Latest MormonLeak: Ministering to YSA

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That's a complete misrepresentation and your attitude and judgmental statements are good examples of what is contributing to driving them away from the church.

I don't think I am being judgmental I am just describing the process of apostasy. I don't want these young people to leave but they do have their agency to choose to do that if they want. I was afraid my daughter would leave, but we were patient and continued to love her and she eventually realized that she really did want the church in her life and in the life of her children.  

[HappyJackWagon]

52 minutes ago, Gray said:

Obedience to silly rules for obedience's sake isn't a virtue. Or if you think so, perhaps you should do everything I tell you to do, or else be accused of being prideful? 

I totally agree. I think it's a fallacy to presume that because someone doesn't like being controlled or micromanaged by a leader that they are rebellious and therefore an enemy to God.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think he was objecting to some of the rules that had sprung up beyond the law of Moses. There's no sign he didn't fully support following the law of Moses - which frankly had more micromanagement than rules on earrings at the temple. I think the temple is an unique case since it's all about moving yourself temporarily from the secular world to a different sort of environment. We don't say you always have to wear white but at the temple we all wear white.

That said I do think part of the social issue is that Mormons socially have a set of loose norms about dress and behavior not really formally part of the religion. Little things like what "Sunday best" means in terms of dress. If you don't want to wear a dress for instance then that will chaff at you. So I really do think peer group issues can be a big deal when there starts to be practical conflict between what the norms of the two peer groups are. (For the record I think that's precisely why the Church makes the more formal rules on things like tattoos -- to help keep kids out of certain peer groups)

Jesus seems to have been a liberalizer of the law of Moses. The Sabbath was made for man, not vice versa, etc. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think he was objecting to some of the rules that had sprung up beyond the law of Moses. There's no sign he didn't fully support following the law of Moses - which frankly had more micromanagement than rules on earrings at the temple. I think the temple is an unique case since it's all about moving yourself temporarily from the secular world to a different sort of environment. We don't say you always have to wear white but at the temple we all wear white.

That said I do think part of the social issue is that Mormons socially have a set of loose norms about dress and behavior not really formally part of the religion. Little things like what "Sunday best" means in terms of dress. If you don't want to wear a dress for instance then that will chaff at you. So I really do think peer group issues can be a big deal when there starts to be practical conflict between what the norms of the two peer groups are. (For the record I think that's precisely why the Church makes the more formal rules on things like tattoos -- to help keep kids out of certain peer groups)

Surely in some sense even Jesus found it good to pay respect to many of the traditions of his day, but that hardly means much in defining how we should treat rules and regulations.  He also found time and circumstance to object to some traditions, rules and regs of his day too.  I think it's pretty neat and perhaps quite convenient for us to look back and say, "well he totally wanted to keep the law of Moses, but things that were added to that law he totally rejected".  But perhaps his teachings and objections were a bit more meaningful than that. 

[stemelbow]

I think we find more and more in the Church who embrace the teaching by one of it's own past prophets:

Quote

I hope that you will develop the questing spirit. Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones of progress. You will of course respect the opinions of others but be unafraid to dissent—if you are informed.
"Now I have mentioned freedom to express your thoughts, but I caution you that your thoughts and expressions must meet competition in the market place of thought, and in that competition truth will emerge triumphant. Only error needs to fear freedom of expression. Seek truth in all fields, and in that search you will need at least three virtues; courage, zest, and modesty. The ancients put that thought in the form of a prayer. They said, 'From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth—O God of truth deliver us'."

Hugh B. Brown, Brigham Young University, March 29, 1958.

That in essence is a good explanation of why young members are leaving these days.  This type of thing is greatly objected to within the Church.  Dissenting against authority is seen as sin these days in the eyes of the Church.  That we should fear ideas that may "lead us away" is perhaps the most broadly espoused teaching in the Church today, from what I've seen. 

In essence, the Church is pushing the young and others out. 

