Latest MormonLeak: Ministering to YSA

[rockpond]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

 

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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

Not at all what I said. 

[Calm]

Rockpond....is this more in line with what you are thinking...not the specific ideas, but what kind of changes category wise

We don't touch the Sacrament ritual or how it is celebrated, we change sacrament meeting to one speaker and perhaps have following that speaker a short testimony sharing time where we relate what was discuss to how we seek Christ, seek to obey him, etc. so everyone is invested in listening to the speaker more and taking the time to think of personal application and those who are having trouble have examples they can adapt in their own lives.  A combination Sac meeting and class with the greater group participation I understand they are aiming for in the youth classes.  We could change the meeting structure as that is for efficiency mainly, not because it is the best way to teach gospel lessons.  Maybe have a shorter time period for lessons by creating lesson plans that focus tightly on a few things (say take a segment of the scripture that deals with one topic and focus on that rather than study by chapters)...and shift from trying to go through a book of scripture a year to a slower, more in-depth approach.  Might be able to help with the feelings of constant repetition if we tried to have less broad lessons that have to end up being rather generic to cover so much.  And then at the end of the worship and study meeting, since you have more time, hold a community time where the members have a communal meal or something else that adds another layer of structured connection all on the same day.  Change the insurance and cooking facilities policy somehow that still meets code by  allows meals to be prepared together as preparation together is a great bonding tool and the meal itself will be better appreciated (and skills of cooking and presenting of meals can be shared and passed on).  Given that the younger members are not getting married as soon and aren't having as large as families, creating a greater sense of extended family among the members can both fill the gap and strengthen the bond with the others members and thus the Church.  Millennials are not abandoning their families they grew up in, are they?  So if we were to do something that strengthen the sense of the ward family into something very concrete for all and not more of an ideal, they would find greater reason to keep the bond.  

We build chapels not only for sturdiness and ease of care, but for feelings of coziness, refuge, beauty so it feels like a home or at least place of comfort as much as possible.

No changes to the Gospel, not even much change to how we express the Gospel, simply adjustments to how much we try to engage the entire group in the expression throughout the day.  Might require a smaller ward with less diverse activities in one sense...try to create youth activities that involve the whole ward such as sports that the ward provides support for and watches...and then eats together communally yet again.  (Eating together is a very good way of creating a bond).  Or divide the ward into groups of five or so families (which includes the single person family as well as couples without children), figure out a good number to promote both intimacy and expansion. 

None of these changes change the gospel, but it might help with setting up different levels of connection with it and it would seem that connection may be something that is needed greatly, but not really thought about much by the younger members.  By keeping people coming to church, we keep them exposed to teachings of the gospel...so there is good reason to make worship something that draws people to being with others as well as to God.  Our previous social bonds were based to a great extent of societal roles of what was seen as required for commitment/involvement...you were there because you made a commitment to be there.  If that doesn't work anymore, not because they are less committed when they make commitments, but because they make less commitments, we do need to show why the commitment has value to them.

Hopefully this makes sense.  The cursor jumped around a few times and I couldn't tell if it had taken text with it or was typing along, so it may be a bit disjointed or total nonsense here and there.  It is going to die and the charger is in the next room so no time to proof more than I have.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Rockpond....is this more in line with what you are thinking...not the specific ideas, but what kind of changes category wise

