Attracting Millenials--these two churches are succeeding

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I've been to a Mormon ward several times as a visitor.  They are not doing anything that would prevent millennials from
thinking about joining.  The mission of the church is to preach the gospel, not to be concerned with the size of membership.

Jim

Yes, and times change.  The missionaries used to teach with flannel boards, then flipcharts, now IPads.  The message is the same.  But we reach people where they are.  So we need to adapt.  My experience is that we change fairly slowly.  I'm really glad to hear you enjoy our meetings.  They don't change much at all.  I hope you can embrace the message someday.  It's a great way to live.

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, mapman said:

I know this is supposed to be funny, but we need to be clear that Millennials aren't teenagers any more. Millennials are people born between early 1980s to the mid-90s. Most of them are adults with careers and a lot of them have started their own families.

I enjoy video games, but I haven't actually played any in about a month because finals are coming up and I also have work. I've never played Call of Duty myself nor Pokemon Go. I have a friend that plays Pokemon Go regularly, but its not like its taking up a significant amount of his time. The dumb stereotypes and hilariously shallow understanding of what it is like to be a Millennial shown in this thread goes a long way to explain why Millennials have been abandoning their parents' churches.

Umm, I was born in 79, so I am not as disconnected and out-of-touch with the millennial generation as you seem to think I am.  A lot of my friends, siblings and cousins are millennials.  I practically am one myself.  I agree that you can’t generalize, but some of the “dumb stereotypes” are pretty spot on with a lot of the millennial I know.

And yes, I was joking.

[rongo]

13 hours ago, mnn727 said:

That's your belief. I hated Shakespeare and we never read Milton in school, I tried to a few years back but put it back on the shelves when I saw the language.

again its your OPINION about a modern language version.

You hate Shakespeare. You're not alone. But, can you understand it? Do you actually have trouble understanding the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants?

Where did the bottom fall out and 18-40 year-olds suddenly can't understand scriptural English? And how does that not indict their competency?

[rongo]

13 hours ago, sheilauk said:

I teach 14-17 year olds.   Almost all were born in the church, have active parents,  who read scriptures with them.  They are not stupid.  They all struggle to read the scriptures out loud and do not understand quite a lot of the words. They do study Shakespeare at school but don't understand him either.  The meaning of the words doesn't seem to be explained to them and they don't seem to understand them in context.  Because they don't understand the words reading scriptures is a chore and they don't understand the stories.  I spend a lot of time explaining. They do like the church videos. 

Personally,  I love the KJV, Shakespeare and Milton but I have always loved words and reading and I have always looked up words I don't know. I like dictionaries.  Most people I know don't like to read. If you don't understand what you are reading or hearing, why wouldn't you drift away,  or be persuaded by those using language and ideas you can relate to?

See above. If they are of average-above average intelligence (i.e., not stupid) --- and I quite agree --- then where did it happen where an entire couple of generations suddenly can't read and understand things above a graphic novel? 

I agree that they do like church videos, though. 

And people get offended when it is suggested that they have competency issues with a bearing on their ability to gain a testimony, teach the gospel, assume the responsibilities of adulthood, and build up the kingdom?

[rongo]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Do church leaders really realize what they are asking of this new generation?  To buy a simple condo in San Francisco starts close to a million dollars.  Rent for a 2 bedroom apartment runs about $3,500 a month.  While there are some less expensive communities outside of San Francisco, commute costs are easily $10-20 a day, or 300-600 dollars a month.  Very few single people can live by themselves.  Having someone to share the rent is a necessity.  Having a wife with a child completely eliminates that option without putting the child in daycare from day one.  Do you even see how laughable this sentence is?

I see how laughable it is that anyone would expect that young people between 18-30 could expect to live in the Bay Area, barring a fantastic job (and there are some who can swing this). Simple economics dictate that they are going to have to move somewhere where they can afford to work, study, and provide for themselves. Manhattan would be another area that isn't feasible. There are many others. There are many, many of other places that work, though. 

Those who don't (including the parents who let them still live with them into their late 20s and beyond) and stay with parents because of affordability issues are not progressing in their development, are they?