 

[cacheman]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I grew up in the 80's and 90's (graduated in 1995) and i can tell you that being a member back then was not at all difficult (and i didn't grow up in Utah).  My morals fit in with the morals of 80-90% of my high school even though there were only a handful of lds kids.  That has changed for my kids (who are now middle school and high school ages).

Which morals are you talking about?  Studies clearly show that sexual activity between teens and teen pregnancy had dropped considerably since the 80s.  Rates of violence have decreased considerably as well.  One thing that I notice in my millennial children is a greater sense of empathy than myself and my cohorts seemed to have in the 80s.  I'm not sure if anyone has studied that.

I would assume that the rates of pornography consumption have increased among millennials, but I don't know.  Studies also show a very significant increase in the acceptance of homosexuality (which is one of the things that california boy mentioned).  Are these morals among those you're referring to?

cacheman

 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

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. 
 

I wasn't saying that what happened to her is funny.  What I think is funny is that it's the best example you could come up with.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Where does it say that last year we lost YSA that is equivalent to half of the new children of record?  Did I miss that somewhere?

The document says that we were losing 45,000 per year among the 18-25 year olds.  Back in the mid 80's we were averaging around 95,000 new children of record.  (I have an extensive spreadsheet where I keep all this data.)

[california boy]

44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Found the problem.
Somewhere along the way we got the wrong idea that the truth of God has any relationship to what WE think it should be.
God's truth is completely independent of any opinion we might hold.

The Millennial issue isn't one of morality.  It's one of self-centeredness.  Note: NOT selfishness - I think Millennials are just as generous and hardworking as anyone.  It's an issue of self-focus.  You see it in the workplace and higher education all the time.  You see it in politics.  And now you see it in their religious ideals.

Gone are the days of searching for truth.  Now everyone is searching for "their truth".
 

I do think you have addressed one of the major issues.  Prophets and apostles have lost credibility as being the ones that speak for God.  Many of the reasons for that happening have been addressed in this thread.  So people are relying more on what the personally feel is right and wrong.  When a prophet says wearing multiple earrings is wrong and against church standards, then millennials take that as just his opinion, and not the voice of God.  By proclaiming these trivial things, they have actually undercut their authority of speaking for God.

Gone are the days for people believing everything church leaders say comes from God.  Now everyone is searching for "their truth".  You couldn't be  more right.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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?  

In all honesty, do you think if the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were to thoroughly read, carefully ponder and digest every anaonymous post of yours on this board that they would come away thinking to themselves, "now this man's thinking indicates he is a rock-solid example of a faithfully active member of the Church, a man with a healthy and growing testimony of the Lord and the Church who sustains the general authorities without reservation. His sterling example of faithfulness, unwavering loyalty and sincere willingness to follow the councils of the living oracles of God is one all members would be wise to emulate?"

What is one to think when it seems most all of your posts are critical of the Church and it's leaders? What is one to think when before one even begins to read one of your responses it can be safely presumed it's going to be another in a long line of negative knee-jerk responses that, whether you want to believe it or not, almost invariably tend cast doubt on the spiritual receptivity and wisdom of the Church leaders. 

I'm perfectly willing to own the fact that I often come off as a ridged and harshly judgmental defender of the Church. I'm also willing to own the fact that in my zeal to defend the Church I can veer off into assessments that are often less charitablle and empathetic than they rightly ought to be. I'm even willing to own the fact that some of my responses are less than Christlike and that I would do well to focus more on finding points of agreement than on driving wedges of separation.

One way I determine the soundness and viability of any given thought or action is to ask myself what would be the consequencees if everyone in the world thought and acted that way. And so now I ask you if you are willing to own the fact that you often come off as a relentless critic of the Church and that it's undeniable the Church would shrink into near non-existence if all but the general authorities, stake presidents and bishops were to think, feel and act toward the Church as you do? Is this not true? Why not be willing to openly and honestly admit it's true? What good does it do to tiptoe around the truth and pretend things aren't as they really are? I'm willing to own and critically assess the undeniable truth about my own imperfections. How about you?

