Latest MormonLeak: Ministering to YSA

[Jeanne]

15 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Could you please rephrase the above comment so I'll have a better idea what it is you're saying?

It sounds like the scriptures are saying that these times are foretold..that many will fall away.  I am wondering why a huge interest is a prophecy needs to be fulfilled.  It is as if there is nothing the church could do for reasons young people leave if this is the case. 

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Christ told us to listen to the Comforter.

And the prophets:

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7)
And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days. (D&C 1:4)
“Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same”? (D&C 1:38)
"Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his (the prophet's) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;  For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith. (D&C 21: 4-5)"
And a promise for doing that:
"For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory." (Verse 6)

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

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. 

Exactly.  So, calling it a silly rule to someone who believes it was from God doesn't accomplish anything.  Since no one believes that we are bound to follow rules that aren't from God, it's a straw man argument.  

And i'm using the basic scriptural definition of pride as the opposite of humble.  Arrogant.  Unteachable, hardhearted, and believing that we know best.  Etc.  We all suffer from that sin sometimes (or all the time depending on the subject, i'm sure).

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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

Well again we have to distinguish between what got called the hedge around the law and the law proper. Jesus had a similar view of the law to some of his contemporaries and often is quoting well known sayings from that era. So to say he was a liberalizer one first has to ask relative to what? He wasn't in the Pharisee zealot tradition clearly.

[rongo]

44 minutes ago, cacheman said:

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. 

You're determining youth keeping the law of chastity (previous traditional definition of no premarital sex) based on  . . . teen birthrate? As you work with youth, I'm sure that you are aware that is possible --- approaching probable --- for youth to be having sex without having babies. I hear students discussing their birth control all the time.

Quote

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. 

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.[/quote]

When we talk about "morality" on this board, we are using an LDS definition. We use other words, like "integrity," "social justice," "courage," etc. to talk about the added definitions of "morality" you are talking about. Given this narrow, LDS definition of "morality" in play here, naturally I am only addressing sexual behavior. I'm not talking about the other things you think also belong to morality (like other parts of ethics). 

Again, you have twice now simply zeroed in on teenage birthrate as an indicator of even teenage sexual behavior.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by rongo

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, JAHS said:

And the prophets:

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7)
And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days. (D&C 1:4)
“Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same”? (D&C 1:38)
"Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his (the prophet's) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;  For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith. (D&C 21: 4-5)"
And a promise for doing that:
"For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory." (Verse 6)

Yes - it takes both.  I commented because it's important to not leave out that critical component:  It takes listening to both the prophets and the Spirit.

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

It sounds like the scriptures are saying that these times are foretold..that many will fall away.  I am wondering why a huge interest is a prophecy needs to be fulfilled.  It is as if there is nothing the church could do for reasons young people leave if this is the case. 

That's like saying because the scriptures abundantly testify that at the Second Coming of Christ there are going to be large-scale destructions and loss of life among the wicked, due to devastating wars and cataclysmic natural calamities, the Church should just bring an end all missionary work because most will not heed the gospel message anyway. But this attitude is, of course, totally antithetical to the spirit of the gospel. In Mormon's second epistle to Moroni, Mormon tells his son that even though the survival of the Nephite race appears to be an inevitable lost cause that he must press on with all the energy of his soul, as if there is still hope the Nephites will be spared, because God says that his saints must endure in bright faith to the end, even when it seems all is lost. Here are Mormon's words.

6 And now, my beloved son, notwithstanding their hardness, let us labor diligently; for if we should cease to labor, we should be brought under condemnation; for we have a labor to perform whilst in this tabernacle of clay, that we may conquer the enemy of all righteousness, and rest our souls in the kingdom of God. (Moroni 9)

And so you see there is no excuse for the true followers of Christ to not press forward energetically and valiantly if there is even just one soul among billions who can still be saved.