[rongo]

12 hours ago, mapman said:

I rent an apartment and I imagine will do that for a long while still. It is a lot easier to do that though when you are single because you have roommates who are also paying rent. I guess it's just a matter of it being cheaper to live with relatives so you get a chance to save up more money.

Many of us have rented apartments with roommates. It is very doable. I've even helped middle-aged and elderly members downsize their lifestyles and move into apartments, because they can't afford to live in a house. They are embarrassed and initially unwilling, but you do what you have to do to make ends meet. That's part of being an adult.

A big problem I've seen over the last 10 years of so is newly-wed married couples (no children yet) who buy a house (fully furnished with new furniture and appliances) and two cars, and then have massive financial problems trying to make ends meet (even though both work). They come to the Church for help, and it is long-term help they seek because their numbers don't add up at all --- and won't without massive incursions from fast offerings for the foreseeable future. They are bitter when welfare principles are taught and adhered to in administering assistance (because their numbers aren't even close to adding up, being self-reliant means they are going to have to sell the house and one or both of the cars and downsize their lifestyle). They feel robbed and cheated, because they just got married ---- they should have a house and cars and be able to go on trips all the time, like their parents. That's what I meant when I said that the younger couple of generations expect to have immediately (now!) what it took their parents decades to be able to have. 

We lived in apartments for the first five years of our marriage and had two children. We moved into a house when we could afford it. 

[HappyJackWagon]

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

You hate Shakespeare. You're not alone. But, can you understand it? Do you actually have trouble understanding the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants?

Where did the bottom fall out and 18-40 year-olds suddenly can't understand scriptural English? And how does that not indict their competency?

Shakespeare is fine but you must recognize there is a language barrier. He uses words we just don't use or understand anymore. Why not use updated translations that people can readily understand? Is there some inherent value in maintaining old English language for the seemingly sole purpose of holding on to tradition? Translating the scriptures out of Latin into languages that people could read and speak was revolutionary but many fought against these translations in favor of tradition. I see no valid reason to hold on to old English that hasn't been used for a couple of hundred years when it creates language barriers when there are other translations that are easier to understand and in some cases even more accurate in translation.

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Shakespeare is fine but you must recognize there is a language barrier. He uses words we just don't use or understand anymore. Why not use updated translations that people can readily understand? Is there some inherent value in maintaining old English language for the seemingly sole purpose of holding on to tradition? Translating the scriptures out of Latin into languages that people could read and speak was revolutionary but many fought against these translations in favor of tradition. I see no valid reason to hold on to old English that hasn't been used for a couple of hundred years when it creates language barriers when there are other translations that are easier to understand and in some cases even more accurate in translation.

Well, the language in our scriptures is by and large much easier than Shakespeare. Especially for those who have grown up with it. Granted that it can be jarring for some investigators with no experience with that, but I have found that those who try to do the reading assignments and pray about it are just fine, even if they struggle with reading or aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Those who won't attempt to read at all are not going to be successful long-term in the Church, for the most part. Reading (even if it's just attempted reading) is a good indicator of the likelihood of future activity. 

[HappyJackWagon]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, the language in our scriptures is by and large much easier than Shakespeare. Especially for those who have grown up with it. Granted that it can be jarring for some investigators with no experience with that, but I have found that those who try to do the reading assignments and pray about it are just fine, even if they struggle with reading or aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Those who won't attempt to read at all are not going to be successful long-term in the Church, for the most part. Reading (even if it's just attempted reading) is a good indicator of the likelihood of future activity. 

Yes, if you consider "fine" as leaving the church in droves. But I'm sure none of them have issues with the way the gospel is presented to them.  

Why the hesitancy to present the gospel in a way that is accessible to a younger generation? Is there something righteous about old English and organ music? Or is it just a stubborn desire to maintain tradition and a status quo that doesn't interest a large group of people? Do you see the loss of millennials (and others) as part of the culling process in separating the unworthy from the righteous before Christ returns?

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, if you consider "fine" as leaving the church in droves. But I'm sure none of them have issues with the way the gospel is presented to them.  

Why the hesitancy to present the gospel in a way that is accessible to a younger generation? Is there something righteous about old English and organ music? Or is it just a stubborn desire to maintain tradition and a status quo that doesn't interest a large group of people? Do you see the loss of millennials (and others) as part of the culling process in separating the unworthy from the righteous before Christ returns?

