Latest MormonLeak: Ministering to YSA

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you are completely missing the reason millennials are leaving.  When I was growing up in the church, the narrative was completely believable.  Joseph Smith had a vision of God and Jesus Christ.  Moroni gave him a sacred record written on golden plates.  It contained the dealings God had with the people on the American continents.  The Book of Abraham was written by the hand of Abraham himself.  Joseph Smith didn't want to live the law of polygamy but was forced to by an angel with a flaming sword.  Nothing disputed that.  It all seemed logical and true.  What a story.  God had restored his gospel in these latter days.

How  much of that narrative has been brought into doubt?  How much evidence tells a different story.  They are forced to ignore real evidence in order to believe what seemed logical and true a generation ago. To downplay the significants of this is folly.  

I don't know what decade you grew up in, but 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 hasn't matched up since the 50's.  There was plenty of sex going on in my high school in the 60's.  No it is not about morality changing in my opinion.

I think Johnny Cakes brought some important points. Millennials don't easily buy into all the micro management the church likes to impose.  Tattoos, piercings, long hair, bare shoulders, don't date this person, if you are gay you are screwed for life.  The list goes on.  The truth is, millennials think NONE of this stuff matters or is connected to worthiness.  They just don'think God cares how many ear rings they are wearing.  Take a look at how much the institution of the church is responsible for all of this.  Blaming millennials is not going to fix the problem.  How can you be converted to a dogma that just doesn't make any sense to you and goes against everything you think of who God is and how he judges us.  What.  Pray more?  Is that going to change all these things that are unchangeable?

I think you nailed it.  Well said. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Bluebell...refer back to my first post in this thread...those who are plugged into all news Mormon were well aware of this...but those on the inside who merrily go long as if all is well I guarantee that this leak goes 180 degrees against what they believe to be true and will cause cog did and a major head snap.

Yes, I think many members would be shocked to learn that each year we lose a number of young single adults that is equivalent to half of the new children of record.  And that's just the loss rate for the group of 18-25 year olds. 

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

The other recently leaked document:
"Guideline responses to common questions"

Gives some rather superficial responses to some of the questions and sort of dodges a couple of them. But for the most part are some good quick responses without getting into a lot of details and history on the subjects.  

Superficial responses, creative dodges, and some outright falsehoods. 

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Millennials schmillennials, I don't care what you call them, if they want to be a member of God's church like everyone else they will have to accept what He wants us to do and believe in today and trust what our latter-day prophets say. If they don't want to do that then this church is not for them. Nevertheless they need to take responsibility for their own salvation and not expect the church to be "carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4: 14) just to satisfy what they think God should be. They will still be saved in one of God's kingdoms anyway. 

That kind of oversimplification coupled with confirmation bias is likely helping lead them out. 

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That kind of oversimplification coupled with confirmation bias is likely helping lead them out. 

They are leading themselves out. Do you think they want the church leaders to change doctrines without God's confirmation?
And if they don't believe that God is leading his church through these prophets then why do they want to be members? 
We should do all we can to help inspire them and strengthen testimonies, but we can't force them to stay and we can't change doctrines just to make it easier for them to stay.
 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

They are leading themselves out. Do you think they want the church leaders to change doctrines without God's confirmation?
And if they don't believe that God is leading his church through these prophets then why do they want to be members? 
We should do all we can to help inspire them and strengthen testimonies, but we can't force them to stay and we can't change doctrines just to make it easier for them to stay.
 

No, I don't think that they want leaders to change doctrines without God's confirmation.

The ones who leave probably don't think that God is leading the church through our prophet and apostles.

But the above two answers may have very little to do with why they are leaving.  That's what I referred to as oversimplification.

And, if you want them to stay, you might have to take off the "traditional believing member" glasses and think of some more nuanced approaches.  That's part of the problem with the document that was leaked, it only seems to look at the problem from one perspective.

If your answer is that we shouldn't consider a more nuanced approach, than I guess we'll just keep losing young single adults.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Unlike you -- someone who believes the Church isn't true and, as a natural consequence of that fraudulence and inauthenticity, views it's leaders as nothing more than uninspired imposters -- I believe the apostles and prophets of the Church are who they say they are and that they are leading the kingdom of God according to the Lord's own will and counsel.

