12 Reasons Millenials are Over Church

[Bobbieaware]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think you've hit upon a challenge for those who leave the Church. Supposedly many become atheist, because it can be very hard to separate the idea of the gospel of Christ from the Mormon version, because it is often so thoroughly programmed as a social pattern and cultural expectation in Mormonism. But there are more and more post-Mormon Christians coming out of that finding guidance from others on how to know Christ and identify Christ without the Mormon lens.

It does seem it would be quite difficult transitioning from belief in a God who makes mericiful provision for all of his children, including the unrighteousness and rebellious dead (see D&C 138), to eventually accept Christ as Savior before the final judgement, to belief in a God who makes no such provision fo the salvation of the dead. And it would be equally difficult transitioning from belief in a God who saves all of his children, except for those relative relative few who willfully reject Christ's open invitation to salvation, to belief in a God who seems perfectly willing to send untold millions, if not billions, of his human creation to an endless hell of unimaginable suffering. Difficult in deed. 

Edited February 24, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

Yet...Jesus of Nazareth, when asking if he was loved, responded not only "feed my sheep", but also "feed my lambs."

If a church isn't adapting to meet the needs of such...I think it is a tragic misstep.

Please note:

I am *not* insisting that core principles/objectives change. Instead, the strategies and tactics used to support/accomplish such should be nimble/adaptable enough to keep pace with the needs of lambs.

What to do when a person's or groups "wants" become their "needs?"

After going back and rereading the "Twelve Reasons" they do not seem any different in essence from the scores of reasons before that people left the church. Those reasons are not peculiar to millenials in the LDS church.

As Robert F. Smith said in an earlier post, this life was not meant to be a cakewalk spiritually. Obtaining a testimony is a difficult experience. It was meant to be "pearl of great price" that one would sell all that he had to obtain. In order to obtain such a testimony, one must be willing to adapt their lives, align their wants and desires to do and be what God wants, not the other way around. It is essential that we do what God wants us to do, if we are to become joint-heirs with Christ of God's Kingdom. Each person is responsible for obtaining their own testimony. The church provides the guidance, the authority, and the ordinances to make this possible.

The message has not changed over the centuries. People's acceptance of that message has waxed and waned during that period of time. Even during the times of very strict rules under the Mosaic Law there were long periods of "waning." Periods of time when people made God over in their own image to fit the lifestyles they wished to live.

The case with the millenials is no different. The Church is doing much to try to communicate. However, the core message remains the same, and it must. It is a message that historically has not been all that popular, and it never will be. It is only going to get worse as religious tolerance wanes along with religious beliefs. As more and more people watch general conference just to find something to disagree with and to belittle the speakers and their message.

Glenn

[Yirgacheffe]

37 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

It does seem it would be quite difficult transitioning from belief in a God who makes mericiful provision for all of his children, including the unrighteousness and rebellious dead (see D&C 138), to eventually accept Christ as Savior before the final judgement, to belief in a God who makes no such provision fo the salvation of the dead. And it would be equally difficult transitioning from belief in a God who saves all of his children, except for those relative relative few who willfully reject Christ's open invitation to salvation, to belief in a God who seems perfectly willing to send untold millions, if not billions, of his human creation to an endless hell of unimaginable suffering. Difficult in deed. 

Christianity offers a wide variety of beliefs on who is and isn't saved so it isn't the stark choice you present here.

[notHagoth7]

17 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, I do know LDS history. Thanks for asking. But despite many examples of past adaptations the prospect of changing cultural traditions seems to be a scary idea.

As we mentioned earlier, it is an interesting conundrum for how to deal with millenials who do not like micromanagement and high demand religion despite research that shows high demand religions are more stable than the "namby pamby" ones  

But I don't think there is anything to celebrate regarding LDS church activation levels for Millenials. Pretending like the church isn't suffering from the same phenomena as the rest of the churches is putting ones head in the sand.

Then how about simply doing what Joseph did?

Teach them true principles, and let them govern themselves.

[notHagoth7]

3 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Then how about simply doing what Joseph did?

Teach them true principles, and let them govern themselves.

Better yet, how about we start by humbly asking them to patiently teach *us* how we can better serve them?