So what, then, are the implications of the verses I quoted in the portion of Nephi's vision recorded in 1 Nephi 14? It is that in spite of the best efforts of the saints to reclaim the faltering, there will still be many who will fall away because the deceptions and temptations of the kingdom of the devil will inevitably ensnare some. Additionally, these verses tell me that the Church shouldn't compromise the Lord's standards of righteousness in foolhardy shortsighted attempts to hold on to those who won't follow through on the Lord's counsel as to how to gain and maintain a vibrant testimony. 

All this above being said, it needs to be understood that because the Church isn't perfect it would be stupid to say the Church can't improve on how to reach out with good answers to those who are faltering in faith. But be this as it may, it's still ultimately up to each individual to gain and maintain a testimony of the truth through the revelations of the Holy Ghost. No one can believe the gospel for you. And did you ever stop to think that the issues that are challenging the faith of many modern members of the Church are allowed of the Lord to exist because the test of faith that leads to eternal exaltation was designed by his divine wisdom to be especially difficult and challenging? As a consequence, "many are called but few are chosen."

Edited March 22, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[cacheman]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

You're determining youth keeping the law of chastity (previous traditional definition of no premarital sex) based on  . . . teen birthrate? As you work with youth, I'm sure that you are aware that is possible --- approaching probable --- for youth to be having sex without having babies. I hear students discussing their birth control all the time.

I'm not talking about the 'law of chastity'.... I'm talking about the level of morality in Millennials.  Previously, you wrote that all of the studies I referenced were 'soft science' studies based on surveys.  So, I corrected that with a statistic that demonstrates one area of sexual behavior that has improved considerably.  I did this because you were skeptical of other studies, and this one presented hard data.

Obviously, youth can have protected sex.  That was true when I was a teen too.  If birth control prevents one teen pregnancy, then I think it's a better option.  Other studies (yes, I know you're skeptical of them) indicate that sexual intercourse is less frequent and with fewer partners than in my generation.  I understand that self-reported surveys have their flaws, but do you really think that teens today are just too dishonest or too embarrassed to admit sexual activity?  Were teens in the 80s just that more open and honest, but failed to use birth control?  I imagine there's a mix of different factors involved, but I see real reasons to be optimistic about this rising generation (despite the mistakes that our generation made in raising them). 

Quote

"When we talk about "morality" on this board, we are using an LDS definition. We use other words, like "integrity," "social justice," "courage," etc. to talk about the added definitions of "morality" you are talking about. Given this narrow, LDS definition of "morality" in play here, naturally I am only addressing sexual behavior. I'm not talking about the other things you think also belong to morality (like other parts of ethics). 

I'm not LDS, so I was using the actual definition of morality.  Is it true that LDS only view morality in the context of sexual behavior?  If so, I'll try to remember that in future discussions.

Quote

Again, you have twice now simply zeroed in on teenage birthrate as an indicator of even teenage sexual behavior."

It's certainly an important indicator.  From my perspective, it appears to be a very important one.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, cacheman said:

I'm not LDS

I apologize! I shouldn't have assumed that you are, but I did. 

Is it true that LDS only view morality in the context of sexual behavior?

Like everyone, Mormons also see "big picture" morality (moral compass, right and wrong, ethics, decency, etc.). But in the narrow sense, morality/immorality is usually seen by Mormons in terms of sittliche Reinheit ("sexual purity"). 

I was using the actual definition of morality.

I'm sorry I misread where we were both coming from. Most Mormons wouldn't think in terms of, for example, whether or not a war was "moral" or "immoral." But, we understand that usage.  

Obviously, youth can have protected sex.  That was true when I was a teen too . . . Were teens in the 80s just that more open and honest, but failed to use birth control?

I think effectiveness of birth control has greatly improved over the last 30-40 years. And, society has become much more accepting of it over the last 50 years than prior to that. I don't think birth control was used nearly as much in the 80s as it is now.

If birth control prevents one teen pregnancy, then I think it's a better option.