We don't touch the Sacrament ritual or how it is celebrated, we change sacrament meeting to one speaker and perhaps have following that speaker a short testimony sharing time where we relate what was discuss to how we seek Christ, seek to obey him, etc. so everyone is invested in listening to the speaker more and taking the time to think of personal application and those who are having trouble have examples they can adapt in their own lives.  A combination Sac meeting and class with the greater group participation I understand they are aiming for in the youth classes.  We could change the meeting structure as that is for efficiency mainly, not because it is the best way to teach gospel lessons.  Maybe have a shorter time period for lessons by creating lesson plans that focus tightly on a few things (say take a segment of the scripture that deals with one topic and focus on that rather than study by chapters)...and shift from trying to go through a book of scripture a year to a slower, more in-depth approach.  Might be able to help with the feelings of constant repetition if we tried to have less broad lessons that have to end up being rather generic to cover so much.  And then at the end of the worship and study meeting, since you have more time, hold a community time where the members have a communal meal or something else that adds another layer of structured connection all on the same day.  Change the insurance and cooking facilities policy somehow that still meets code by  allows meals to be prepared together as preparation together is a great bonding tool and the meal itself will be better appreciated (and skills of cooking and presenting of meals can be shared and passed on).  Given that the younger members are not getting married as soon and aren't having as large as families, creating a greater sense of extended family among the members can both fill the gap and strengthen the bond with the others members and thus the Church.  Millennials are not abandoning their families they grew up in, are they?  So if we were to do something that strengthen the sense of the ward family into something very concrete for all and not more of an ideal, they would find greater reason to keep the bond.  

We build chapels not only for sturdiness and ease of care, but for feelings of coziness, refuge, beauty so it feels like a home or at least place of comfort as much as possible.

No changes to the Gospel, not even much change to how we express the Gospel, simply adjustments to how much we try to engage the entire group in the expression throughout the day.  Might require a smaller ward with less diverse activities in one sense...try to create youth activities that involve the whole ward such as sports that the ward provides support for and watches...and then eats together communally yet again.  (Eating together is a very good way of creating a bond).  Or divide the ward into groups of five or so families (which includes the single person family as well as couples without children), figure out a good number to promote both intimacy and expansion. 

None of these changes change the gospel, but it might help with setting up different levels of connection with it and it would seem that connection may be something that is needed greatly, but not really thought about much by the younger members.  By keeping people coming to church, we keep them exposed to teachings of the gospel...so there is good reason to make worship something that draws people to being with others as well as to God.  Our previous social bonds were based to a great extent of societal roles of what was seen as required for commitment/involvement...you were there because you made a commitment to be there.  If that doesn't work anymore, not because they are less committed when they make commitments, but because they make less commitments, we do need to show why the commitment has value to them.

Hopefully this makes sense.  The cursor jumped around a few times and I couldn't tell if it had taken text with it or was typing along, so it may be a bit disjointed or total nonsense here and there.  It is going to die and the charger is in the next room so no time to proof more than I have.

Yes.  Wonderful ideas, Calm. 

Perhaps we could also throw in a community service aspect and maybe some sort of co-working/mentoring options during the week. 

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not at all what I said. 

Thank you for clarifying!

[JulieM]

16 hours ago, YJacket said:

 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.

I don't think they're leaving just over earrings.  That's just representative of the bigger issue being discussed. Can someone wear 2 pairs of earrings and still be Christlike?  Of course.  It's the  belief that these rules came from men rather than believing they have anything to do with living the gospel of Jesus Christ or that they came from God that is the issue.  

However, I do believe that many are leaving over the new policy regarding SSM and the children involved. That is one issue that is disturbing for many (from what I've seen and not just the young).

Edited March 23, 2017 by JulieM

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

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. 

While I think that will help overall I don't think that's the real issue. Which matters more - boring church or weird history from more than 150 years ago? I bet for most people the controversial history is long enough ago plus they'd have to actually you know learn history. Contrast that with being bored at church especially compared with playing video games or watching TV. 

For intellectuals the history and philosophy matters most. Most people who write about this stuff on the internet tend to find intellectual issues interesting. Thus among them the history and philosophy dominates. But that's a selection bias issue. Most people don't even read their scriptures let alone study history. And for most people Joseph Smith is so far removed from their culture that it's like learning controversial things about Moses. What matters is what they find interesting. And by and large learning isn't it.

My guess is that the majority of people leaving would leave even if Joseph were monogamous and if they found horses, steel and bows in southern Mexico dated to 50 BC tomorrow.

Edited March 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

16 hours ago, YJacket said:

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.

