Latest MormonLeak: Ministering to YSA

[pogi]

2 hours 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.

The day is nigh approaching when any boundary will be considered too restrictive.  I for one see the value in creating boundaries and teaching principles to govern our lives by.  You call it micromanaging, I call it teaching.  I work with the youth in our ward, and what I see is the exact opposite of micromanagement.  The Aaronic priesthood quorums are designed for the youth to run the program, to make their own decisions and take leadership roles in the quorum.  They decide which activities to do, what lessons they want to learn about, they take turns teaching lessons, they choose which merit badges they want to work on, they plan their own campouts, they plan, shop for, and cook their own meals.  They hold leadership meetings and discuss concerns in the quorum and problem solve on their own.  The leaders are taking more of a supportive role in the back seat.  I have never heard of anyone leaving the church because it suggested that they shouldn't get a tattoo or wear too many ear rings.  We have two young men who come to our ward who wear ear rings.  Nobody even says anything, unless they are passing the sacrament.  Maybe you have been away from church too long, but micromanagement is not the program the church is running for the youth.  Quite the opposite - we are constantly discussing how we can best get out of their way.

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This only confirms that what the church has to offer is not working for millennials...

Or, it confirms that millennials are not working for what the church has to offer.  The question is how do you instill those values of sacrifice, faith/work, covenant, prayer, patience and temperance in a generation who are noncommittal, suffer from entitlement, live for instant gratification, and who despise boundaries?  If the church were to adapt to accommodate such attitudes, then the church will have nothing to offer of real value to anyone.  

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

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."

Interestingly Pew has Mormons activity as surprisingly high. Especially considering there is much more to being an active Mormon than an active protestant or Catholic.  The latest Pew data has our retention at 64% with their earlier study having us at 70%. So a slight drop. While a lot of news reports had our retention being much higher in the past that's almost certainly nonsense. The 90% figure you see bandied about appears to be based only on gss data with the dataset being far too small to be trustworthy. I'd be shocked were retention much higher than 70% in the 1970's. 

Getting back to retention that's across all ages since sample sizes are far too small to break out millennials in a meaningful way. Of those who self-identify as Mormon though the vast majority go to meetings regularly and engage in the typical Mormon behaviors. In fact Pew gets activity at such high levels I tend to be a little leery of their data. Pew actually has 65% of all self-identifying Mormons over the age of 18 as having current temple recommends for instance. When you consider that there are a lot of people between the ages of 18-25 who haven't been endowed that's a pretty staggering figure. They have 77% attending meetings weekly and not just monthly.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why?  Would an active member be neutral?

They wouldn't be, and they would silly to try to claim such.  Once you state "i agree with this" or "i don't agree with this" you aren't neutral anymore.  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Interestingly Pew has Mormons activity as surprisingly high. Especially considering there is much more to being an active Mormon than an active protestant or Catholic.  The latest Pew data has our retention at 64% with their earlier study having us at 70%. So a slight drop. While a lot of news reports had our retention being much higher in the past that's almost certainly nonsense. The 90% figure you see bandied about appears to be based only on gss data with the dataset being far too small to be trustworthy. I'd be shocked were retention much higher than 70% in the 1970's. 

Getting back to retention that's across all ages since sample sizes are far too small to break out millennials in a meaningful way. Of those who self-identify as Mormon though the vast majority go to meetings regularly and engage in the typical Mormon behaviors. In fact Pew gets activity at such high levels I tend to be a little leery of their data. Pew actually has 65% of all self-identifying Mormons over the age of 18 as having current temple recommends for instance. When you consider that there are a lot of people between the ages of 18-25 who haven't been endowed that's a pretty staggering figure. They have 77% attending meetings weekly and not just monthly.

When Pew surveys they require individuals to self-identify their religious affiliation. So it is accurate to say that among those who self-identify as Mormon, their activity level is high. But it doesn't speak to the activity level for the much larger number of people who the church identifies as Mormon.

 

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not really a relevant comparison.

Why isn't it relevant, given his stance that transparency in general is superior to non-transparency?