When seen from the perspective of suffering, misery, poverty, etc., sure. That's where you're coming from. But for people, like Mormons or traditional religious people, sex outside of marriage offends the Spirit and brings about spiritual consequences as well, so from that perspective, technology allowing youth and unmarried adults to engage in casual, recreational sex with decreased chances of pregnancy doesn't make their sexual behavior more moral --- just because pregnancy has been prevented. It's still sexual sin, and the same spiritual consequences apply.

Other studies (yes, I know you're skeptical of them) indicate that sexual intercourse is less frequent and with fewer partners than in my generation.  I understand that self-reported surveys have their flaws, but do you really think that teens today are just too dishonest or too embarrassed to admit sexual activity?

I definitely think that surveys are fraught with flaws. Not that people are dishonest, per se, but people often answer survey questions with perceptions in mind --- even if they are fully anonymous and no one will ever know who they are. I have experienced this --- not being completely honest in a survey because my answers wouldn't portray me completely living up to my standards or potential. As an aside, I think a big reason why the polls were so historically wrong with the Trump/Clinton election was that many Trump voters would not admit that they were planning on voting for Trump --- even though the polls were anonymous. There was a stigma, and some cogdis involved. Everyone was stunned when the results in many swing states went completely against consistent polling. 

I absolutely believe that teens --- especially those whose consciences bother them or who are not living up to their standards --- would not be honest in surveys dealing with their sexual behavior.

I imagine there's a mix of different factors involved, but I see real reasons to be optimistic about this rising generation (despite the mistakes that our generation made in raising them).

I do, too, and I also believe that a lot of their problems stem from their upbringing. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Well again we have to distinguish between what got called the hedge around the law and the law proper. Jesus had a similar view of the law to some of his contemporaries and often is quoting well known sayings from that era. So to say he was a liberalizer one first has to ask relative to what? He wasn't in the Pharisee zealot tradition clearly.

My understanding is that the Pharisees were trying to make it easier for common people to live the law, which could be very challenging to do while living your day to day life. Particularly so in Galilee which was full of ritually unclean gentiles.  Jesus challenged the whole idea of what made you ritually unclean, which is a challenge not just of Pharisaic doctrine but of the law itself. A good example is the idea that your words are what make you unclean, not what you eat. That's a very liberal interpretation of Torah, right? 

Edited March 22, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Exactly.  So, calling it a silly rule to someone who believes it was from God doesn't accomplish anything.  Since no one believes that we are bound to follow rules that aren't from God, it's a straw man argument.  

And i'm using the basic scriptural definition of pride as the opposite of humble.  Arrogant.  Unteachable, hardhearted, and believing that we know best.  Etc.  We all suffer from that sin sometimes (or all the time depending on the subject, i'm sure).

 

Thanks! So what would be an example of pride as it pertains to this issue, and your definition of pride? What does that look like in practice?

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

My understanding is that the Pharisees were trying to make it easier for common people to live the law, which could be very challenging to do while living your day to day life. Particularly so in Galilee which was full of ritually unclean gentiles.  Jesus challenged the whole idea of what made you ritually unclean, which is a challenge not just of Pharisaic doctrine but of the law itself. A good example is the idea that your words are what make you unclean, not what you eat. That's a very liberal interpretation of Torah, right? 

I'm not an expert but N. T. Wright says there were two types of Pharisees. One was roughly akin to our view of Al Queda or ISIS. They were very caught up not just in the law but a certain extreme perception of what constitutes the law. The other type, was much more liberal in terms of a concern for human experience and needs. So statements like the "two great laws: love god, love your neighbor" or "the sabbath was made for man" come out of that tradition. This tradition tends to privilege motivations as much as practices, although it doesn't dismiss practices. Oddly Paul came out of the zealot tradition but was also influenced by the liberal tradition. (Here using liberal rather loosely - that's not the term Wright uses) The division took place earlier under the time of Herod roughly in the decades prior to Christ's birth. The two main factions were Shammai and Hillel. Their views were codified in the Mishnah so we have a lot of what they taught. The division is roughly between strictness and lenience. By the time of the Mishnah Hillel had largely won the hearts and minds but in the first century Shammai was much more prominent. 