 

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, cacheman said:

Which morals are you talking about?  Studies clearly show that sexual activity between teens and teen pregnancy had dropped considerably since the 80s.  Rates of violence have decreased considerably as well.  One thing that I notice in my millennial children is a greater sense of empathy than myself and my cohorts seemed to have in the 80s.  I'm not sure if anyone has studied that.

All of these studies are "soft" science, not "hard" science (i.e., social science studies, relying on surveys). I'm skeptical as to whether or not we can accurately know whether incidence and rate really have "dropped considerably." For many in church or school positions, this is anecdotally not the case.

I would assume that the rates of pornography consumption have increased among millennials, but I don't know.  Studies also show a very significant increase in the acceptance of homosexuality (which is one of the things that california boy mentioned).  Are these morals among those you're referring to?

Bingo. 

There are many youth, including some otherwise really good kids, who sext (send naked or provocative pictures of themselves to others). Pornography consumption and masturbation are major problems. Sexual exploration is definitely on the rise. But for the progressive among us, these don't have anything to do with morals. They are perfectly natural human behavior, repressed and oppressed through the ages by knuckle-dragging, uni-browed too-conservative traditional culture.

I would say that, even if sexual intercourse were on the decline (hypothetically), increasing porn consumption and the like would be a sign of deteriorating morals. That depends on perspective. 

[rockpond]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Found the problem.
Somewhere along the way we got the wrong idea that the truth of God has any relationship to what WE think it should be.
God's truth is completely independent of any opinion we might hold.

The Millennial issue isn't one of morality.  It's one of self-centeredness.  Note: NOT selfishness - I think Millennials are just as generous and hardworking as anyone.  It's an issue of self-focus.  You see it in the workplace and higher education all the time.  You see it in politics.  And now you see it in their religious ideals.

Gone are the days of searching for truth.  Now everyone is searching for "their truth".
 

I disagree:  I think that many millenials are leaving when they realize that the Church's truth claims don't hold up.  It isn't about "their truth" it's about taking a look at the reasons they were taught that the "church is true" and realizing that they are severely flawed.

[rpn]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It feels like tradition and guesswork when we apply this stuff to God.  Jesus was recorded as objecting to the strict observance of the Sabbath in his day. 

No He didn't.  He objected to the Pharasicael (sp?) version of what Sabbath had become, and to those who were judging others for how they chose to worship Him.   (Since the point of the Sabbath is to do that, in remembrance of Him.   It was, after all, He who wrote the Ten Commandments.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The document says that we were losing 45,000 per year among the 18-25 year olds.  Back in the mid 80's we were averaging around 95,000 new children of record.  (I have an extensive spreadsheet where I keep all this data.)

It says that for 2005, but do we know how many we have been losing per year in the last few years?

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wasn't saying that what happened to her is funny.  What I think is funny is that it's the best example you could come up with.

It wasn't the best one, but it was the first one, personal to me, that came to mind. There are many examples of people with disobedient attitudes that start out with not following  the small things that leads to the violation of more serious commandments. If you want a better one, my daughter also wound up getting herself pregnant out of wedlock, the result of not following those seemingly unnecessary little principles that led up to it.  The scriptures have many such examples.  Church leaders are not infallible but I trust them to be right about theses things most of the time and so I follow their counsel with confirmation from the Holy Ghost. So far their counsel has done me no harm. Others have had different experiences but right now it's all we have to go on until Christ Himself returns. 

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

First: I've missed you where ya been?

Second:  I am not arguing that the church should lower its boundaries or the level at which they micro manage the youth...they can do as they please...my post was Why the youth of the church are abandoning the church... For the record I was in the bishopric of a University Ward...I have some experience dealing with these issues...I know of what I speak.