As an aside, I'm wondering why someone who believes the Church isn't true seems to frequently insist that it's uninspired leaders teach and act in accordance with your higher form of wisdom when, according to you, they are obviously ill-equipped to do so is beyond me?

It seems likely you must be aware of the fact that Jesus Christ -- someone I believe to be the greatest, wisest, most loving, inspired and effective religious leader of all time -- succeeded in turning thousands of people to his favor during his miraculous three-year missionary ministry in the Holy Land. Yet at the time that seemingly very successful ministry came to a close there remained a remnant of only about 130 believers who continued to  participate as active members of the Church. Perhaps if Jesus had only had a group modern-type progressives to advise him, his convert retention rate could have been so much higher. In fact, perhaps you can humor me and set forth some of the counsel you would have given to Jesus to greatly improve his convert retention rate.

I honestly don't really understand what this rant is about except you making a LOT of speculative statements about what I believe and what I do not believe.  

[hagoth7]

6 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

...what is going to happen...Here is the prophecy:

....17 And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel. (1Nephi 14)

Are you certain those half-dozen verses remain largely unfulfilled?

I know in Western thought, it is common to assume that a new chapter begins a more recent timeline immediately following the previous chapter's timeline 

However, with apocalyptic chapters (like 1 Nephi 13 & 14), a later passage instead often illuminates a previous chapter...rather than presenting a new sequence of events. (Several of Daniel's apocalyptic chapters are that way. And Nephi was his contemporary.) Their counterpart from the NT often deals with time in a very similar way.

So it may be quite rash to just assume the "and it came to pass" in 14:1 transitions to a completely different sequence. (Weeks ago, in the context of Hagoth's ships, it was clear that, contrary to common opinion, "and it came to pass" sometimes functions as a bridge to return and amplify the previously-presented passage....rather than present a completely different thought.)

Food for thought:

Preparing the way for the fulfilling of the covenants included:

1. Reformation
   1. The genuine reformation (from the likes of Tyndale, Anabaptists, etc.)
   2. The pseudo reformation (the more-widely-known brands)
2. Dutch Republic
   1. Haven for a republic
   2. Haven for religious freedom (greenhouse for the Mayflower Pilgrims, etc.)
3. American Revolution/Constitution
4. Restoration
   1. etc.

Thoughts?

Edited March 22, 2017 by hagoth7

[california boy]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

They are leading themselves out. Do you think they want the church leaders to change doctrines without God's confirmation?
And if they don't believe that God is leading his church through these prophets then why do they want to be members? 
We should do all we can to help inspire them and strengthen testimonies, but we can't force them to stay and we can't change doctrines just to make it easier for them to stay.
 

I haven't heard much about changing doctrine during this discussion.  But maybe I am mistaken.  Is having multiple ear piercings a sin?  Is having a tattoo a sin?  Is holding the hand of someone of the same sex a sin?  Is it the will of God for the church leaders to micromanage the members about things that have no real eternal implications?  Isn't this micro management one of the things that Christ condemned about the church leaders of his day?  Is it a sin to sew on a button on Sunday?  Is it a sin to walk too many steps on a Sunday? Are you getting the similarities?  Because I think the millennials are.

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Feeling better?

I'm guessing your unresponsive response indicates you realize the Book of Mormon verses I quoted significantly weaken the strength of your position. Is that why you seem to be attempting to slink away from having to discuss what the verses in 1 Nephi 14 have to say on the subject of the growth and destiny of the LDS Church? Do you think it's fair and proper to engage with believing Latter-Day Saints on subjects directly relating to the wellbeing of the Church but then refuse to consider what it is the foundational LDS scriptures have to say on those subjects? How does one expect to discuss Mormonism in reasonable and comprehensive ways while simultaneously dismissing pertinent input from the LDS Standard Works as being irrelevant? 

[carbon dioxide]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I work in business, and in the business world the demographic that all marketers are really focused on is the Millennial and younger generations.  Why is this so important in the business world?  Because if you can't attract new customers in these younger demographics, then you will go out of business in the near future.  If the church doesn't learn to effectively attract these generations of people then this is a slowly dying enterprise.  