The issues that are causing millennials to leave have little to do with organ music and Old-English scriptures.

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, if you consider "fine" as leaving the church in droves. But I'm sure none of them have issues with the way the gospel is presented to them.  

They're not leaving (or going into deep hibernation or hiding) because they want a "No Fear!" version of the scriptures (that's a Shakespeare for Dummies version of plays schools sometimes use. Uggghh). 

Why the hesitancy to present the gospel in a way that is accessible to a younger generation? Is there something righteous about old English and organ music? Or is it just a stubborn desire to maintain tradition and a status quo that doesn't interest a large group of people? Do you see the loss of millennials (and others) as part of the culling process in separating the unworthy from the righteous before Christ returns?

I think it might be part of a meta-societal development within the Church and society at large that will be a contributing factor in the big picture of the last days. I was talking about this with an amazing elderly couple at tithing settlement Sunday. She is a convert from Puerto Rico who wanted to be a nun. They served a mission in a college YSA ward for two years, essentially helping the bishop counsel YSAs. We were discussing how "Gen X, Gen Y, Millennials, etc." may be a pendulum swing because of child-rearing from baby boomers (spoiling kids rotten after the Great Depression and WW2 people grew up sacrificing and deprived), and I wondered if there might be a backlash from Millennials when they get older that might lead to more tradition and conservatism in future generations, because of the emptiness of how they grew up --- if we have enough time for several generations in the future . . .  . They agreed with this, and thought it was a fascinating thought. 

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

The issues that are causing millennials to leave have little to do with organ music and Old-English scriptures.

CFR.

I mean in part seriously with that.  I don't know that we have all that great of insight into why people are leaving, particularly younger people.  I'm sure if we found out on an individual level the reasons would take us all over the board, and I wouldn't doubt that many leave because church simply doesn't apply.  It's too old and archaic.  They simply can't relate.  I'm old and I feel, largely, the same.

[HappyJackWagon]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

The issues that are causing millennials to leave have little to do with organ music and Old-English scriptures.

I agree that it's unlikely someone leaving the church will cite old English or organ music as the reasons. But I do think those issues represent an infatuation the church holds with tradition, as if tradition = righteousness or "the only acceptable way to worship", that Millenial's don't share. When millennials (or anyone) wishes for an improved worship experience they either do what they can to make it better where they are, seek it out elsewhere, or just give up.

In addition to Sacrament meeting on Sunday I also attended a Methodist service. I had a spiritual experience at the Methodist church. The music, the worshipful interaction congregants had with the pastor, the way they explain and invite others to communion, and the service itself inspired me. I liked the way the pastor spoke conversationally, the way she was less formal and more authentic in expressing her ideas. There was humor and interesting stories, all centered around the topic of Mary being a chosen vessel for bringing Jesus into the world. We sang Christmas songs. It was great.

I got none of that from Sacrament meeting. For sacrament meeting we had dull organ music. I felt like I was at a funeral. There were no Christmas songs. We sang Praise to the Man for the closing Hymn. A youth speaker gave a synopsis of a conference talk. An adult speaker read 1/2 of a conference talk and told some meandering, incomprehensible story. I honestly don't have a clue how it connected to the topic. The final speaker spent his time talking about Joseph Smith and how he's done more, save Christ, than anyone else who has ever lived. BTW- that was the only time Christ was mentioned.

So while old English and organ music wouldn't be the reason I leave (if I ever do) it is a symptom of the larger problem that the method of worship is being confused with righteousness, yet it doesn't touch me in any meaningful way. If millennials feel similar things about sacrament meeting, why wouldn't they seek out another source of religious worship or give up?

[clarkgoble]

19 hours ago, rongo said:

Anyone with any knowledge or experience with YSA wards and stakes can confirm that retention of 20somethings is a huge problem. The logistical nightmare of tracking and keeping track of them from a unit/clerk/leader standpoint alone . . . Many do not willingly allow their Church records to be moved. 

I'm not convinced that this is due to Church incompetence or them leaving the Church or having testimony issues. It seems to be much more that they don't care, and that they don't care about anything other than tapping and swiping (it isn't anything personal towards the Church) and have general massive competency issues with all factors of adult life. 