I agree that no one is saying people are leaving because of 3 ear rings.  You are missing the principle being discussed.  But you do bring up an interesting point.  When Christ was on the earth, there was an organized religion that was the church of God.  Yet Christ choose not to be a part of that church.  Nor did he follow the dictates of that church.  He refused to obey the laws that man had instituted in their beliefs.  And he was quite vocal about it. Was he being disobedient to God when he picked corn on the sabbath?  Or when he walked too many footsteps on the Sabbath?  Were those laws instituted by God or by the leaders of his organized religion?  Keep in mind that the Jews of his time believe with all their heart that they were members of God's church and they were the chosen ones.  

So how much of the current church has policies that are also of man and not God.  Would Christ have a problem with someone having multiple ear rings?  Would he keep the children of gay families out of the ordinances of the church?  Would members freak out if he got a tattoo just to show people that it was so unimportant and wrong to have a policy about such trivial things? Would Christ attend church every sunday for 3 hours when he rarely attended Jewish services?  Just how much do you think Christ would choose not to do.  The real question is, what part of the current church would Christ feel was really important?  Would church leaders bristle at the choices he made and call him an apostate when people started looking to him for guidance on how to live the gospel more perfectly?   Now that is something interesting to ponder.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I agree that no one is saying people are leaving because of 3 ear rings.  You are missing the principle being discussed.  But you do bring up an interesting point.  When Christ was on the earth, there was an organized religion that was the church of God.  Yet Christ choose not to be a part of that church.  Nor did he follow the dictates of that church.  He refused to obey the laws that man had instituted in their beliefs.  And he was quite vocal about it. Was he being disobedient to God when he picked corn on the sabbath?  Or when he walked too many footsteps on the Sabbath?  Were those laws instituted by God or by the leaders of his organized religion?  Keep in mind that the Jews of his time believe with all their heart that they were members of God's church and they were the chosen ones.  

What you mean to say is that the Church of God as restored to Moses had become corrupted by the laws of man?  Are you suggesting the same thing has happened today?

Quote

So how much of the current church has policies that are also of man and not God.  Would Christ have a problem with someone having multiple ear rings?  Would he keep the children of gay families out of the ordinances of the church?  Would members freak out if he got a tattoo just to show people that it was so unimportant and wrong to have a policy about such trivial things? Would Christ attend church every sunday for 3 hours when he rarely attended Jewish services?  Just how much do you think Christ would choose not to do.  The real question is, what part of the current church would Christ feel was really important?  Would church leaders bristle at the choices he made and call him an apostate when people started looking to him for guidance on how to live the gospel more perfectly?   Now that is something interesting to ponder.

Sounds like you are saying the Church today has added to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  Continuing revelation or laws of men?
I think Christ would have many issues with the Church today.  But the length of services or a ban on tattoos wouldn't be one of them.

Edited March 23, 2017 by JLHPROF

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

When Christ was on the earth, there was an organized religion that was the church of God.  Yet Christ choose not to be a part of that church.  Nor did he follow the dictates of that church.

This seems factually incorrect.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What you mean to say is that the Church of God as restored to Moses had become corrupted by the laws of man?  Are you suggesting the same thing has happened today?

The question becomes, what caused the Church of God to be come corrupt.  Do you think that church leaders were well meaning  and sincere in the changes and additions they made to the Church of God as restored by Moses? And more important, why did Christ reject so much of what they added to.  Because they didn't really take anything away from the teachings of Moses, they just added their personal beliefs.  What is clear is that Christ rejected those additions to the law of Moses and refused to obey them.

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Sounds like you are saying the Church today has added to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  Continuing revelation or laws of men?
I think Christ would have many issues with the Church today.  But the length of services or a ban on tattoos wouldn't be one of them.

So do you think Christ would have a problem with the other things I mentioned?  And why do you think he wouldn't have a problem with the tattoo rule?  Why did Christ spend so little time in the synagogues?  He would be labeled less active in the church today.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why did Christ spend so little time in the synagogues?  He would be labeled less active in the church today.

Christ was on a mission.  Do missionaries spend 7 days a week at the chapel?

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Christ was on a mission.  Do missionaries spend 7 days a week at the chapel?

Pretty much, in some stateside missions. 

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

He would be labeled less active in the church today.