 

The Church is not an America only operation.  One should not compare the younger generation of the US to be the same as the younger generation in other parts of the world.  The question really is does the Church really require a growing membership to exist?   I don't think so.  If one was to to present two different options one with being a church that has 50 million members by 2050 but 99% of them are lukewarm and really don't accept the teachings or a church of just 1 or 2 million strong members who do accept the teachings, which is the preferred one that the Church should be?   In the end there is only one number that really matters the most and that is the number one.  The one being each individual member or US.  If the Church is growing like a weed but we are not living the commandments and doing what we are supposed to do, it does not matter for us personally in our salvation.  We will be on the outside looking in.  On the other hand if we are where we should be it does not matter if even 99.99% of the Church members leave, we will be just fine.  We spend too much time worrying about numbers.  Just worry about what is in our control and don't worry about what is not.

[Bobbieaware]

8 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

Are you certain those half-dozen verses remain largely unfulfilled?

I know in Western thought, it is common to assume that a new chapter begins a more recent timeline immediately following the previous chapter's timeline 

However, with apocalyptic chapters (like 1 Nephi 13 & 14), a later passage instead often illuminates a previous chapter...rather than presenting a new sequence of events. (Several of Daniel's apocalyptic chapters are that way. And Nephi was his contemporary.) Their counterpart from the NT often deals with time in a very similar way.

So it may be quite rash to just assume the "and it came to pass" in 14:1 transitions to a completely different sequence. (Weeks ago, in the context of Hagoth's ships, it was clear that, contrary to common opinion, "and it came to pass" sometimes functions as a bridge to return and build upon the previously-presented passage.)

Preparing the way for the fulfilling of the covenants included:

1. Reformation
   1. The genuine reformation (from the likes of Tyndale, Anabaptists, etc.)
   2. The pseudo reformation (the more-widely-known brands)
2. Dutch Republic
   1. Haven for a republic
   2. Haven for religious freedom (greenhouse for the Mayflower Pilgrims, etc.)
3. American Revolution/Constitution
4. Restoration
   1. etc.

Thoughts?

The events predicted in Nephi's prophetic vision unfold in the same chronological sequence of order in which they have come to pass (or will yet come to pass) on the timeline of history. The significant events you list above are specifically mentioned or implicitly encompassed within the earlier portions of the unfolding event timeline of the vision. 

The reason why we know the events in the verses I quoted are yet to come is because the final devastating wars of judgement that will ultimately bring a full end to all nations will not occur until after multitudes from of all the nations of the world unite to fight against tha Lamb of God and his Church. This prophesied worldwide attempt to destroy the Church of Christ has not yet occurred, and the vision makes it's clear these wars will specifically come to pass as divine retribution for the global diabolical attempt to overthrow the restored Church of Christ.

13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God.

14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.

15 And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was poured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and kindreds of the earth. (1 Nephi 14)

Edited March 22, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[JulieM]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you are completely missing the reason millennials are leaving.  When I was growing up in the church, the narrative was completely believable.  Joseph Smith had a vision of God and Jesus Christ.  Moroni gave him a sacred record written on golden plates.  It contained the dealings God had with the people on the American continents.  The Book of Abraham was written by the hand of Abraham himself.  Joseph Smith didn't want to live the law of polygamy but was forced to by an angel with a flaming sword.  Nothing disputed that.  It all seemed logical and true.  What a story.  God had restored his gospel in these latter days.

How  much of that narrative has been brought into doubt?  How much evidence tells a different story.  They are forced to ignore real evidence in order to believe what seemed logical and true a generation ago.

For me, this expresses perfectly what I've experienced.

I have a younger brother and a younger sister who are both in the age group we're discussing.  They were taught the same things I was taught growing up, but both have left the church.  

They are actually the ones who have made me aware of information or evidence out there that has shaken my beliefs in the standard narrative I was taught and believed.  I'm now struggling to hold on too, and so far I've remained active, with a TR and a church calling.   However, I have more invested in the church and in staying active (temple marriage, kids, etc.)

Both of my siblings had great Bishops who worked with them, who tried to answer questions and ease their doubts.  But as both of them express, there are no good answers to rival the info that's readily available now.