To quote from Wright:

Quote

But what precisely were Hillel and Shammai lenient and strict about? The Mishnah and the other later rabbinic writings give us the impression that they are lenient or strict about the personal observance of the commands of Torah. Things were not, however, quite so simple in Paul's world. The key issue at stake between `lenient' and `strict' interpretations of the law was not just a matter of religion. Nor was it just about private or personal piety. The key issue was as much `political' as it was `theological'. It was about aims and agendas for Israel: for the people, the land, and the Temple. The question, as for many Jews in most of Jewish history, was: what line do we adopt vis-a-vis the present political situation? The Hillelites, broadly speaking, pursued a policy of `live and let live'. Let the Herods and the Pilates, and indeed the Caiaphases, rule the world - let them even rule Israel, politically - just as long as we Jews are allowed to study and practise Torah (the Jewish law) in peace. The Shammaites believed that this wasn't good enough. Torah itself, they thought, demanded that Israel be free from the Gentile yoke, free to serve God in peace, calling no-one master except YHWH, the one true God, himself. This is what it means to be `zealous for God' or `zealous for the traditions of the fathers' in first-century Judaism. We use the word `zeal' to indicate warmth of heart and spirit, eagerness for a cause. That is a not inaccurate summary of one part of its first-century meaning, too. But whereas for the modern Christian `zeal' is something you do on your knees, or in evangelism, or in works of charity, for the first-century Jew `zeal' was something you did with a knife. Those first-century Jews who longed for revolution against Rome looked back to Phinehas and Elijah in the Old Testament, and to the Maccabean heroes two centuries before Paul, as their models. They saw themselves as being `zealous for YHVH', `zealous for Torah', and as having the right, and the duty, to put that zeal into operation with the use of violence. `Zeal' thus comes close to holy war: a war to be fought (initially, at any rate) guerrilla-style, by individuals committed to the cause.

N. T. Wright. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Kindle Locations 246-259). Kindle Edition. 

The standard view is that Jesus was more in the Hillel tradition and a lot of what he says comes right out of that tradition.

Edited March 22, 2017 by clarkgoble

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Thanks! So what would be an example of pride as it pertains to this issue, and your definition of pride? What does that look like in practice?

I think it would probably look like disobedience to commandments of God by justifying that they aren't really from God or don't apply to the person being disobedient.   General feelings that whenever there is a discrepancy between our ideas and what  someone (scriptures, prophets, spouse, etc.) tells us God commands, we are right, kind of thing.

I don't think there's any way for most of us to judge when someone else is being prideful though.  That's why I don't agree with assigning actual people that sin.

[YJacket]

I believe everyone is missing the mark. I firmly believe in Proverbs 22:6  Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

I think there are rare instances where a child will depart, but in general this is not the case. Trying to retain millennials when they have reached adulthood is like trying to hold back water from a dam that already broke. The 3rd Article of Faith states :We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

The first thing that a child must learn in interactions is obedience.  That obedience first begins with parents, then it extends to teachers, leaders and other authority figures.  If we are going to overgeneralize millennials, it's not the fact that they don't want to be micro-managed, it's the fact they don't like and don't respect authority, period-end of story.  Oh some might say they don't like "unrighteous authority, or micromanaging authority"-that's junk.  Yeah, I don't like it that I have to do what my boss says in the workplace to get a paycheck-I wish I could do whatever I want at work at still get paid.  But it doesn't work like that.