That was true back in my day as well. Further ward hopping was ubiquitous. I remember my parents getting a letter from SLC trying to track my whereabouts due to my going to so many wards. I was completely active but not tied to a particular ward for various reasons.

I don't think the problem is Church incompetence because I don't think there are obvious solutions to a problem fairly tied to broader social changes. That said, I think the dismissals of the recent generation as simply flighty, superficial and unserious are themselves superficial. They're ultimately a way of avoiding looking into the deeper sociological issues at play.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I will give an example, and why I quoted your post.  The church leaders want young people to not delay marriage or having a family.  Do church leaders really realize what they are asking of this new generation?  To buy a simple condo in San Francisco starts close to a million dollars.  Rent for a 2 bedroom apartment runs about $3,500 a month.  While there are some less expensive communities outside of San Francisco, commute costs are easily $10-20 a day, or 300-600 dollars a month.  Very few single people can live by themselves.  Having someone to share the rent is a necessity.  Having a wife with a child completely eliminates that option without putting the child in daycare from day one.  Do you even see how laughable this sentence is?

This is why most young people are moving away from the expensive Californian cities. There are solutions but I tend to agree older generations who don't realize how much things have changed often aren't exactly helping the rising generation deal with the differences. Further I'd once again note that there is a huge difference between those able to enter the information based economy that relies so heavily on university education and the rest of the economy. There are also other issues such as responsibilities for parents and/or siblings and the difficulty of moving for some people. Personally I think one of the better things parents could be doing is encouraging kids to go away from school rather than staying at home, but there are big economic issues there with college costing considerably more than 25 years ago.

It'd really be helpful if my generation and older would not assume everything is the same economically today as in the past and be aware of new difficulties.

17 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't know, if we could create an advancing series of really addicting video games like Captain Moroni's Call of Duty...or something like that... to use for Sunday School, etc.

"Call of Duty has been experienced by over 100 million players [see, we could increase membership by nearly 10 fold!] in multiple countries. The man hours that have been put into Call of Duty are nothing short of astonishing. With 25 billion hours (2.85 million years) of total gameplay, people have played Call of Duty for longer than the course of human existence. During that time, players have fired over 32.3 quadrillion shots, according to IGN."

For millennial investigators, we could have a Pokemon type game where they have to go into a baptismal font for points. 

Sacrament would be Takis chips and mountain dew with a state of the art virtual reality experience for the lessons.  

...then we might retain millennials, because they will be gaming even in their death bed.   

And in the 70's & 80's people were watching inordinate amounts of bad TV. The main difference is that entertainment is shifting. However certainly among economic depressed areas we find people giving up on finding jobs and spending the time on video games. The question is what is driving that - the lack of opportunities for those either not intelligent enough or not educated enough for the information economy or something else? I tend to think that while teaching has a bit to do with this, the bigger issue is the shift in economics.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

CFR.

I mean in part seriously with that.  I don't know that we have all that great of insight into why people are leaving, particularly younger people.  I'm sure if we found out on an individual level the reasons would take us all over the board, and I wouldn't doubt that many leave because church simply doesn't apply.  It's too old and archaic.  They simply can't relate.  I'm old and I feel, largely, the same.

For your CFR, I am thinking about the leaked bubble chart of the church of the issues leading people away from the church.  I don't know what data they used to create that chart, but I suspect they have their sources.   Do you really want a link?

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that it's unlikely someone leaving the church will cite old English or organ music as the reasons. But I do think those issues represent an infatuation the church holds with tradition, as if tradition = righteousness or "the only acceptable way to worship", that Millenial's don't share. When millennials (or anyone) wishes for an improved worship experience they either do what they can to make it better where they are, seek it out elsewhere, or just give up.

In addition to Sacrament meeting on Sunday I also attended a Methodist service. I had a spiritual experience at the Methodist church. The music, the worshipful interaction congregants had with the pastor, the way they explain and invite others to communion, and the service itself inspired me. I liked the way the pastor spoke conversationally, the way she was less formal and more authentic in expressing her ideas. There was humor and interesting stories, all centered around the topic of Mary being a chosen vessel for bringing Jesus into the world. We sang Christmas songs. It was great.