They both believe they can live Christlike lives without a controlling organized religion telling them what to do in every aspect of their lives.

And, the final straw for them both was the new policy regarding gay marriage and the children involved.

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by JulieM

[JAHS]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I haven't heard much about changing doctrine during this discussion.  But maybe I am mistaken.  Is having multiple ear piercings a sin?  Is having a tattoo a sin?  Is holding the hand of someone of the same sex a sin?  Is it the will of God for the church leaders to micromanage the members about things that have no real eternal implications?  Isn't this micro management one of the things that Christ condemned about the church leaders of his day?  Is it a sin to sew on a button on Sunday?  Is it a sin to walk too many steps on a Sunday? Are you getting the similarities?  Because I think the millennials are.

Most of those things you listed are not sins but they are signs of rebellion against the prophets of God. And not wanting to follow the prophet on the small things leads to rebellion against the more serious and important things which do have eternal implications. It's not the doing of those littles things that's the sin, it's the attitude a person has for wanting to do them. In her younger years my daughter had a big tattoo put on her back with her boyfriend's name in big bold letters; who is now her "former" boyfriend's name. After she got through those rebellious years she met another young man and they were sealed in the temple and now wishes she never got that tattoo.  The prophets give us counsel to follow or not follow. It's not micromanaging it's just counsel based on years of experience and inspiration from God.

Edited March 22, 2017 by JAHS

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Most of those things you listed are not sins but they are signs of rebellion against the prophets of God. And not wanting to follow the prophet on the small things leads to rebellion against the more serious and important things which do have eternal implications. It's not the doing of those littles things that's the sin, it's the attitude a person has for wanting to do them. In her younger years my daughter had a big tattoo put on her back with her boyfriend's name in big bold letters; who is now her "former" boyfriend's name. After she got through those rebellious years she met another young man and they were sealed in the temple and now wishes she never got that tattoo.  The prophets give us counsel to follow or not follow. It's not micromanaging it's just counsel based on years of experience and inspiration from God.

Funny... that's the best example you could come up with?  Advising someone to not permanently ink their temporary boyfriend's name on their body is not prophetic.  I know all kinds of non-Mormons who figured that one out all on their own. 

[JulieM]

29 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Most of those things you listed are not sins but they are signs of rebellion against the prophets of God. And not wanting to follow the prophet on the small things leads to rebellion against the more serious and important things which do have eternal implications. It's not the doing of those littles things that's the sin, it's the attitude a person has for wanting to do them. 

But it's this that is helping to drive them out of the church.  The last year my younger sister was active, she signed up for and wanted to go do baptisms for the dead.  She was told she'd need to remove her second earrings before she entered the temple (by her SP, her Bishop wasn't happy about it actually). She chose not to attend and felt it was a ridiculous request.

Do you really believe that type of control is what Christ would want for His church? I think he'd rather have had my sister in the temple with two earrings in each ear.

Edited March 22, 2017 by JulieM

[Bobbieaware]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I honestly don't really understand what this rant is about except you making a LOT of speculative statements about what I believe and what I do not believe.  

I've read enough of your posts over a significant enough period of time to come to believe you think the leaders of the Church are out of the way. After reading many of your posts, is it not perfectly reasonable for me to conclude you think the Church has gone astray? When you frequently indicate you think the leaders of the Church are spiritually insensitive and unable to rightly discern the will of God, what am I supposed to think? If I'm wrong in my assessment, please set me straight by explaining to me what you actually believe concerning the state of the Church and whether or not you believe the leaders are inspired of God. I will be delighted to take back what I said (I mean this  sincerely) if you can explain to me how I'm misunderstanding what seems to be the plain meaning of your words.

[california boy]

44 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Most of those things you listed are not sins but they are signs of rebellion against the prophets of God. And not wanting to follow the prophet on the small things leads to rebellion against the more serious and important things which do have eternal implications. It's not the doing of those littles things that's the sin, it's the attitude a person has for wanting to do them. In her younger years my daughter had a big tattoo put on her back with her boyfriend's name in big bold letters; who is now her "former" boyfriend's name. After she got through those rebellious years she met another young man and they were sealed in the temple and now wishes she never got that tattoo.  The prophets give us counsel to follow or not follow. It's not micromanaging it's just counsel based on years of experience and inspiration from God.