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They wouldn't be, and they would silly to try to claim such.  Once you state "i agree with this" or "i don't agree with this" you aren't neutral anymore.  

Agreed.  That's why I found the questioning of McKnight's neutrality to be ad hominem.

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Why isn't it relevant, given his stance that transparency in general is superior to non-transparency?

Because there is a difference between a private individual and a public 501c3 that demands donations/fealty from members around the globe in order to fully participate, is the holding entity for billions of dollars of investments/businesses, and does not publish anything about its inner workings.  

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

The day is nigh approaching when any boundary will be considered too restrictive.  I for one see the value in creating boundaries and teaching principles to govern our lives by.  You call it micromanaging, I call it teaching.  I work with the youth in our ward, and what I see is the exact opposite of micromanagement.  The Aaronic priesthood quorums are designed for the youth to run the program, to make their own decisions and take leadership roles in the quorum.  They decide which activities to do, what lessons they want to learn about, they take turns teaching lessons, they choose which merit badges they want to work on, they plan their own campouts, they plan, shop for, and cook their own meals.  They hold leadership meetings and discuss concerns in the quorum and problem solve on their own.  The leaders are taking more of a supportive role in the back seat.  I have never heard of anyone leaving the church because it suggested that they shouldn't get a tattoo or wear too many ear rings.  We have two young men who come to our ward who wear ear rings.  Nobody even says anything, unless they are passing the sacrament.  Maybe you have been away from church too long, but micromanagement is not the program the church is running for the youth.  Quite the opposite - we are constantly discussing how we can best get out of their way.

Or, it confirms that millennials are not working for what the church has to offer.  The question is how do you instill those values of sacrifice, faith/work, covenant, prayer, patience and temperance in a generation who are noncommittal, suffer from entitlement, live for instant gratification, and who despise boundaries?  If the church were to adapt to accommodate such attitudes, then the church will have nothing to offer of real value to anyone.  

 

I'm not sure I totally agree with your assessment of millenials but I do agree that the church should NOT just simply accommodate any attitudes of any generation that comes along.

However, I do think that there is a lot that we could re-evaluate.  Consider, for example, the basic structure of our church services.  Our three-hour block has remained the same for four decades.  Is there, perhaps, something that we could or should do differently... something that has nothing to do with the gospel but everything to do with how we come together as a faith community?

Edited March 21, 2017 by rockpond
Added "not" in the first sentence. Oops - big difference without that there.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Since the data is from 2005, it does not seem to be of much use to us.  As per the OP, we don't even know how relevant this data is to us today, for example.  We're still guessing.

I'm not seeing anything that has been leaked in this 12 year old document that can help us 'accurately address the issue' today (and people are still using anecdotal evidence).  Neither does it allow us to 'assess the level of success currently being achieved' because it does not give us any data we can use to assess that.  And finally, individuals that are in a position to come up with alternatives to help would likely not use this 12 year old document to do so because it doesn't offer much information that is relevant or up-to-date.

From a 'what good does the leak of this document accomplish' standpoint, it's pretty negligible.  That's one of the reasons that i doubt these leaks are about giving people more agency and freedom of choice.  

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Agreed.  That's why I found the questioning of McKnight's neutrality to be ad hominem.

Because there is a difference between a private individual and a public 501c3 that demands donations/fealty from members around the globe in order to fully participate, is the holding entity for billions of dollars of investments/businesses, and does not publish anything about its inner workings.  

If McKnight is releasing these documents just for transparency's sake and not in hopes of eventually supporting his personal beliefs about the church, that seems like a claim to neutrality.  That's what i was personally speaking to.

And, I find it problematic to suggest that it's o.k. to leak something from an organization you have nothing to do with but not from a private citizen that you have nothing to do with.  If transparency is always good (if transparency should exist for it's own sake and has nothing to do with serving a personal agenda), then logically it's good for everyone.  

Because really, the more I know about you the more freedom of choice and agency i have in knowing how best to interpret and deal with your claims (the same is true for me, and for everyone).  So, if leaks are really about that, then the only difference between an individual and an organization is scale.  