And we sit down and shut up...pen and paper at the ready.

Better yet, how about we also prep the introverts among them in advance by tipping them off what it is we'll be asking...so they can be prepared with their answer vocally or in writing or via playing a relevant music video...to express the gem of helpful thoughts hidden there.

[notHagoth7]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

What to do when a person's or groups "wants" become their "needs?"

In psychology, that supposedly is exactly what happens when someone's wants repeatedly get denied/ignored.  (I'm not a psychologist, but did supposedly sleep at a Holiday Inn Express once.)

Had a relative who, while a toddler, never knew where her next food was gonna come from. So years later, after being adopted by a sibling, when food was no longer a scarcity, she still hoarded and stashed it...as a security cushion. That's reportedly/sadly common for kids with a background like that. There was a time in my life when for similar reasons, what would otherwise have been a normal want escalated into being a need...for quite some time. 

Is that possibly what's happened here?

If so (and they would be better suited to answer the question than you or I would be), a profound apology might be in order...for starters. On further thought, methinks I might owe someone such a thing too.

I'll likely get back to take a swing at some of the rest of your q later.  (As in, "a swing and a miss!") ;0)

Edited February 24, 2017 by notHagoth7

[notHagoth7]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You sure you're not Hagoth?  

Brother from another mother. (As the family joke went, my brother's mother married my father....something that's true of everyone's parents...)

(Siamese even....at least that's my story...so nobody slather on the facts. I'm much too fragile of a soul to handle cognitive dissonance.)

Did Hagoth rock the boat whenever possible too? ;0)

If so, that be m'brother. (I'll claim him....He might not reciprocate.) :0)

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by notHagoth7

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

What would those changes look like then?  I am seriously curious to know.  

That's a good question. The article itself addresses some of the changes that might help. In addition to those I think adjusting the style of worship could be helpful for some people. In general, I think providing choices and variety for people to experience religion in ways that are meaningful to them, would go a long way, instead of expecting everyone to fit into the mold of attending 3 hours of church weekly where the lessons are continually recycled (often 3 on the same subject in one day), the organ music feels like a funeral dirge, speakers read conference talks. Those things work for some people and not for others.

I think the style of worship should be completely open for change as it is primarily cultural. In the past I have forgotten that the church is a tool to bring me to worship God in a meaningful way. It is not to be worshipped itself. The church is a box holding a pearl of great price. It is a tool that can be very beautiful in some ways to some people. But it is not the end result. It is only worthwhile insofar as it presents opportunities to the people to worship God. With that in mind there are many things that could change.

-length & quantity of meetings

-focus of worship from peripheral issues to focus on worshipping deity

-music

-appeals to external authorities

 

[notHagoth7]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's a good question...

If I may butt in, for starters, may I *highly* recommend visiting the Genesis Project in Provo some Sunday morning?

The pastor and his wife are complete gems. Their humble but effective outreach would blow your minds/hearts.

The interaction might give someone a functional idea or three. (Cross pollination)

Edited February 24, 2017 by notHagoth7

[notHagoth7]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

"I'm even aware of active temple recommend holding millennials who Gasp...drink coffee and frequently enter Starbuck's... oh sin of sin."

So they lie in temple recommends or what? (Serious question, not making accusations...just don't understand how else they could do both)

Calm,that would be so easy.

[notHagoth7]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

How typical of the overly pious person that thinks they have God's one true religion.  What pablum.

God's true religion is actually love....in action. Anything else is a counterfeit.

Jesus' brother outlined it in unmistakable detail.

Can we see eye to eye on that?

Edited February 24, 2017 by notHagoth7

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

For starters, I *highly* recommend visiting the Genesis Project in Provo some Sunday morning.

The pastor and his wife are complete gems. Their humble but effective outreach would blow your minds/hearts.

I don't live anywhere near there. Could you describe how their services work?

[Meadowchik]

15 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

None.  If the LDS Church case, if the majority are not interested in Celestial glory for eternity and choose their smartphones instead, so be it.  More fun for the rest of us.

Sure, if you see it from that limited viewpoint.

But in all fairness today's youth have something none of us in history ever had...that is having never grown up without internet information. And knowledge is powerful.

