Latest MormonLeak: Ministering to YSA

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

What would you suppose would be his personal pay off?  Curious of your thoughts.  Notoriety? 

 

I wouldn't be able to say.  There are plenty of possible pay offs--the feelings of satisfaction and pride you get being able to give people what they want when others couldn't is a possible one--but I wouldn't try to guess what his might be.

[HappyJackWagon]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

How long has it been since they decided to really focus on getting members to observe the Sabbath more strictly?  A couple of years?  I wonder if there's been any sign of improvement and benefit for the Church? 

Locally it's been every week for the past month

Quote

Bluebell-It would be interesting if our society has reached a stage where people are willing to spend so much of their own time and energy to create transparency for transparency's sake and not to serve any other purpose.

I don't think you understand the benefit of transparency. Transparency is information. Increased information allows for better informed choices. Transparency allows for greater use of individual agency. Transparency is a big deal because it allows for individuals to choose for themselves instead of having organizations or a hierarchy decide for them what they need to know, what is important, and how they should process information.

Transparency = increased freedom of choice and agency.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I get that.  I don't know if i believe it, but i understand that's what he has stated. 

It would be interesting if our society has reached a stage where people are willing to spend so much of their own time and energy to create transparency for transparency's sake and not to serve any other purpose.  

It is rare for people to expend limited resources like energy and time for no personal pay off.

People expend their energy and time for things that have no personal pay off.  We generally refer to it as charitable service.  McKnight obviously believes that this is a worthy cause.

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Millennial's refuse to be micro managed...and that is what the church is selling...micro management...this younger generation doesn't like being told what to do and how to do it...they've taken a much greater say in how they run their own lives... the church has made major inroads into so many facades of the choices that individuals make in their lives...its become suffocating...and the younger generation is saying NO You won't tell me how many earings I can wear, that baring my shoulders is wrong...when I don't even wear garments, that getting a tattoo is a sin when it impacts no one but themselves...they refuse to have an organization tell them who they can or can't love and what constitutes marriage and they are pushing back and I don't see the church ever giving in to allow them to live their life without the church wanting to micro manage every aspect of their life and this is what is pushing this generation away...the very thing that the church is is what is driving them away...I don't see this trend ever reversing itself.

Those are good points.  I do believe in market forces, and as the church experiences market forces by way of declining revenues, I still hold out hope that it will adjust.  I don't know if these adjustments will come quickly enough to effectively mitigate the declines they will see.  I also don't have confidence that leaders who are at least two generations removed from the youth, have the capacity to make the kinds of changes that need to be made in order to effectively steer the old ship Zion before it hits an iceberg.  

[bluebell]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Locally it's been every week for the past month

I don't think you understand the benefit of transparency. Transparency is information. Increased information allows for better informed choices. Transparency allows for greater use of individual agency. Transparency is a big deal because it allows for individuals to choose for themselves instead of having organizations or a hierarchy decide for them what they need to know, what is important, and how they should process information.

Transparency = increased freedom of choice and agency.

I do get that, but he claims that he's doing it for the transparency, not for increased freedom of choice and agency.   We could argue that this latest leak, for example, doesn't offer much in terms of a payout in added freedom of choice or agency since the basics were already known.  

How do you feel this information will give the average member more freedom of choice or agency? 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

People expend their energy and time for things that have no personal pay off.  We generally refer to it as charitable service.  McKnight obviously believes that this is a worthy cause.

Charitable service definitely has it's own personal pay off though.  It makes us feel better about our own problems, helps us to love other people more, makes us less selfish, helps us to feel closer to God, etc.

[Duncan]

I think transparency is better for uncovering sinister things like coverups or anything illegal but a mission president seminar agenda from 1999, like yawn.....................hmm, when did I have tacos?

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wouldn't be able to say.  There are plenty of possible pay offs--the feelings of satisfaction and pride you get being able to give people what they want when others couldn't is a possible one--but I wouldn't try to guess what his might be.

I'll take a stab at it, and guess what McKnight's motives are.  

We've seen this trajectory countless times before. Internal critic claims pure motives (just trying to help the Church be better), but becomes more strident and militant as time goes on and the mask comes off. Dehlin, Kelly, etc. 

This trajectory ends in excommunication. In this case, McKnight is a clearinghouse for leaked material from the COB. 

It is clear to me that he wants to embarrass/hurt the Church, and bring about social change affecting the Church. And I believe that he will inevitably overplay his hand (if he hasn't already).

I honestly don't know why it takes so long to excommunicate these people. It would be clear as day if his stake president called him in and asked him to explain his motives. That meeting would produce charges for a discipline council. He would venture into other things besides "transparency" (and who appointed him as the arbiter forcing the Church's hand there?).