I was down hiking in beautiful Zion's and St. George for a week, but I've been back for a few weeks now.  I guess we are just posting in different threads.

I still think that "micromanage" is the wrong word.  Just curious, would you accuse a business of micromanaging their employees for having dress codes and policies against tattoos and piercings, etc.?  It just seems like a double standard to accuse Mormonism of it.  If business is rightfully concerned about public image, why not religion?

It is not just Mormonism, but all religion that is suffering from changing attitudes in millennials; and It is not just a religion either.  It is also a problem in the business world.  Millennials are much more eager to hightail it from their jobs, religion etc. than any previous generations.  There is lack of commitment to just about anything.  Millennials want to be rewarded first and work second.  They want instant results and rapid response, and are not afraid to leave if they don't get what they want.  In one survey from Forbes Magazine, "Bosses in general agreed that millennials were more narcissistic than prior generations."  While challenging to manage, that attitude can actually be good for businesses who may benefit from profit driven narcissistic attitudes.  Feed their narcissism and accommodate their demands and business may actually profit.   For that reason, millennials are generally seen as either the best or the worst workers.  While those qualities may be good or bad for business (depending on the business), they are not qualities which foster faith which requires the work, sacrifice, and the trial of faith before the reward.  It is not surprising that religion is suffering from such attitudes. 

 

 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It says that for 2005, but do we know how many we have been losing per year in the last few years?

No.  The Brethren aren't sharing that.  But our average new children of record in the late 90's is around 80,000 per year.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

It wasn't the best one, but it was the first one, personal to me, that came to mind. There are many examples of people with disobedient attitudes that start out with not following  the small things that leads to the violation of more serious commandments. If you want a better one, my daughter also wound up getting herself pregnant out of wedlock, the result of not following those seemingly unnecessary little principles that led up to it.  The scriptures have many such examples.  Church leaders are not infallible but I trust them to be right about theses things most of the time and so I follow their counsel with confirmation from the Holy Ghost. So far their counsel has done me no harm. Others have had different experiences but right now it's all we have to go on until Christ Himself returns. 

Christ told us to listen to the Comforter.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Obedience to silly rules for obedience's sake isn't a virtue. Or if you think so, perhaps you should do everything I tell you to do, or else be accused of being prideful? 

The problem is that people often argue that legitimate commandments of God are just silly rules that He didn't really care about.  

I think most of us agree that anything that God commands is by definition not silly regardless of what we think of it, and we can agree that humans are not that good on our own of telling the difference between legitimate commandments and the silly ideas of men.

And we can all agree that sometimes people (including ourselves) don't follow the commandments of God because of pride.  Not all the time, but sometimes.  There's no real reason to pretend that doesn't happen.  

I don't agree with assigning specific sins to specific people but when we are speaking in generalities, it's useful to acknowledge basic human failings when we discuss our relationship with God.  If we want to acknowledge the human fallibility of apostles and other leaders, for example, then acknowledging the human fallibiities of those who disagree with the apostles and leaders is not just equally valid but extremely necessary.

 

 

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

In all honesty, do you think if the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were to thoroughly read, carefully ponder and digest every anaonymous post of yours on this board that they would come away thinking to themselves, "now this man's thinking indicates he is a rock-solid example of a faithfully active member of the Church, a man with a healthy and growing testimony of the Lord and the Church who sustains the general authorities without reservation. His sterling example of faithfulness, unwavering loyalty and sincere willingness to follow the councils of the living oracles of God is one all members would be wise to emulate?"

What is one to think when it seems most all of your posts are critical of the Church and it's leaders? What is one to think when before one even begins to read one of your responses it can be safely presumed it's going to be another in a long line of negative knee-jerk responses that, whether you want to believe it or not, almost invariably tend cast doubt on the spiritual receptivity and wisdom of the Church leaders. 

