- I just wanted to touch on the trend of calling any and all observations as "judging."

The thing is, this is a common problem for members,

And others, too!  I think active Mormons get a fair amount of judging from ex/inactive Mormons thrown their way, too. 

I think its a prideful position to say things like "families and individuals who don't get the full blessings of the restored gospel because they don't live it".  Turn that statement around completely and a person could say that Mormons don't get the blessings of a secular life because they don't live it.

That's a good point --- the same observation holds true from a secular perspective. I know many people who think that I and my family are needlessly shackled by a stifling and controlling religion. We don't feel that way, but I get where people who do are coming from.

 

As for those members who are "nominally active... but who don't instill a lasting legacy in their children", your assumption is a prideful one of superiority.  You assume that those people are missing a more enlightened view that you possess.  Perhaps those people see things quite differently.  Perhaps you could learn from these nominally active people, and perhaps their nominal activity isn't missing out on anything at all, perhaps its just a different way of living that has its pros and cons, just like your chosen path has pros and cons.  This is what I'm hoping you can see.  Seeing others as different, not inferior, not missing blessings that you are so lucky to have, not as less than.

There are certainly some who feel liberated and invigorated by what I consider to be "nominal" membership --- but in their experience, they aren't missing anything at all. Agreed. 

[rongo]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

What churches do you have in mind?

Non-denominational ones, primarily, that heavily use a "come as you are," "where the band is rockin,' and the coffee hot," "no commitments and no commandments" approach, coupled with overt appeals to teenagers and 20-somethings. These are ubiquitous --- they're everywhere. And, while they get short-term surges, many of these youth's tenures with them are short-lived --- it doesn't seem to have any lasting impact on them, and they move on to the next thing.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Non-denominational ones, primarily, that heavily use a "come as you are," "where the band is rockin,' and the coffee hot," "no commitments and no commandments" approach, coupled with overt appeals to teenagers and 20-somethings. These are ubiquitous --- they're everywhere. And, while they get short-term surges, many of these youth's tenures with them are short-lived --- it doesn't seem to have any lasting impact on them, and they move on to the next thing.

Do these actually exist, or are they largely mythical? I'm somewhat skeptical.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Gray said:

Do these actually exist, or are they largely mythical? I'm somewhat skeptical.

Those kinds of non-denominational church's definitely exist and have significant appeal to certain demographics. They may not do everything right but at least they are trying. To Hope's point, I think the institution needs to try to be relevant to the people and stop attempting to cram every member into a one-size fits all kind of worship paradigm.

It reminds me of Sunday School. We have some teachers/leaders/parents who feel that the youth must attend the class to which they are assigned. It doesn't matter if there is zero connection with the teacher. It doesn't matter if the class is boring, or off topic, poorly planned, or poorly taught. It is assumed that the student owes the teacher attendance and engagement in the class. I would argue that it is the responsibility of the teacher to engage the student. Teach a class that is so interesting, so well thought out, prepared, and relevant that students want to attend. After all, the student is at church to be spiritually fed, not to stroke the ego of the teacher. But there are many who are offended if the student attends a different class. Instead of being happy the student is participating somewhere and enjoys their time at church, I've actually seen leaders remove kids from one class and place them into the class they were trying to avoid.

This is what the typical Sunday feels like to me. The church should be good enough that people want to attend, not guilted into attending out of duty. If it's not good enough, and for many people it isn't, then the church should adapt and try to become more relevant to the people it wants to attract. If it doesn't want to be relevant to the younger generation they should continue doing what they are doing and simply expect people to attend out of duty.

OR the church could experiment with new worship styles. After all, what is inherently wrong about having a guitar in church? Are brass instruments of the devil? Is the 3 speaker organization, where they stand behind a podium truly the only way to worship? Of course not. But we are stuck in tradition of the late 19th and 20th century and it's not working for many people today.

[rongo]

52 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It reminds me of Sunday School. We have some teachers/leaders/parents who feel that the youth must attend the class to which they are assigned. It doesn't matter if there is zero connection with the teacher. It doesn't matter if the class is boring, or off topic, poorly planned, or poorly taught. It is assumed that the student owes the teacher attendance and engagement in the class. I would argue that it is the responsibility of the teacher to engage the student. Teach a class that is so interesting, so well thought out, prepared, and relevant that students want to attend.