Couldn't your rational have applied to the Jewish beliefs of sinning if you took too many steps on the Sabbath?  Were they in open rebellion if they took an extra step?  Is someone in open rebellion if they sew a button on the Sabbath? Is someone in open rebellion if they have an extra ear piercing?   Or do they think it is just a stupid rule that has nothing to do with someone's relationship with God.  And most importantly, how did Christ feel about all these micromanagement rules imposed upon the people by Jewish leaders?  

The church is on their own when it comes to all these micromanagement rules.  It is certainly against the teachings of Christ and how he handled all the rules imposed by leaders in his day.  Yet no one says anything about them.  The just walk away because they see nothing that supports the teachings of Christ in them.  

I personally think tattoos are a stupid idea and largely for the exact reasons you stated.  I don't have any piercings.  But those decisions had nothing to do with whether I was doing it because church leaders don't like them and have made it part of the Mormon dogma.  This thread is about millennials leaving the church. This crap that Christ himself would rebel against seems like one of the easiest things to get rid of.  Yet even this is bristled against by members like you.  

You do remember Christ picking corn on the Sabbath and his explanation of why he did it right?  The church is forcing millennials to choose the example of Christ or follow the micromanagement rules of church leaders.  Guess which one they are following. Are they wrong?

[JAHS]

35 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But it's this that is helping to drive them out of the church.  The last year my younger sister was active, she signed up for and wanted to go do baptisms for the dead.  She was told she'd need to remove her second earrings before she entered the temple (by her SP, her Bishop wasn't happy about it actually). She chose not to attend and felt it was a ridiculous request.

Do you really believe that type of control is what Christ would want for His church? I think he'd rather have had my sister in the temple with two earrings in each ear.

Now you are talking about individual church leaders who are interpreting things differently. SP says no Bishop says yes. But her feeling it was a ridiculous request shows the rebellious attitude she is having against leadership, which ultimately resulted in her becoming inactive. It's not a matter of being controlled it is a matter of obedience and an attitude of humility. 

[Johnnie Cake]

8 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I'm guessing your unresponsive response indicates you realize the Book of Mormon verses I quoted significantly weaken the strength of your position. Is that why you seem to be attempting to slink away from having to discuss what the verses in 1 Nephi 14 have to say on the subject of the growth and destiny of the LDS Church? Do you think it's fair and proper to engage with believing Latter-Day Saints on subjects directly relating to the wellbeing of the Church but then refuse to consider what it is the foundational LDS scriptures have to say on those subjects? How does one expect to discuss Mormonism in reasonable and comprehensive ways while simultaneously dismissing pertinent input from the LDS Standard Works as being irrelevant? 

You assume too much...I thought it best that I bite my tongue instead of posting something that would get me into trouble with the board rules.  But you wish to goat me...so let me say this in the most inoffensive way that I can.  The Book of Mormon , in my view, is a 19th century work of fiction, that you can find comfort in its pages that the destiny of the LDS Church is its future withering away to further insignificance and can impose an interpretation into its pages that supports your worldview as the church contracts throughout world is wonderful. I'm happy for you.  However I merely suggest that, for your own health, you not hold your breath...while real life can often can be found in fiction and fiction can often forecast trending future events...fiction by its very definition is still fiction...so I'm not going to lose any sleep on the prognostications of anything that comes from the Book of Mormon. 

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I've read enough of your posts over a significant enough period of time to come to believe you think the leaders of the Church are out of the way. After reading many of your posts, is it not perfectly reasonable for me to conclude you think the Church has gone astray? When you frequently indicate you think the leaders of the Church are spiritually insensitive and unable to rightly discern the will of God, what am I supposed to think? If I'm wrong in my assessment, please set me straight by explaining to me what you actually believe concerning the state of the Church and whether or not you believe the leaders are inspired of God. I will be delighted to take back what I said (I mean this  sincerely) if you can explain to me how I'm misunderstanding what seems to be the plain meaning of your words.