Not only was He a missionary He was also actively setting up His church:
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:" (Eph 4: 11-12)
"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers,"  (1 Cor 12:28)

Does that sound like someone who is inactive in the church? Aside from that it was different times, different circumstances than we have today.

[Ahab]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

The question becomes, what caused the Church of God to be come corrupt.

The proper name for the true church of God is the church of Christ, and any time any church turned away from Christ or his teachings it was then evident that it was not, or that it had ceased to be, the church of Christ.

To join his Church all you need to know is which church is following Christ and teaching his teachings as he wants his teachings taught.

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by Ahab

[YJacket]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

I agree that no one is saying people are leaving because of 3 ear rings.  You are missing the principle being discussed.  But you do bring up an interesting point.  When Christ was on the earth, there was an organized religion that was the church of God.  Yet Christ choose not to be a part of that church.  Nor did he follow the dictates of that church.  He refused to obey the laws that man had instituted in their beliefs.  And he was quite vocal about it. Was he being disobedient to God when he picked corn on the sabbath?  Or when he walked too many footsteps on the Sabbath?  Were those laws instituted by God or by the leaders of his organized religion?  Keep in mind that the Jews of his time believe with all their heart that they were members of God's church and they were the chosen ones.  

So how much of the current church has policies that are also of man and not God.  Would Christ have a problem with someone having multiple ear rings?  Would he keep the children of gay families out of the ordinances of the church?  Would members freak out if he got a tattoo just to show people that it was so unimportant and wrong to have a policy about such trivial things? Would Christ attend church every sunday for 3 hours when he rarely attended Jewish services?  Just how much do you think Christ would choose not to do.  The real question is, what part of the current church would Christ feel was really important?  Would church leaders bristle at the choices he made and call him an apostate when people started looking to him for guidance on how to live the gospel more perfectly?   Now that is something interesting to ponder.

No, I'm believe I understand the principle being discussed, I believe I'm presenting it in a different light to illuminate better exactly what is being discussed.

You're second paragraph is more on point to what I'm illustrating. I am positive the Church has many policies that are of man and not of God; however who am I and what position do I occupy within the Church? I change within my life the things I feel I need changing to bring my life more in line with Christ.  But I do not occupy a very high position of authority within the Church; within the scope of my calling I do my best to ensure things are of God and not of men.  But it is not within my duties, responsibilities or authority to tell those in higher positions of authority where they err.  Now, if they ask my opinion, or am in a location/meeting where my opinion is expected then I will give it. But otherwise, I have an obligation and responsibility to support those who are in those positions of authority and stewardship over me.

The point being that whether the Church has policies of men or of God is irrelevant.  God has demonstrated the pattern by which He reveals His will to large groups of people.  Primarily 1st to the Prophet, His Counselors and the 12th, then to each individual who is in an authority position down to the Stake President,then to the Bishop and so one until it reaches the Head of Household for a family and down each individual. This is the God-ordained natural order of things.

Your questions on what I think Christ would do with regards to the Church are absolutely 100% irrelevant. I am not Christ, it is not given to me to know the mind and Will of the Lord regarding His Church. It is for me to decide on simply a few things a) Does God call men to represent Him on this Earth to large groups of people? b) if He does, do I feel that there is a man called by Him on this Earth at this time to do so? If the answer to the first is yes, then it is incumbent upon me to find out the answer to the second question.  If the answer to both are no, then I shouldn't be a member of the Church-b/c there are only a few organizations on this Earth (LDS and Catholic, maybe a few others?), who as part of their core doctrine believe in yes to both. It really is that simple.

All of your questions in the second paragraph are just simply kicking against the pricks with regards to Church authority. Which means one of two things, either you have answered no to both questions, but still choose to be part of an organization who's core doctrine stipulate a yes to both questions.  If so, that simply means you want to destroy and tear down such organization (why would someone stay in an organization who's core belief they disagree with-the only logical answer is to change it to make it conform to your own views). If the answer to both is yes-then that means you recognize the authority of the Church, but dislike the decisions made and believe that rather then those who are currently called to be in those positions to make those calls-you would be better suited to do so.  In others words, it is envy that others are making decisions you disagree with and if you were in charge things would be so much better.