In a perfect world, yes, all teacher would be amazing, and all students would be grateful for that and would fully seize that opportunity. 

This goes back to my point earlier about competency and resiliency. Something that is sorely lacking in the world at large and in many LDS families in particular (many exceptions, too, of course) is the ability to behave socially appropriate (i.e., politely and courteously, properly, and respectfully) even when bored, or there is "zero connection with the teacher," etc. Swinging to the other extreme, and allowing students to not go to classes they find "boring," or "incompetently taught," or where they have "zero connection with the teacher," feeds into this vicious cycle of incompetence. It is precisely the youth who have been coddled through their formative years and groomed to be able to not go to church, or classes, to play on devices, to goof off and act up, etc. when they are bored, "not connected," or have struggling teachers --- it is precisely these youth who struggle with missions, marriage, and life. And we act shocked and stunned that they have problems with life. 

What really separates the men from the boys, in my view, is the families that raise their children to be outstanding, competent, resilient people even in substandard circumstances. These are the ones who can weather boring, incompetent teachers, and many other situations that many youth (and sadly, too many LDS youth, too) just can't or won't. And their parents blame the boring/incompetent/non-connecting teachers . . . 

Instead of being happy the student is participating somewhere and enjoys their time at church, I've actually seen leaders remove kids from one class and place them into the class they were trying to avoid.

My ward has a different challenge. We have 60+ youth, and we split our three classes strategically --- not according to age (they are mixed ages and genders, 12-18). We have some unique combinations and "rockpiles" (knots of friends) that need to be broken up for the youth and the teachers to be successful (certain youth will not behave when with certain friends. Parents are at a loss and powerless to help). Our Sunday School presidency has been very helpful in lovingly but firmly enforcing the classes we have set up. 

This probably makes you bristle, too, but if we let these certain youth "figure things out" and "find whom they connect with," they will disrupt things for everyone and never get anything out of it. We have some good teachers, too.

I think a laissez faire free-for-all becomes the inmates running the asylum.

[Calm]

"is assumed that the student owes the teacher attendance and engagement in the class"

In my many discussions with Primary and SS leaders over the decades about certain problem kids, it was always about developing relationships with their peers, not about teacher respect.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

In a perfect world, yes, all teacher would be amazing, and all students would be grateful for that and would fully seize that opportunity. 

This goes back to my point earlier about competency and resiliency. Something that is sorely lacking in the world at large and in many LDS families in particular (many exceptions, too, of course) is the ability to behave socially appropriate (i.e., politely and courteously, properly, and respectfully) even when bored, or there is "zero connection with the teacher," etc. Swinging to the other extreme, and allowing students to not go to classes they find "boring," or "incompetently taught," or where they have "zero connection with the teacher," feeds into this vicious cycle of incompetence. It is precisely the youth who have been coddled through their formative years and groomed to be able to not go to church, or classes, to play on devices, to goof off and act up, etc. when they are bored, "not connected," or have struggling teachers --- it is precisely these youth who struggle with missions, marriage, and life. And we act shocked and stunned that they have problems with life. 

What really separates the men from the boys, in my view, is the families that raise their children to be outstanding, competent, resilient people even in substandard circumstances. These are the ones who can weather boring, incompetent teachers, and many other situations that many youth (and sadly, too many LDS youth, too) just can't or won't. And their parents blame the boring/incompetent/non-connecting teachers . . . 

We can focus on how the student isn't "resilient" enough to cope with bad lessons, or we can focus on making lessons better. I sit politely in a gospel doctrine class that might literally be the worst class I've ever been in. Week after week the class shrinks as people decide to be elsewhere. What is the main problem? That people aren't polite enough to sit in a substandard class, or that the class is substandard? I've even discussed the class privately with the bishopric to make sure they were aware of how bad it is. They are. They've heard from many people and have witnessed it themselves yet they choose not to make a change. Why? Because they figure people will generally go where they are supposed to be so there is no reason to make a change that could potentially embarrass the teacher by getting a quick release.

 

My ward has a different challenge. We have 60+ youth, and we split our three classes strategically --- not according to age (they are mixed ages and genders, 12-18). We have some unique combinations and "rockpiles" (knots of friends) that need to be broken up for the youth and the teachers to be successful (certain youth will not behave when with certain friends. Parents are at a loss and powerless to help). Our Sunday School presidency has been very helpful in lovingly but firmly enforcing the classes we have set up. 