Bobbie, first of all, I want to say that your kind of assumptions about other peoples beliefs is another reason I feel millennials are leaving the church.  It is probably something that should be discussed in this exact thread.  Members see someone wearing an extra ear ring and immediately make assumptions that they think the person disdains the counsel of church leaders.  Or if they have a tattoo then they are obviously no longer a believing member of the church leaders.  When members start expressing their own personal evaluation of that persons beliefs, then that only further pushes people away from the church.  What right do you have or other members to go on a tirade about others persons beliefs when you really don't know what is in their heart?  Do you really feel you have that right?  Do you really feel it is appropriate? 

I personally think it is inappropriate.  Do I think the church leaders are infallible?  Absolutely. Do I think they have been wrong about some past issues?  Absolutely.  Do I think they are wrong about some issues today? Absolutely.  Have I voiced some of the things I think church leaders are wrong about? Absolutely.  Is that a sin?  Should I be condemned by you or anyone else for that? Do my doubts about the fallibility of church leaders tell you what my relationship with God actuall is?  

[JAHS]

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Funny... that's the best example you could come up with?  Advising someone to not permanently ink their temporary boyfriend's name on their body is not prophetic.  I know all kinds of non-Mormons who figured that one out all on their own. 

But it still happened to her and it's not funny. If she had followed the "counsel", (not prophecy) she would not feel the regret and her husband would not have to keep seeing the name of her former boyfriend on her back. 
 

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This leak goes completely against everything that the church is trying to claim as reality...a growing vibrant healthy organization expanding and filling the earth...this leak shows just the opposite...it is an institution on the brink of implosion...you add this to my post earlier this week of the collapses of the church in Europe with a major revelation that 800 of the 1100 units will be either eliminated or merged with 1 or 2 other units...this is not a healthy institution...members are running not walking for the doors and if you can't see that you are in complete denial 

I don't think that's quite accurate. The church is still growing but there are of course dangers. But those go back quite a way. This was an issue I heard discussed way back when I was young in the 90's. The church in Europe had largely collapsed years ago when the secular move really took hold there. Arguably by the 80's it was over there.

Within the US we still have among the highest retention rate of any non-ethnic religious institution. (Distinguishing ethnic faiths primarily because there are non-religious reasons for people to continue to go to those) 

To my eyes the biggest danger for the church is in not adjusting is proselytizing model. For most of the last century it's success has come from converting people already loosely converted to Catholicism or protestantism. Realistically that's not a good option anymore for growth in Asia or Africa. Yet we've not seen a significant change in what gets emphasized or taught nor the method. I also think the move towards going on missions at 18 is hurting missionary work, regardless of its other benefits. I suspect we'll see a shift back to 19 within the next few years.

Edited March 22, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Now you are talking about individual church leaders who are interpreting things differently. SP says no Bishop says yes. But her feeling it was a ridiculous request shows the rebellious attitude she is having against leadership, which ultimately resulted in her becoming inactive. It's not a matter of being controlled it is a matter of obedience and an attitude of humility. 

Sorry, but it is ridiculous to believe that Christ cares if you have 1 pair or 2 pairs of earrings in each ear.  That's a man made rule, IMO, and the different ways local leaders interpret these rules and enforce them, is part of the problem I think.  My sister is one of the most Christlike persons I know, but she was kept from doing baptisms because of wearing one too many pairs of earrings?

It's this type of thing that younger members aren't buying into and they're leaving.

Edited March 22, 2017 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's quite accurate. The church is still growing but there are of course dangers. But those go back quite a way. This was an issue I heard discussed way back when I was young in the 90's. The church in Europe had largely collapsed years ago when the secular move really took hold there. Arguably by the 80's it was over there.

Within the US we still have among the highest retention rate of any non-ethnic religious institution. (Distinguishing ethnic faiths primarily because there are non-religious reasons for people to continue to go to those) 

To my eyes the biggest danger for the church is in not adjusting is proselytizing model. For most of the last century it's success has come from converting people already loosely converted to Catholicism or protestantism. Realistically that's not a good option anymore for growth in Asia or Africa. Yet we've not seen a significant change in what gets emphasized or taught nor the method.

This may be coming out of left field, but I wonder how active members would be if they didn't have a calling that they had to show up for. That's a big one, ever notice how excited members are sometimes when they don't have to go, say it's general conference or for weather causes? Maybe it's just my area.