And I have been on the side of the table interviewing millennials-and while their are certainly very good ones, a lot of them are just disrespectful.  Coming to a professional job interview wearing jeans? Sure, we'll go through the motions, but nope I don't care how good you are (or think you are) you're not getting the job. We have a very pervasive sick culture that wants to reward people for just showing up, rather than really working at it.  And that bleeds over into Church.  

Bringing up this ridiculous idea that people leave over multiple ear-rings, is just that complete and utter hog-wash. The common refrain is (and I'll step on toes) is xyz person is the most Christlike I know.  That is just patently false, either you misunderstand who Christ was or this person wouldn't have left over something so simple as multiple ear-rings. Christ, the one who had absolutely no need for baptism-but did it anyways to be completely 100% obedient to His Father.  And the person who leaves over multiple ear-rings is the most Christlike one knows . . . we need some new role-models then.

As an adult, I've only heard the one ear-ring counsel repeated very, very few times. Certainly as a youth, it was repeated more often along with a whole other host of rules and regulations (Strength of the Youth)-but that is good. B/c that is what parents and adults are for, to reinforce to youth acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. And in the business world, you generally look like an idiot having multiple ear-rings, spiked hair, dyed hair, tattoos, etc.

I'm old enough (but not too old) that for me, so what if the Temple wants me to be clean-shaven, take out ear-rings, etc. It's really not that big of a deal-I don't set the policies and I've learned to trust those who do set the policies. The reason being is that I'm obedient to what is required of me.

Quite frankly, the reason why Millennials are leaving is b/c the previous generation has not done a very good job at raising the rising generation.  Millennials leaving over the SSM policy??? You're telling me that for 18 years growing up with an emphasis on homosexual behavior being a sin that not allowing children of those relationships to be members causes a problem? My guess is either you've never taken to heart LDS teachings on the matter or you're looking for a reason to leave.

This isn't a Church problem, it is a parental problem and it goes back to culture and how we currently treat children. Rather than teaching children from a small age to respect authority, we teach them they are "stars", so when the grow up instead of respecting tradition, they go after their own ways. More to the point, if this was only a LDS problem, it might have merit-but it's not an LDS problem.

It is a cultural wide problem. Go to any church in the US, the younger generation is absent.  We are reaping what as a society we have sown in terms of secularism and atheism.

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, YJacket said:

I believe everyone is missing the mark. I firmly believe in Proverbs 22:6  Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

I think there are rare instances where a child will depart, but in general this is not the case. Trying to retain millennials when they have reached adulthood is like trying to hold back water from a dam that already broke. The 3rd Article of Faith states :We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

The first thing that a child must learn in interactions is obedience.  That obedience first begins with parents, then it extends to teachers, leaders and other authority figures.  If we are going to overgeneralize millennials, it's not the fact that they don't want to be micro-managed, it's the fact they don't like and don't respect authority, period-end of story.  Oh some might say they don't like "unrighteous authority, or micromanaging authority"-that's junk.  Yeah, I don't like it that I have to do what my boss says in the workplace to get a paycheck-I wish I could do whatever I want at work at still get paid.  But it doesn't work like that.

And I have been on the side of the table interviewing millennials-and while their are certainly very good ones, a lot of them are just disrespectful.  Coming to a professional job interview wearing jeans? Sure, we'll go through the motions, but nope I don't care how good you are (or think you are) you're not getting the job. We have a very pervasive sick culture that wants to reward people for just showing up, rather than really working at it.  And that bleeds over into Church.  

Bringing up this ridiculous idea that people leave over multiple ear-rings, is just that complete and utter hog-wash. The common refrain is (and I'll step on toes) is xyz person is the most Christlike I know.  That is just patently false, either you misunderstand who Christ was or this person wouldn't have left over something so simple as multiple ear-rings. Christ, the one who had absolutely no need for baptism-but did it anyways to be completely 100% obedient to His Father.  And the person who leaves over multiple ear-rings is the most Christlike one knows . . . we need some new role-models then.