Regardless of the path, the bottom-line is a problem with authority. And this is the major problem with millennials.  Other generations have had similar issues (the 60s), but more so than any other generation in the past several hundred years-the millennial generation has a major bone to pick with authority. They have not been raised properly to respect authority and things would be so much better if they were in charge.  Don't worry, they will have eventually their chance to be in charge-but that's not good enough.  They don't want to put in the hard work necessary to earn the positions of authority; they want it right now. And as such, when individuals have a rebellious spirit and a disrespect of righteous and divinely appointed authority, no amount of "just loving people" will help them back.  What helps to overcome a rebellious spirit, is a firm unwavering commitment to the truth not overbearing, but unwavering.  A simple stand of "these are the rules", I know you don't like them-you don't have to like them-but this is the way it is going to be.  We'd love for you to be here, but if you are to be here, this is what you need to abide by. The absolute worse thing, one can do with rebelliousness is to be wishy, washy on principles. Because quite frankly, people who are rebellious and have a disrespect for authority, the one thing they are really looking for and searching for in their life is an righteous authority figure. 

Unless and until the rising generations spirit of rebelliousness and disrespect for authority is changed, nothing the Church will do will solve the problem. 

  

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, YJacket said:

No, I'm believe I understand the principle being discussed, I believe I'm presenting it in a different light to illuminate better exactly what is being discussed.

You're second paragraph is more on point to what I'm illustrating. I am positive the Church has many policies that are of man and not of God; however who am I and what position do I occupy within the Church? I change within my life the things I feel I need changing to bring my life more in line with Christ.  But I do not occupy a very high position of authority within the Church; within the scope of my calling I do my best to ensure things are of God and not of men.  But it is not within my duties, responsibilities or authority to tell those in higher positions of authority where they err.  Now, if they ask my opinion, or am in a location/meeting where my opinion is expected then I will give it. But otherwise, I have an obligation and responsibility to support those who are in those positions of authority and stewardship over me.

The point being that whether the Church has policies of men or of God is irrelevant.  God has demonstrated the pattern by which He reveals His will to large groups of people.  Primarily 1st to the Prophet, His Counselors and the 12th, then to each individual who is in an authority position down to the Stake President,then to the Bishop and so one until it reaches the Head of Household for a family and down each individual. This is the God-ordained natural order of things.

Your questions on what I think Christ would do with regards to the Church are absolutely 100% irrelevant. I am not Christ, it is not given to me to know the mind and Will of the Lord regarding His Church. It is for me to decide on simply a few things a) Does God call men to represent Him on this Earth to large groups of people? b) if He does, do I feel that there is a man called by Him on this Earth at this time to do so? If the answer to the first is yes, then it is incumbent upon me to find out the answer to the second question.  If the answer to both are no, then I shouldn't be a member of the Church-b/c there are only a few organizations on this Earth (LDS and Catholic, maybe a few others?), who as part of their core doctrine believe in yes to both. It really is that simple.

All of your questions in the second paragraph are just simply kicking against the pricks with regards to Church authority. Which means one of two things, either you have answered no to both questions, but still choose to be part of an organization who's core doctrine stipulate a yes to both questions.  If so, that simply means you want to destroy and tear down such organization (why would someone stay in an organization who's core belief they disagree with-the only logical answer is to change it to make it conform to your own views). If the answer to both is yes-then that means you recognize the authority of the Church, but dislike the decisions made and believe that rather then those who are currently called to be in those positions to make those calls-you would be better suited to do so.  In others words, it is envy that others are making decisions you disagree with and if you were in charge things would be so much better.