So let's allow that the Church might actually be struggling with weaknesses of its own.

[CA Steve]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's a good question. The article itself addresses some of the changes that might help. In addition to those I think adjusting the style of worship could be helpful for some people. In general, I think providing choices and variety for people to experience religion in ways that are meaningful to them, would go a long way, instead of expecting everyone to fit into the mold of attending 3 hours of church weekly where the lessons are continually recycled (often 3 on the same subject in one day), the organ music feels like a funeral dirge, speakers read conference talks. Those things work for some people and not for others.

I think the style of worship should be completely open for change as it is primarily cultural. In the past I have forgotten that the church is a tool to bring me to worship God in a meaningful way. It is not to be worshipped itself. The church is a box holding a pearl of great price. It is a tool that can be very beautiful in some ways to some people. But it is not the end result. It is only worthwhile insofar as it presents opportunities to the people to worship God. With that in mind there are many things that could change.

-length & quantity of meetings

-focus of worship from peripheral issues to focus on worshipping deity

-music

-appeals to external authorities

 

It ought to be fairly easy to do some experimentation using singles wards to find out what might appeal more to the younger generation.

One could create a singles ward leadership comprised completely of people 35 years and younger and allow them to create and run their own meeting schedule, content, dress standards, and so on within a few basic guidelines and under loose supervision of the stake high council. Successful ideas could be incorporated into a template for singles wards and maybe even imported into regular ward activities.

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

 

As one who is in the older generation..I don't judge..I can't..they are just smarter and more in the know than I ever was....this is why they may not be so teachable.???

[notHagoth7]

17 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

What would those changes look like then?  I am seriously curious to know.  

Oops...replied to the wrong post. My attempt to rudely butt in and suggest *a* viable/partial answer to your question is here.

Edited February 24, 2017 by notHagoth7

[notHagoth7]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't live anywhere near there. Could you describe how their services work?

-short but powerful meetings. Breaks for smokers and to mingle/meet/fellowship.

-focus of worship from peripheral issues to focus on worshipping deity

-music...music...and music...that young hearts can seriously relate to 

-zero appeals to external authorities. Appeals to scripture, to the spirit, to the intellect, and especially to love. Very meaty fare. Zero pablum.

Edited February 24, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Johnnie Cake]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

"I'm even aware of active temple recommend holding millennials who Gasp...drink coffee and frequently enter Starbuck's... oh sin of sin."

So they lie in temple recommends or what? (Serious question, not making accusations...just don't understand how else they could do both)

Calm,  Serious question. Do you lie when you get your temple recommend?  Eating meat in summer is against the word of wisdom and yet I'm guessing you're guilty of ignoring that little gem in the WoW as are most Mormon's.  So when you ask do they lie...my guess is that they just see a lot more room in parts of the WoW  just as you find more room in other parts that you chose to ignore to accommodate your interpretation of the WoW.  For many millennials...its just not a big deal.  Funny...but its as if they've taken on the attitude of their great grandparents...from the 1920-30 who drank tea and coffee, held recommends and saw no problem doing so.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

-short but powerful meetings. Breaks for smokers and to mingle/meet/fellowship.

-focus of worship from peripheral issues to focus on worshipping deity

-music...music...and music...that young hearts can seriously relate to 

-zero appeals to external authorities. Appeals to scripture, to the spirit, to the intellect, and especially to love. Very meaty fare. Zero pablum.

Is it run with a similar sacrament meeting structure- opening hymn, prayer, announcements, sacrament, talk, song, talk, talk, song, closing prayer presided over by a bishopric/leadership?

 

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's a good question. The article itself addresses some of the changes that might help. In addition to those I think adjusting the style of worship could be helpful for some people. In general, I think providing choices and variety for people to experience religion in ways that are meaningful to them, would go a long way, instead of expecting everyone to fit into the mold of attending 3 hours of church weekly where the lessons are continually recycled (often 3 on the same subject in one day), the organ music feels like a funeral dirge, speakers read conference talks. Those things work for some people and not for others.

I think the style of worship should be completely open for change as it is primarily cultural. In the past I have forgotten that the church is a tool to bring me to worship God in a meaningful way. It is not to be worshipped itself. The church is a box holding a pearl of great price. It is a tool that can be very beautiful in some ways to some people. But it is not the end result. It is only worthwhile insofar as it presents opportunities to the people to worship God. With that in mind there are many things that could change.