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think transparency is better for uncovering sinister things like coverups or anything illegal but a mission president seminar agenda from 1999, like yawn.....................hmm, when did I have tacos?

You're not hiding tacos are you?  I think I just figured out what I want for lunch.  This thread is good for something after all.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'll take a stab at it, and guess what McKnight's motives are.  

We've seen this trajectory countless times before. Internal critic claims pure motives (just trying to help the Church be better), but becomes more strident and militant as time goes on and the mask comes off. Dehlin, Kelly, etc. 

This trajectory ends in excommunication. In this case, McKnight is a clearinghouse for leaked material from the COB. 

It is clear to me that he wants to embarrass/hurt the Church, and bring about social change affecting the Church. And I believe that he will inevitably overplay his hand (if he hasn't already).

I honestly don't know why it takes so long to excommunicate these people. It would be clear as day if his stake president called him in and asked him to explain his motives. That meeting would produce charges for a discipline council. He would venture into other things besides "transparency" (and who appointed him as the arbiter forcing the Church's hand there?).

McKnight resigned his membership in 2014.

As for who appointed him - nobody, obviously.  I assume he saw the need for transparency and decided to do something about it.

[Duncan]

Just now, ksfisher said:

You're not hiding tacos are you?  I think I just figured out what I want for lunch.  This thread is good for something after all.

I aim to please I had Caesar Salad and Coke, but don't tell my dentist

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'll take a stab at it, and guess what McKnight's motives are.  

We've seen this trajectory countless times before. Internal critic claims pure motives (just trying to help the Church be better), but becomes more strident and militant as time goes on and the mask comes off. Dehlin, Kelly, etc. 

This trajectory ends in excommunication. In this case, McKnight is a clearinghouse for leaked material from the COB. 

It is clear to me that he wants to embarrass/hurt the Church, and bring about social change affecting the Church. And I believe that he will inevitably overplay his hand (if he hasn't already).

I honestly don't know why it takes so long to excommunicate these people. It would be clear as day if his stake president called him in and asked him to explain his motives. That meeting would produce charges for a discipline council. He would venture into other things besides "transparency" (and who appointed him as the arbiter forcing the Church's hand there?).

I really have no idea.  I also struggle with people who appoint themselves the arbiter of other people's transparency but i think i could understand it if it was to serve a greater good.  Just doing it 'so that everyone will know everything' seems like a fairly lame reason to me.

[JAHS]

In my opinion I think the YSA (emphasis on "adult") should be more responsible for their own level of activity in the church. You can't force someone to heaven by holding their hand and dragging them there. It's OK to have the support and programs and help there for those who sincerely have a desire to remain active, but there comes a point in time where as adults they should be expected to use their agency to choose for themselves. You also cannot force someone to gain a strong testimony of the church, the lack of which is most likely the underlying reason for  the inactivity.  I don't know if this makes much sense, and I know we are supposed to leave the 99 to go rescue the one, but it just seems to me like we are trying to take over responsibility for their salvation when the responsibility is ultimately theirs. We can be there for them but they gotta wanna.  

[rongo]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

McKnight resigned his membership in 2014.

As for who appointed him - nobody, obviously.  I assume he saw the need for transparency and decided to do something about it.

Is that so? Well, I stand corrected. I'm sure he's totally impartial, objective, and fair when it comes to the Church.  

Kind of makes it less appropriate that he's appointed himself the transparency cop, doesn't it?

[Duncan]

I wonder what Mcknight's views on transparency would be if someone were to hack his stuff and put it online

[bluebell]

My two cents-

I think the majority of the problem stems from a lot of youth growing up without ever gaining a personal testimony in (or being converted to) the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is espoused by the LDS church.

I think in the past, the basic inertia of members' lives help keep them active.  Staying active in the church as an adult was what a person did just as much as getting married and getting a full time job was what a person did.  I'm sure there are tons of members who went their whole lives until they died (bearing testimonies along the way) without ever being fully converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The lives of millennials are governed by different inertia now though--Be yourself, Do your own thing, You are perfect just the way you are, No one can tell you who to be or what to do, question everything, etc.  

Plus, what society said was moral and what the church said was moral were similar enough in previous decades that members could easily be members but also usually fit in comfortably with the majority of people who weren't.  But now, while morality continues to be judged by whatever society says is acceptable, what society says is acceptable is usually directly at odds with the teachings of the church.  

So 1) being a member is not comfortable at all anymore in our culture in general, and 2) rather than inertia holding them to the church with little effort (like it did for earlier generations), it often actively works against their activity in church.  