I'm perfectly willing to own the fact that I often come off as a ridged and harshly judgmental defender of the Church. I'm also willing to own the fact that in my zeal to defend the Church I can veer off into assessments that are often less charitablle and empathetic than they rightly ought to be. I'm even willing to own the fact that some of my responses are less than Christlike and that I would do well to focus more on finding points of agreement than on driving wedges of separation.

One way I determine the soundness and viability of any given thought or action is to ask myself what would be the consequencees if everyone in the world thought and acted that way. And so now I ask you if you are willing to own the fact that you often come off as a relentless critic of the Church and that it's undeniable the Church would shrink into near non-existence if all but the general authorities, stake presidents and bishops were to think, feel and act toward the Church as you do? Is this not true? Why not be willing to openly and honestly admit it's true? What good does it do to tiptoe around the truth and pretend things aren't as they really are? I'm willing to own and critically assess the undeniable truth about my own imperfections. How about you?

 

I could only hope that church leaders would read my posts and ask me to come in and talk to them about my views on how the church has treated gays.  I do have a LOT to say about that.  And I think you know full well my views on the matter.  I also have been very willing to correct the whitewashing of the church's involvement in taking away the civil rights of gay couples.  I own every bit of that.  And I will continue to express outrage over what church leaders have done to those of us who are gay.  The actions of church leaders on this issue have had HUGE impacts in my life and my relationship with my family.  I can't begin to tell you the actual harm some of these policies have had on those that are directly effected by their instituting policies that in my option go completely against the teachings of Christ and the fundamentals of the gospel.  Marriage and family are central to the gospel of Jesus Christ, yet church leaders deny this very central core opportunity to it's gay members.  They shove them first out of the plan of salvation and then castgate their families out of the church.  Yeah that is how I feel about THIS issue.  And it is an issue that I post a lot about because most of the people on this board are not gay and do not live the results of these policies.

That said, I have also countless times stated the goodness of the church and it's leaders.  I have and continue to encourage my children to be members of the church because I feel there is also a lot of good that comes from being a member of the church.  I don't regret for one minute raising my children in the church.  I think the advice and counsel of church leaders is good and well thought out.  I support a lot of the church teachings and beliefs. 

I agree that there is a problem with the church loosing millennials.  That is a confirmed fact by the church itself.  I think there are policies that are once again just the opinions of church leaders that are aggravating the issue.  I am giving my opinion of some of those issues.  I think the church has a credibility problem with the narrative that has been presented.  Can you honestly sit here and say that you do not see any problems in these areas?  Is your solution to just quote scripture that foretells a loss of faith?  Is it your solution to continue to support the very issues that are causing people to leave the church?  Perhaps I care more about people staying in the church than you do.  Because I am the one offering ideas and suggestions that may be helpful instead of shrugging my shoulders and saying Oh well, it was bound to happen.  Does that really make me the evil anti mormon that is trying to tear down the church?  Really?  Bobbie, if I didn't care about the church, I wouldn't be participating on this board.

 

 

[Duncan]

Just now, pogi said:

I was down hiking in beautiful Zion's and St. George for a week, but I've been back for a few weeks now.  I guess we are just posting in different threads.

I still think that "micromanage" is the wrong word.  Just curious, would you accuse a business of micromanaging their employees for having dress codes and policies against tattoos and piercings, etc.?  It just seems like a double standard to accuse Mormonism of it.  If business is rightfully concerned about public image, why not religion?

It is not just Mormonism, but all religion that is suffering from changing attitudes in millennials; and It is not just a religion either.  It is also a problem in the business world.  Millennials are much more eager to hightail it from their jobs, religion etc. than any previous generations.  There is lack of commitment to just about anything.  Millennials want to be rewarded first and work second.  They want instant results and rapid response, and are not afraid to leave if they don't get what they want.  In one survey from Forbes Magazine, "Bosses in general agreed that millennials were more narcissistic than prior generations."  While challenging to manage, that attitude can actually be good for businesses who may benefit from profit driven narcissistic attitudes.  Feed their narcissism and accommodate their demands and business may actually profit.   For that reason, millennials are generally seen as either the best or the worst workers.  While those qualities may be good or bad for business (depending on the business), they are not qualities which foster faith which requires the work, sacrifice, and the trial of faith before the reward.  It is not surprising that religion is suffering from such attitudes. 