-length & quantity of meetings

-focus of worship from peripheral issues to focus on worshipping deity

-music

-appeals to external authorities

 

Sacrament meeting last week, Jesus was mentioned specifically only one time. Sure He's there in a round about way. Maybe my thinking is askew since my faith crisis, but we really need to talk about His life more. I know we don't have much to go on, but it would be nice to have more of it.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Tacenda

[notHagoth7]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

As one who is in the older generation..I don't judge..I can't..they are just smarter and more in the know than I ever was....this is why they may not be so teachable.???

I respectfully disagree that they may not be as teachable. Just not by our dry, outdated methods. (Ezekiel 37 comes to mind.)

I agree that you've hit the nail on the head why teaching them is a greater challenge. They *are* smarter. And bore/glaze over rapidly.

If we don't pivot and adapt, we lose them. Simple as that.

(Hypocrite warning: my estranged children struggle with faith...and are not even sure I'm the kinda guy they want to like/respect, or ever listen to.)

Edited February 24, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Ouagadougou]

8 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

I'll say this much.

Based on a number of things I've been reflecting on for a while that are found in Daniel (contemporary with Laman...of Lamanite fame) I'm coming to interpret "skins" to be better understood as "countenance". Both reflecting (or *not* reflecting) a person's character.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/countenance

This growing impression (that 19th-century "skin" might be better understood in the 21st century as "countenance") solidified for me earlier today, when I visited someone I have loved for decades. And that person's appearance and highly-unusual behavior towards me today was the most profound sudden shift I have ever seen in a person. It troubled me enough that I called a close relative to please investigate and provide a double check.

To call what I observed a darkening of countenance (not skin) would be the most accurate way to describe it. 

While composing and reflecting on this post, I explored in the D&C the concept of Heaven putting a curse on someone. It troubles me...especially in the context of such things as the closing verse in the OT...and I hope to see such a thing lifted...soon. *Very* soon.

I'll say this much:

You are moving the goal post.

For example:

2 Nephi 5: 21

 "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

Alma 3:6

"And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."

3 Nephi 2: 15

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;"

The Book of Mormon Stories pictures even had the Lamanites depicted as "dark-skinned."   

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35666_eng.pdf

I can provide you with numerous quotes from prophets that show for over 150 years the church believed this was a curse of dark/black skin.  

Isn't the BoM suppose to be the most correct book on Earth?  So skin no longer means skin? 

Nice try to deflect that the church preached racist doctrine for over 150 years.  Your answer, justification, and cognitive dissonance are reasons why Millineals (and others are upset with the church).  You say/claim one thing -- and all they have to do is go do a quick Google search and expose the fact that you moved the goal post.  

Edited February 24, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[Jeanne]

Just now, notHagoth7 said:

I respectfully disagree that they may not be as teachable. Just not by our dry, outdated methods. (Ezekiel 37 comes to mind.)

I agree that you've hit the nail on the head why teaching them is a greater challenge. They *are* smarter. And bore/glaze over rapidly.

If we don't pivot and adapt, we lose them. Simple as that.

(Hypocrite warning: my estranged children struggle with faith...and are not even sure I'm the kinda guy they want to like/respect, or ever listen to.)

I think agree with you very much here. 

[notHagoth7]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is it run with a similar sacrament meeting structure- opening hymn, prayer, announcements, sacrament, talk, song, talk, talk, song, closing prayer presided over by a bishopric/leadership?

Structure? We don't need no stinkin' badges! ;0)

Led by husband/wife pastoral team. Amazing people. A loving outreach in perhaps the deepest-hurting corner in all of Utah County. (2 buildings away from a stew kitchen/homeless shelter.)

Opens with up-tempo heart-tugging music by the husband/wife team, and a few backup people singing amazing, upbeat devotional music. Often also with a devotional music video or two.

They have a structure...but you wouldn't notice it. You get too caught up in the love conveyed in the message...and in the crystal-clear love from the pastor conveying it. 

Edited February 24, 2017 by notHagoth7