Regardless of the path, the bottom-line is a problem with authority. And this is the major problem with millennials.  Other generations have had similar issues (the 60s), but more so than any other generation in the past several hundred years-the millennial generation has a major bone to pick with authority. They have not been raised properly to respect authority and things would be so much better if they were in charge.  Don't worry, they will have eventually their chance to be in charge-but that's not good enough.  They don't want to put in the hard work necessary to earn the positions of authority; they want it right now. And as such, when individuals have a rebellious spirit and a disrespect of righteous and divinely appointed authority, no amount of "just loving people" will help them back.  What helps to overcome a rebellious spirit, is a firm unwavering commitment to the truth not overbearing, but unwavering.  A simple stand of "these are the rules", I know you don't like them-you don't have to like them-but this is the way it is going to be.  We'd love for you to be here, but if you are to be here, this is what you need to abide by. The absolute worse thing, one can do with rebelliousness is to be wishy, washy on principles. Because quite frankly, people who are rebellious and have a disrespect for authority, the one thing they are really looking for and searching for in their life is an righteous authority figure. 

Unless and until the rising generations spirit of rebelliousness and disrespect for authority is changed, nothing the Church will do will solve the problem. 

  

Or there is a third option.  I am interested in what people think of the issues I brought up.  And I fully appreciate your answer and your perspective.  Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Not only was He a missionary He was also actively setting up His church:
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:" (Eph 4: 11-12)
"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers,"  (1 Cor 12:28)

Does that sound like someone who is inactive in the church? Aside from that it was different times, different circumstances than we have today.

What I was referring to is Christ's relationship to  the Jewish church, which Jews at the time believed was the church of God and run by holy people chosen by God.

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

Not only was He a missionary He was also actively setting up His church:
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:" (Eph 4: 11-12)
"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers,"  (1 Cor 12:28)

Does that sound like someone who is inactive in the church? Aside from that it was different times, different circumstances than we have today.

What I was referring to is Christ's relationship to  the Jewish church, which Jews at the time believed was the church of God and run by holy people chosen by God.

So are you saying He would be less active in the Jewish church today?. Yes I guess so.  

[rockpond]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

While I think that will help overall I don't think that's the real issue. Which matters more - boring church or weird history from more than 150 years ago? I bet for most people the controversial history is long enough ago plus they'd have to actually you know learn history. Contrast that with being bored at church especially compared with playing video games or watching TV. 

For intellectuals the history and philosophy matters most. Most people who write about this stuff on the internet tend to find intellectual issues interesting. Thus among them the history and philosophy dominates. But that's a selection bias issue. Most people don't even read their scriptures let alone study history. And for most people Joseph Smith is so far removed from their culture that it's like learning controversial things about Moses. What matters is what they find interesting. And by and large learning isn't it.

My guess is that the majority of people leaving would leave even if Joseph were monogamous and if they found horses, steel and bows in southern Mexico dated to 50 BC tomorrow.

I agree that making church a bit more engaging (and less repetitive) could help the situation with millennials.

But I think you underestimate the historical issues:

1) It's not just "weird history" from 150 years ago.  Our historical narrative establishes our authority and the validity of our scripture... today.  And, some of the issues aren't that long ago -- our first non-polygamist prophet wasn't until 1945.  The temple and priesthood ban ended just four decades ago.  The Hofmann forgeries were in the 80's.  September Six in the 90's.  Fighting against civil rights for gays in the 90's and 2000's.  Women were finally allowed to pray in general conference just a few years ago. 

2) The Information Age and ease of the digital media has made the study of history much more accessible. 

[california boy]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Christ was on a mission.  Do missionaries spend 7 days a week at the chapel?

This is your answer? Interesting.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This is your answer? Interesting.

I'm wondering why you think that Jesus wasn't in the synagogues when He was expected to be, per the law of moses?   

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

What I was referring to is Christ's relationship to  the Jewish church, which Jews at the time believed was the church of God and run by holy people chosen by God.

He went to the temple, appears to have practiced the rituals including the seder at Yom Kippur, he regularly taught in synagogue (see Luke 4 among dozens of scriptures) and even did the regular readings there, he followed the law of Moses as understood by the Hillel tradition at the time with perhaps a few variant beliefs, he performed ritual washings albeit perhaps with more of a break with traditional Jewish washings (the origins of baptism in Palestine as tied to the mikvah still aren't well understood), says he's not come to destroy the law or prophets but fulfill, and in all other ways seems part of orthodox Judaism.