This probably makes you bristle, too, but if we let these certain youth "figure things out" and "find whom they connect with," they will disrupt things for everyone and never get anything out of it. We have some good teachers, too.

I think a laissez faire free-for-all becomes the inmates running the asylum.

Yes, it makes me bristle. The church is exists to fulfill the needs of the saints, not for the people to fulfill the needs of the church. I acknowledge that youth sometimes require a creative approach so I'm not necessarily faulting your strategy for organizing classes.  However, if a youth has a choice between attending his assigned class, his unassigned class, or no class at all, I would rather the leadership be flexible enough to let the youth and his parents take ownership of the worship experience and let him go where he will participate. Gone are the days when youth (and many others) will go where they are told simply because an authority told them to. Millennial's are less accepting of organizations and power structures, and are less likely to accept authoritative demands for what they should do, when, where, and how.

 

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Good comments and good discussion.  It makes me wonder what lens do we view the church through.  Does church exist for the people, or do people exist for the church?  If church exists for the people, then it ought to add value in abundant ways.  And that means adjusting to the needs of its members in proactively.  Not following rote formula from traditions past when those traditions no longer make sense.  

Do people know that Handel's Messiah was originally considered a secular production and wasn't performed as a worship service.  How long do we have to hold on to old culturally based traditions, or try to impose our western culture on all cultures in a worldwide church.  Your points about instruments being reverent enough, well what instruments were reverent enough for Brigham Young to use as they had dances in the Nauvoo temple?  

Things change, cultures change, lets not get stuck in a rut on these cultural items.  I think we are a very slow moving church, and we're losing people because the current church isn't adding value in their life.  We can change, we have the mechanisms for change in our canon (continuing revelation).  

[carbon dioxide]

On 2/20/2017 at 3:18 PM, hope_for_things said:

Blue section.  I completely agree this problem isn't unique to the LDS church, you can see this in countless studies out there, the rise of the "nones" in the younger generations.  Religions have a harder time connecting to these people, and they don't find that religions are as relevant or necessary in their lives.  This is a problem for these religions, they need to find relevancy in order to continue to be viable for large numbers of people in a changing world.

Green section.  I disagree in that I don't think this is a lack of resiliency, competency, and maturity on the part of the individuals, but I would turn this around and say that those descriptions are true with respect to the institutions.  The LDS church itself and other religious institutions are showing their lack of resiliency, competency and maturity by specifically not responding to the changing environment in a digital communication age, and the needs of the younger generation.  

This is precisely why this generation is leaving organized religion in droves.  Not because individuals aren't mature, I think quite the oppose, they may be acting more maturely than the institution in many ways.  Institutions haven't responded to the society at large, we are way behind the cultural trends, stuck in the past on so many issues, fighting positive changes culturally, fearful of these changes labeling them as satanic and evil.  We need better leadership, we need a leader like Pope Francis(not perfect by any means) at the helm who can take the LDS church in a bold new direction.  

Red section.  This one is very sad to me.  You claim to want to help those struggling, but this quote shows lack of empathy and understanding on your part.  When you are willing to just blame the individuals that leave and their families as lacking life resiliency and competency, this truly is not what the gospel message of love and charity is all about.  Looking at active LDS as superior to those that leave the faith is prideful and hurtful to those that choose to live their lives outside the LDS tradition.  Very sad that you would see things in such judgmental terms.  

Younger people tend not to care about religious things because they are young.  Same reason younger people have higher levels of not getting health insurance.  They see a long life ahead of them. Their focus is on relationships, school, career, and having a good time.  The whole death thing is usually far from their minds.  To them, old people need health insurance and religion.  As the young people get older and they see that the secular world only can solve so many problems, fill only so many needs, and really does not give them any hope as they age, they will trend more towards religion.  It is easier to focus on religion, God, meaning of life, as one life draws to an end.  Want to see a bunch of young people in church.  A large outbreak of bird flu will probably get a lot of people off their phones and into church.  Nothing focuses a person attention more than the increased possibility of death.  It tends to focus the mind and change perspectives real fast.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Does church exist for the people, or do people exist for the church?  If church exists for the people, then it ought to add value in abundant ways.  And that means adjusting to the needs of its members in proactively.  Not following rote formula from traditions past when those traditions no longer make sense. 