 

 

I'd agree with that. In my stake we don't have a lot of members and some people are laxadaisacal? approach to their callings and so it's beyond frustrating to show up to church find out they aren't there and they didn't find a replacement and so you have to do it or find someone at church, which is not fun. It's like Church is ah whatever, someone else will do it, I can't be bothered- but come stake conferences and other big meetings it's all handshakes and happiness. The modern version of the 10 virgins I guess

not to judge but we had two newly married in the Temple couples move into in our ward recently. One couple came once and left and haven't been back since, they moved in January? and the other couple in Feb, he's come twice and she's been out 3 or 4 times, she seems more active than him.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Duncan

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No.  The Brethren aren't sharing that.  But our average new children of record in the late 90's is around 80,000 per year.

So your previous statement of fact was an assumption (which could be correct but we have no information to support it at this time).

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So your previous statement of fact was an assumption (which could be correct but we have no information to support it at this time).

I apologize if I wasn't clear with what I wrote earlier - I was referring to the loss rate in 2005 per Elder Bateman.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The problem is that people often argue that legitimate commandments of God are just silly rules that He didn't really care about.  

I think most of us agree that anything that God commands is by definition not silly regardless of what we think of it, and we can agree that humans are not that good on our own of telling the difference between legitimate commandments and the silly ideas of men.

And we can all agree that sometimes people (including ourselves) don't follow the commandments of God because of pride.  Not all the time, but sometimes.  There's no real reason to pretend that doesn't happen.  

I don't agree with assigning specific sins to specific people but when we are speaking in generalities, it's useful to acknowledge basic human failings when we discuss our relationship with God.  If we want to acknowledge the human fallibility of apostles and other leaders, for example, then acknowledging the human fallibiities of those who disagree with the apostles and leaders is not just equally valid but extremely necessary.

 

 

If someone believed that the earrings thing was commandment was from God, they probably wouldn't characterize it as a silly rule, right?

How are you defining pride here? If it means that you disagree with someone's interpretation of of the commandments, then everyone is equally prideful, because we all disagree with someone else's views. 

[cacheman]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

All of these studies are "soft" science, not "hard" science (i.e., social science studies, relying on surveys). I'm skeptical as to whether or not we can accurately know whether incidence and rate really have "dropped considerably." For many in church or school positions, this is anecdotally not the case.

Teen childbearing rates come from official records... not surveys.  The rate of teen childbirths is about 40% of what was seen in the 80s.  I work with young people on a daily basis, and those numbers don't surprise me. 

33 minutes ago, rongo said:

There are many youth, including some otherwise really good kids, who sext (send naked or provocative pictures of themselves to others). Pornography consumption and masturbation are major problems. Sexual exploration is definitely on the rise. But for the progressive among us, these don't have anything to do with morals. They are perfectly natural human behavior, repressed and oppressed through the ages by knuckle-dragging, uni-browed too-conservative traditional culture.

I think you have a distorted view of people like myself who are encouraged by the fact that the younger generation appears to be making positive strides in terms of morality. 

36 minutes ago, rongo said:

I would say that, even if sexual intercourse were on the decline (hypothetically), increasing porn consumption and the like would be a sign of deteriorating morals. That depends on perspective. 

From my perspective there is much more to morality than sexual behavior (which is all you've talked about).  While there are certainly new challenges for young people, leading to increases in potentially harmful behavior, I don't believe that is evidence for a decline in overall morality.  Having first hand experience with the effects of teen childbearing, I see the decline in that statistic as a huge step forward. 

 

cacheman