Remember that Judaism wasn't a centralized religion like ours at the time. 

Given all that evidence though, I think the burden of proof is on you to show there was a break. The break with Judaism by Christianity really doesn't happen until well after the destruction of the temple and arguably not until the second sacking of Jerusalem when Rome implemented the conversion of Jerusalem to Alia Capitolina. Then there were more incentives to separate from Judaism. Plus by that time there were likely starting to be more gentile converts than Jewish ones. But during the first century I think you have to at best call Christianity a movement within Judaism the way Hillel's take was or the Essenes were.

Edited March 24, 2017 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

He went to the temple, appears to have practiced the rituals including the seder at Yom Kippur, he regularly taught in synagogue (see Luke 4 among dozens of scriptures) and even did the regular readings there, he followed the law of Moses as understood by the Hillel tradition at the time with perhaps a few variant beliefs, he performed ritual washings albeit perhaps with more of a break with traditional Jewish washings (the origins of baptism in Palestine as tied to the mikvah still aren't well understood), says he's not come to destroy the law or prophets but fulfill, and in all other ways seems part of orthodox Judaism.

Remember that Judaism wasn't a centralized religion like ours at the time. 

Given all that evidence though, I think the burden of proof is on you to show there was a break. The break with Judaism by Christianity really doesn't happen until well after the destruction of the temple and arguably not until the second sacking of Jerusalem when Rome implemented the conversion of Jerusalem to Alia Capitolina. Then there were more incentives to separate from Judaism. Plus by that time there were likely starting to be more gentile converts than Jewish ones. But during the first century I think you have to at best call Christianity a movement within Judaism the way Hillel's take was or the Essenes were.

Burden of proof?  I have made no claims.  I am only asking the questions.  I see a Christ that chastised leaders of the Jewish church, purposefully broke their laws of the Sabbath and was persecuted by church leaders for doing so.  I don't know how many times Christ attended synagogue.  But there is no record of weekly attendance and he doesn't appear to have done that.  I am just looking at what is recorded and wondering what people think about Christ and his relationship to the Jewish religion that most Jews at the time believed represented God's church.  

[probablyHagoth7]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

...I am only asking the questions....I am just looking at what is recorded and wondering what people think about Christ and his relationship to the Jewish religion that most Jews at the time believed represented God's church.  

You have a valid question.

That said, even if you entertain concerns:

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do...

Edited March 24, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

I agree that making church a bit more engaging (and less repetitive) could help the situation with millennials.

But I think you underestimate the historical issues:

1) It's not just "weird history" from 150 years ago.  Our historical narrative establishes our authority and the validity of our scripture... today.  And, some of the issues aren't that long ago -- our first non-polygamist prophet wasn't until 1945.  The temple and priesthood ban ended just four decades ago.  The Hofmann forgeries were in the 80's.  September Six in the 90's.  Fighting against civil rights for gays in the 90's and 2000's.  Women were finally allowed to pray in general conference just a few years ago. 

2) The Information Age and ease of the digital media has made the study of history much more accessible. 

The people who have problem with those things really have problems with not allowing homosexual marriage or feminism. That is they're doctrinal issues not historical issues. I don't dispute in the least that lots of people fundamentally just want the Church to be more like a liberal protestant church. I'm not sure that ultimately matters much since those churches really aren't exactly picking up members. That is people say they want churches to be more liberal in that form - potentially going as far as an unitarian conception. However in practice what happens is these people join the Nones.

So I fully agree that's an issue. Indeed I'd say it's the most major issue. But it's just not an historic issue.

Note I'm here speaking in the aggregate. Of course individuals find fulfillment from moving from Mormonism to Unitarian churches or say a more liberal Lutheran or Anglican church. (Sorry - Episcopalian down here)  It's just that in general these groups aren't gaining members. They're losing them. They also skew overwhelmingly towards the old. So not only are they losing members but they really have a hard time with the young. For instance Episcopalians have only 9% of their self-identified membership in the 18-29 age group. Mormons have 22%.

Edited March 24, 2017 by clarkgoble