 

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Agreed.  That's why I found the questioning of McKnight's neutrality to be ad hominem.

Why? He is the one who made a big deal about his alleged neutrality. That makes it an issue then, after he highlights it. It isn't ad hominem to point that out. 

You pointed out that I am not impartial, either. That's absolutely true, but I'm not claiming to be.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Why? He is the one who made a big deal about his alleged neutrality. That makes it an issue then, after he highlights it. It isn't ad hominem to point that out. 

You pointed out that I am not impartial, either. That's absolutely true, but I'm not claiming to be.

I apologize... I guess I missed where he claimed neutrality.  If he made such a claim, than I agree, it isn't ad hominem to point it out.  I wasn't aware of that claim.

[Duncan]

Just now, rockpond said:

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?

any of its inner workings? That's too broad of a statement- I'm sure most people know YSA inactivity is a problem, these numbers are 12 years old now. I think  Mcknight should tell us how he spends his money, lead by example

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Since the data is from 2005, it does not seem to be of much use to us.  As per the OP, we don't even know how relevant this data is to us today, for example.  We're still guessing.

I'm not seeing anything that has been leaked in this 12 year old document that can help us 'accurately address the issue' today (and people are still using anecdotal evidence).  Neither does it allow us to 'assess the level of success currently being achieved' because it does not give us any data we can use to assess that.  And finally, individuals that are in a position to come up with alternatives to help would likely not use this 12 year old document to do so because it doesn't offer much information that is relevant or up-to-date.

From a 'what good does the leak of this document accomplish' standpoint, it's pretty negligible.  That's one of the reasons that i doubt these leaks are about giving people more agency and freedom of choice.  

We're still guessing a little bit but this puts us in a reliable ballpark. Has church attendance improved dramatically since 2005? We don't really know but there's also no real evidence to prove that it has improved.

Don't get me wrong. Do I think this leak tells us everything we need to know? Of course not. But claiming that it is worthless because it only gives us a little info is kind of silly. We should be asking the church for updated information. More info = more knowledge = more agency and ability to participate.

Can you explain to me why the church shouldn't release information like this? Why should we get our only (and very incomplete) information from a leaks website? The church has got to wake up to the reality of necessary transparency. The more it digs in its heals the more irrelevant and mismanaged it appears.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If McKnight is releasing these documents just for transparency's sake and not in hopes of eventually supporting his personal beliefs about the church, that seems like a claim to neutrality.  That's what i was personally speaking to.

And, I find it problematic to suggest that it's o.k. to leak something from an organization you have nothing to do with but not from a private citizen that you have nothing to do with.  If transparency is always good (if transparency should exist for it's own sake and has nothing to do with serving a personal agenda), then logically it's good for everyone.  

Because really, the more I know about you the more freedom of choice and agency i have in knowing how best to interpret and deal with your claims (the same is true for me, and for everyone).  So, if leaks are really about that, then the only difference between an individual and an organization is scale.  

 

I don't see that (what you're describing) as a claim of neutrality.

I didn't say it's okay for him to leak something that was taken from an organization without their permission.  I was just stating that I see a clear difference between an individual and the church.  If you don't see that difference, I'm not sure what to say.  But I'll be clear that I don't support what they are doing.  I don't think it's "okay" or justifiable.  I post the links here because I think, once the documents are out there, it is worthwhile for this group to discuss.  

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

any of its inner workings? That's too broad of a statement- I'm sure most people know YSA inactivity is a problem, these numbers are 12 years old now. I think  Mcknight should tell us how he spends his money, lead by example

I've explained the logic behind the difference.  See my previous posts.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't see that (what you're describing) as a claim of neutrality.

I didn't say it's okay for him to leak something that was taken from an organization without their permission.  I was just stating that I see a clear difference between an individual and the church.  If you don't see that difference, I'm not sure what to say.  But I'll be clear that I don't support what they are doing.  I don't think it's "okay" or justifiable.  I post the links here because I think, once the documents are out there, it is worthwhile for this group to discuss.  

I personally see a difference between an organization and a person because of my beliefs about privacy.  