As an adult, I've only heard the one ear-ring counsel repeated very, very few times. Certainly as a youth, it was repeated more often along with a whole other host of rules and regulations (Strength of the Youth)-but that is good. B/c that is what parents and adults are for, to reinforce to youth acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. And in the business world, you generally look like an idiot having multiple ear-rings, spiked hair, dyed hair, tattoos, etc.

I'm old enough (but not too old) that for me, so what if the Temple wants me to be clean-shaven, take out ear-rings, etc. It's really not that big of a deal-I don't set the policies and I've learned to trust those who do set the policies. The reason being is that I'm obedient to what is required of me.

Quite frankly, the reason why Millennials are leaving is b/c the previous generation has not done a very good job at raising the rising generation.  Millennials leaving over the SSM policy??? You're telling me that for 18 years growing up with an emphasis on homosexual behavior being a sin that not allowing children of those relationships to be members causes a problem? My guess is either you've never taken to heart LDS teachings on the matter or you're looking for a reason to leave.

This isn't a Church problem, it is a parental problem and it goes back to culture and how we currently treat children. Rather than teaching children from a small age to respect authority, we teach them they are "stars", so when the grow up instead of respecting tradition, they go after their own ways. More to the point, if this was only a LDS problem, it might have merit-but it's not an LDS problem.

It is a cultural wide problem. Go to any church in the US, the younger generation is absent.  We are reaping what as a society we have sown in terms of secularism and atheism.

Heavenly Father was a perfect parent, and 1/3 of His children rebelled and left.  How do you explain that, given your beliefs on the subject?

[ERMD]

On 3/21/2017 at 2:24 PM, rockpond said:

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?

Change Sunday activity to "something that has nothing to do with the gospel?"

"Come together as a faith community?"  

Really?

[ERMD]

On 3/21/2017 at 3:08 PM, 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.

Christ made that claim, and he wasn't all that transparent when teaching his Apostles and the Nephite twelve.

Hardly a total hypocrite.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, ERMD said:

Change Sunday activity to "something that has nothing to do with the gospel?"

"Come together as a faith community?"  

Really?

I read rockpond's post this way at first.  But after a reread I think he meant that we shouldn't change anything that has to do with the gospel.  I'm not sure what he means by "how we come together as a faith community."  Perhaps rockpond could elaborate on that thought.

[pogi]

5 hours ago, cacheman said:

Studies clearly show that sexual activity between teens and teen pregnancy had dropped considerably since the 80s. 

That is because they are too busy playing video games, looking at porn, and sexting to be bothered with actual physical relationships. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, ERMD said:

Change Sunday activity to "something that has nothing to do with the gospel?"

"Come together as a faith community?"  

Really?

 

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I read rockpond's post this way at first.  But after a reread I think he meant that we shouldn't change anything that has to do with the gospel.  I'm not sure what he means by "how we come together as a faith community."  Perhaps rockpond could elaborate on that thought.

Ksfisher is correct:  I meant that we should not change anything that has to do with the gospel.  But that maybe there are things ancillary to the gospel that could be changed to make the church more relevant in the lives of millennial and others. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, YJacket said:

I believe everyone is missing the mark. I firmly believe in Proverbs 22:6  Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

I think there are rare instances where a child will depart, but in general this is not the case. Trying to retain millennials when they have reached adulthood is like trying to hold back water from a dam that already broke. The 3rd Article of Faith states :We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

The first thing that a child must learn in interactions is obedience.  That obedience first begins with parents, then it extends to teachers, leaders and other authority figures.  If we are going to overgeneralize millennials, it's not the fact that they don't want to be micro-managed, it's the fact they don't like and don't respect authority, period-end of story.  Oh some might say they don't like "unrighteous authority, or micromanaging authority"-that's junk.  Yeah, I don't like it that I have to do what my boss says in the workplace to get a paycheck-I wish I could do whatever I want at work at still get paid.  But it doesn't work like that.