The Church exists to bring people to God.  God hasn't changed location.
Why should the Church take them to a different place than it has before?  And what on earth could be more valuable to the members?

[california boy]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Younger people tend not to care about religious things because they are young.  Same reason younger people have higher levels of not getting health insurance.  They see a long life ahead of them. Their focus is on relationships, school, career, and having a good time.  The whole death thing is usually far from their minds.  To them, old people need health insurance and religion.  As the young people get older and they see that the secular world only can solve so many problems, fill only so many needs, and really does not give them any hope as they age, they will trend more towards religion.  It is easier to focus on religion, God, meaning of life, as one life draws to an end.  Want to see a bunch of young people in church.  A large outbreak of bird flu will probably get a lot of people off their phones and into church.  Nothing focuses a person attention more than the increased possibility of death.  It tends to focus the mind and change perspectives real fast.

So has the 75% youth leaving the church been consistent with past decades?  Or is something different going on.  That is the question.  If, as you suggest, young people consistently leave the church and then later come back into the church as they age is normal behavior, then there is nothing to worry about or change.  All is well in Zion.  If however, both the church has changed and the youth's needs for church has changed, then that should be looked at only if you feel something should be done to correct the trends.

Much has been focused on the youth in this thread.  But is the issue even bigger than just the youth leaving the church.  A while back Pew reported that the fastest growing religion was no religion.  As I recall, 5 million people in the US had left organized religion in just the past 5 years.  The question should be asked, "What is causing people including youth to leave organized religion in such huge numbers."  It seems quite obvious, that religion no longer is meeting the needs of a lot of people.  Maybe some thought should be spent on what those needs are that are not being met?

Then there is the whole feeling of community.  While many still feel that community, others no longer do.  Is it because religion has been so politically connected to the right wing and half of the country does not think that way?  Is it easy to be Mormon and be a Democrat?  Or does the church members just wipe out that half of the US that supports Democratic beliefs.  (Remember over half of the country voted for a Democratic president)  In recent years, the majority of youth have gravitated towards the Democratic party faster than any period in recent history.  Is there room in the church for those that believe gays have just as much of a right to have a happy life with a family and a spouse?  Should they be able to feel their children are welcome in church?  Should those whose grandchildren are in a gay family feel their grandchildren should be welcome into a church community?  Has the church changed in being a welcoming place for all people?

And then there is the whole loss of historical credibility.  Many of the stories that were taught as truths turn out to not be.  Adam and Eve were not the first humans.  There was no global flood.  The earth is not 6,000 years old.  etc.  And then there is the whole separate Mormon historics that seem to also not be true.  Yes I know that many in the church still believe every word in the Bible and every historical account of Joseph Smith's story.  But perhaps the youth and many in organized religion in this Google age has found out for themselves that those are not facts, but just beliefs.  For many, churches have lost credibility as a place to find truth.

My belief is that the shift away from Mormonism and away from organized religion is not just because guitars are not allowed in sacrament meeting or that the law of chastity should be abolished or even that the teachers are boring.  There is much more to it than that.  Maybe it is easier for me to see the issues with being a part of the Mormon church from the outside rather then when I was active and a part of the church.  I can tell you this.  There is more than one reason why I am no longer a part of the Mormon church, and none of it has to do with whether guitars should be played in sacrament meeting or what ever "modern" entertainment needs to be added.  Simply put, religion is no longer welcoming to MANY. and especially the youth.  

Just my 2 cents worth.  Probably not worth considering.  

 

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by california boy

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Younger people tend not to care about religious things because they are young.  Same reason younger people have higher levels of not getting health insurance.  They see a long life ahead of them. Their focus is on relationships, school, career, and having a good time.  The whole death thing is usually far from their minds.  To them, old people need health insurance and religion.  As the young people get older and they see that the secular world only can solve so many problems, fill only so many needs, and really does not give them any hope as they age, they will trend more towards religion.  It is easier to focus on religion, God, meaning of life, as one life draws to an end.  Want to see a bunch of young people in church.  A large outbreak of bird flu will probably get a lot of people off their phones and into church.  Nothing focuses a person attention more than the increased possibility of death.  It tends to focus the mind and change perspectives real fast.

Sounds like speculation to me, are you aware of data that would back up your argument?  Do people statistically gravitate to religion as they get older?  Could something be changing in the trends with the younger generations today.  I question these assumptions and whether they are still representative of the trends we're seeing.