All that means that being sincerely converted to the gospel (or not being converted) has way more of an impact on activity rates for YSA's than it used to.  Staying a member takes more real commitment and sincere belief than it has for a while.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

Is that so? Well, I stand corrected. I'm sure he's totally impartial, objective, and fair when it comes to the Church.  

Kind of makes it less appropriate that he's appointed himself the transparency cop, doesn't it?

It does naturally call into question his claims of neutrality.

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

Is that so? Well, I stand corrected. I'm sure he's totally impartial, objective, and fair when it comes to the Church.  

Kind of makes it less appropriate that he's appointed himself the transparency cop, doesn't it?

No it doesn't.

And I imagine he is as "totally impartial, objective, and fair when it comes to the Church" as you and the rest of us here are.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It does naturally call into question his claims of neutrality.

Why?  Would an active member be neutral?

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I wonder what Mcknight's views on transparency would be if someone were to hack his stuff and put it online

Not really a relevant comparison.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Nobody knew how much are being lost yearly, or how many were considered less active. No one knew how big the problem was or is--that's why we have to ask is it better or worse now.  Of course we can all see the young adults are leaving or fading away in droves. 

Saying that makes me wonder where in the world Scott Lloyd has gone.  He used to always get after people who said people were leaving in big numbers and percentages.  Anyway, he must be taking a break. 

Actually that's not entirely clear. The self-identification surveys have had this data for years. Millennials not being religious is a fairly well studied issue in social science. Whether this is just the US finally catching up to European secularization trends or is temporary due to young people having families later isn't clear. (By and large people become less religious when single and more religious once they have children - but the age of having children keeps getting pushed back and the number of children is smaller)

Honestly if the Church is only seeing trends of 50% that's remarkable. I'd have predicted much higher rates of disaffection based upon what I've seen in the ARIS and Pew data.

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

MormonLeaks published this document today.  It's a report titled Ministering to Young Single Adults prepared by Elder Batemen with assistance from a handful of other general authorities.

It's from 2005 and should not come as a surprise to anyone who has served in a ward or stake leadership position in the past ten years (probably not a surprise to any active adult member).

The opening paragraph discusses the high inactivity rate of our young single adults.  The report goes on to detail the reasons (they believe) for this inactivity rate.  And, of course, it discusses what local leaders can do to help minister to YSA.

In terms of the numbers, the one that most stands out to me is that they believe they are losing 45,000 of these young single adults every year.  That's about half of the increase in membership (for the relevant years) of new children of record.  Very sad.

From my perspective, there have been changes at the local level since this report.  And I think that all levels of leadership have made great efforts to better minister to the YSA.  Hopefully, that 45,000 number has dropped in the 11 years since this report was written.

I think the numbers are probably even lower, especially when you take into consideration the church's definition of "active."

"Active

Participating on a regular basis, such as attending meetings, observing the principles of the gospel, and accepting Church callings; Under current Church policy, those who attend meetings at least once a month."

 

http://tech.lds.org/wiki/Glossary

 

I go to church about once a month or so (usually just sacrament, which might be surprising to some), but I am right on the threshold of being an active member.  

 

With regard to the young generations, I don't think they are willing to accept many of the church's historical truth claims and correlated narrative.  They can look on the internet and see for themselves many of the issues/problems associated with topics like: translation of the BoM, BoA, historicity of the BoM, polygamy, and the list goes on. I do think that some of the leadership is out of touch with this reality and might be in denial about how the church is hemorrhaging in the younger generations. It will be interesting to see what the dynamic of the church looks like 25-50 years from now. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[Duncan]

Just now, rockpond said:

Not really a relevant comparison.

how so? would he not like a McKnightleaks website? 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I do get that, but he claims that he's doing it for the transparency, not for increased freedom of choice and agency.   We could argue that this latest leak, for example, doesn't offer much in terms of a payout in added freedom of choice or agency since the basics were already known.  

How do you feel this information will give the average member more freedom of choice or agency? 

I think the basics were assumed, but not known. There were anecdotal claims of percentages etc but no one really knew. People could extrapolate from their ward or stake info, but no one knew for the church because the church wouldn't say. Now we actually do know so we no longer are left to make assumptions.

It gives us freedom to accurately try to address the issue instead of arguing back and forth about whether or not the issue even exists. That's a start. It also allows individuals to assess the level of success currently being achieved by the church's current strategy. If it's judged to be inadequate or less than ideal, it may prompt individuals to think about and come up with alternatives to try to help. When there is no acknowledgement that a problem even exists it is impossible for individuals to engage the problem. Now people can engage in various levels.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

how so? would he not like a McKnightleaks website? 

You don't see a difference between a private individual and a 501c3 that demands 10% of its members income in return for full participation, owns a number of large businesses, and then chooses not to disclose any of the inner workings?