And I have been on the side of the table interviewing millennials-and while their are certainly very good ones, a lot of them are just disrespectful.  Coming to a professional job interview wearing jeans? Sure, we'll go through the motions, but nope I don't care how good you are (or think you are) you're not getting the job. We have a very pervasive sick culture that wants to reward people for just showing up, rather than really working at it.  And that bleeds over into Church.  

Bringing up this ridiculous idea that people leave over multiple ear-rings, is just that complete and utter hog-wash. The common refrain is (and I'll step on toes) is xyz person is the most Christlike I know.  That is just patently false, either you misunderstand who Christ was or this person wouldn't have left over something so simple as multiple ear-rings. Christ, the one who had absolutely no need for baptism-but did it anyways to be completely 100% obedient to His Father.  And the person who leaves over multiple ear-rings is the most Christlike one knows . . . we need some new role-models then.

As an adult, I've only heard the one ear-ring counsel repeated very, very few times. Certainly as a youth, it was repeated more often along with a whole other host of rules and regulations (Strength of the Youth)-but that is good. B/c that is what parents and adults are for, to reinforce to youth acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. And in the business world, you generally look like an idiot having multiple ear-rings, spiked hair, dyed hair, tattoos, etc.

I'm old enough (but not too old) that for me, so what if the Temple wants me to be clean-shaven, take out ear-rings, etc. It's really not that big of a deal-I don't set the policies and I've learned to trust those who do set the policies. The reason being is that I'm obedient to what is required of me.

Quite frankly, the reason why Millennials are leaving is b/c the previous generation has not done a very good job at raising the rising generation.  Millennials leaving over the SSM policy??? You're telling me that for 18 years growing up with an emphasis on homosexual behavior being a sin that not allowing children of those relationships to be members causes a problem? My guess is either you've never taken to heart LDS teachings on the matter or you're looking for a reason to leave.

This isn't a Church problem, it is a parental problem and it goes back to culture and how we currently treat children. Rather than teaching children from a small age to respect authority, we teach them they are "stars", so when the grow up instead of respecting tradition, they go after their own ways. More to the point, if this was only a LDS problem, it might have merit-but it's not an LDS problem.

It is a cultural wide problem. Go to any church in the US, the younger generation is absent.  We are reaping what as a society we have sown in terms of secularism and atheism.

I'm not going to argue your point as you are definitely in line with current, mainstream church culture. 

But the approach you describe isn't likely to solve the problem of the younger generation leaving the church.  I assume you're fine with that. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, ERMD said:

Change Sunday activity to "something that has nothing to do with the gospel?"

"Come together as a faith community?"  

Really?

Secular religion at its best. No clue about, acknowledgement of, or appreciation for revealed pre-mortal or post-mortal existence: eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die; popular culture reigns supreme.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I read rockpond's post this way at first.  But after a reread I think he meant that we shouldn't change anything that has to do with the gospel.

Yes, just change those things in a way that would appeal to the more secular and pop cultural appetite. Same thing.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 

But the approach you describe isn't likely to solve the problem of the younger generation leaving the church.  I assume you're fine with that. 

The good news however is not all generations follow the trends of the previous ones.  So hopefully the generations that follow the Millennials will turn out differently.  Perhaps the generation being born today will be 180 degrees opposite of the Millennials.  Perhaps  Millennials will be to Generation Z as the baby boomers were to Generation X.  

Edited March 23, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The good news however is not all generations follow the trends of the previous ones.  So hopefully the generations that follow the Millennials will turn out differently.  Perhaps the generation being born today will be 180 degrees opposite of the Millennials.  Perhaps  Millennials will be to Generation Z as the baby boomers were to Generation X.  

Nah, I don't think this problem is going away anytime soon.  The church has played the "knowledge and truth game" for too long and, in the Information Age, they are losing because they can no longer control the narrative. 

They've started the process of change (essays, JS papers project, Ballard's instruction to CES) but it will take more.