But, if i look at the issue from McKnight's stated point of view (that transparency should exist for transparency's sake) then I don't see any difference between an organization and a person.   In the context of his beliefs about it, I don't see a difference.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

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

I suspect if McKnight started a Church that claimed it was God's kingdom on Earth and the sole arbiter of God's power and authority, he would be very transparent with how the Church was run.

If he wasn't, he'd be a total hypocrite.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I personally see a difference between an organization and a person because of my beliefs about privacy.  

But, if i look at the issue from McKnight's stated point of view (that transparency should exist for transparency's sake) then I don't see any difference between an organization and a person.   In the context of his beliefs about it, I don't see a difference.

I don't think we know enough about his beliefs to arrive at that conclusion.

[Duncan]

Just now, cinepro said:

I suspect if McKnight started a Church that claimed it was God's kingdom on Earth and the sole arbiter of God's power and authority, he would be very transparent with how the Church was run.

If he wasn't, he'd be a total hypocrite.

I wonder too if he posts everything he gets or is selective about it? 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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?

I don't think it matters what the organization’s tax status is. I think it is a good exercise to evaluate expectations for personal and organizational claims on integrity, civility, privacy and transparency, especially when deciding to leak (or disseminate leaks). Or, as in this thread, when focusing on the Church to support or challenge her expectations for integrity, civility, privacy and transparency.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I wonder too if he posts everything he gets or is selective about it? 

Based on the "boring-factor" of some of the stuff he's released, I'm guessing he doesn't hold back anything.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Based on the "boring-factor" of some of the stuff he's released, I'm guessing he doesn't hold back anything.

I've listened to a couple podcast interviews/panels that he participated on, and he claims to be holding back on a lot of material and only releasing things that he can realistically corroborate and he thinks is of public interest.  He wouldn't disclose what his specific methodology is for what he chooses to release vs. what he holds back though.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

However, I do think that there is a lot that we could re-evaluate.  Consider, for example, the basic structure of our church services.  Our three-hour block has remained the same for four decades.  Is there, perhaps, something that we could or should do differently... something that has nothing to do with the gospel but everything to do with how we come together as a faith community?

Sure, I think those are valid things to consider.  I don't know what that might look like, but if we can find more effective and faith promoting ways to come together as a community then I am all for it.  Shorter blocks?  You have my vote!  While such changes may be popular, I do see them as superficial and not sufficient to generate long-term faith commitment.  Nothing can take the place of sacred sacrifice, of nourishing the seed daily, of living the gospel ...if only it was a video game, then we might have more success with millennials!

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We're still guessing a little bit but this puts us in a reliable ballpark. Has church attendance improved dramatically since 2005? We don't really know but there's also no real evidence to prove that it has improved.

Don't get me wrong. Do I think this leak tells us everything we need to know? Of course not. But claiming that it is worthless because it only gives us a little info is kind of silly. We should be asking the church for updated information. More info = more knowledge = more agency and ability to participate.

Can you explain to me why the church shouldn't release information like this? Why should we get our only (and very incomplete) information from a leaks website? The church has got to wake up to the reality of necessary transparency. The more it digs in its heals the more irrelevant and mismanaged it appears.

I'm not so much claiming that it's worthless as i am asking for evidence of it's worth.  So far, it doesn't seem to offer much, and it seems silly not to acknowledge that.

I'd be fine with the church releasing more stuff, but i'm tired of this 'call to transparency' as if being transparent about everything will solve much.  It's hard for the church to even get people to go to meetings that are directly relevant to their own callings and yet we think that if the church just gave people access to other people's meetings it will usher in a new golden age of awesomeness?  I don't think it will.    

Most of the people who are interested in these leaks are interested because humans are naturally nosey, not because they planning to use the information to members' advantage.  Humans like to see what's happening behind the curtain because it satisfies our basic curiosity.  And sometimes, it's also just interesting to see how things work.  But do i think the church is less than it could be because people don't have access to all the data in these meetings?  I don't.  

 

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think we know enough about his beliefs to arrive at that conclusion.

I agree that more transparency on that from him would be helpful.