I got none of that from Sacrament meeting. For sacrament meeting we had dull organ music. I felt like I was at a funeral. There were no Christmas songs. We sang Praise to the Man for the closing Hymn. A youth speaker gave a synopsis of a conference talk. An adult speaker read 1/2 of a conference talk and told some meandering, incomprehensible story. I honestly don't have a clue how it connected to the topic. The final speaker spent his time talking about Joseph Smith and how he's done more, save Christ, than anyone else who has ever lived. BTW- that was the only time Christ was mentioned.

So while old English and organ music wouldn't be the reason I leave (if I ever do) it is a symptom of the larger problem that the method of worship is being confused with righteousness, yet it doesn't touch me in any meaningful way. If millennials feel similar things about sacrament meeting, why wouldn't they seek out another source of religious worship or give up?

My personal preference is non-organ music and modern English scriptures, although I favor variety and have no problem with some organ music occasionally.  But those are superficial to the gospel.  I would love it if the church mixed things up a little, but I fully agree with Rongo on this issue.  Those are just gimmicks and will not instill life-long commitment and conversion to gospel principles.

What other options for music do you suggest?  A band? Orchestra? Electronica?  Remember that we don't have paid musicians like other congregations to arrange and perform music.  The only other viable alternative to the organ is the piano or acapella.  Also, keep in mind that these are all superficial and subjective taste preferences and have nothing to do with the gospel.   

There certainly are benefits to a paid ministry as far as quality music, well thought out and prepared pastors.  It is their livelihood, of course they are going to put more into it.  The LDS church will never be able to compete with the level of entertainment and compelling speakers that paid ministry churches can produce. 

This reminds me of a scripture in Mathew 23, comparing the superficial outward appearances with the inward treasures:

Quote

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Christ condemned these types of superficial gimmicks.  He cares about the heart.  The message.  That is what matters.  As Christ made it very clear, it is not the package that matters as much as what is inside.  I suspect that we are loosing millennials due to shifting cultural values and principles.  Less value is placed on long-term commitment to anything, and is replaced with instant gratification.  Less value is placed on in-depth research and introspection and is replaced with instant google searches and answers.  Less value is place on discipline to ancient and enduring principles (required for discipleship), and more value is placed on the next popular fad.  Less value is placed on seeking God's will, and more value is placed on fulfilling personal will.  Millennials don't want to change for God, they want God to change for them.  That is true in the work force, and I suspect it is true in religion too. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

My personal preference is non-organ music and modern English scriptures, although I favor variety and have no problem with some organ music occasionally.  But those are superficial to the gospel.  I would love it if the church mixed things up a little, but I fully agree with Rongo on this issue.  Those are just gimmicks and will not instill life-long commitment and conversion to gospel principles.

What other options for music do you suggest?  A band? Orchestra? Electronica?  Remember that we don't have paid musicians like other congregations to arrange and perform music.  The only other viable alternative to the organ is the piano or acapella.  Also, keep in mind that these are all superficial and subjective taste preferences and have nothing to do with the gospel.   

There certainly are benefits to a paid ministry as far as quality music, well thought out and prepared pastors.  It is their livelihood, of course they are going to put more into it.  The LDS church will never be able to compete with the level of entertainment and compelling speakers that paid ministry churches can produce. 

This reminds me of a scripture in Mathew 23, comparing the superficial outward appearances with the inward treasures:

Christ condemned these types of superficial gimmicks.  He cares about the heart.  The message.  That is what matters.  As Christ made it very clear, it is not the package that matters as much as what is inside.  I suspect that we are loosing millennials due to shifting cultural values and principles.  Less value is placed on long-term commitment to anything, and is replaced with instant gratification.  Less value is placed on in-depth research and introspection and is replaced with instant google searches and answers.  Less value is place on discipline to ancient and enduring principles (required for discipleship), and more value is placed on the next popular fad.  Less value is placed on seeking God's will, and more value is placed on fulfilling personal will.  Millennials don't want to change for God, they want God to change for them.  That is true in the work force, and I suspect it is true in religion too. 

When a teacher finds a way to connect to a student in a way that they are eager and able to learn, that isn't called a gimmick. It's good teaching.

It's not just "organ" music. That's fine on occasion, but it's the entire style of old hymn music. I agree that variety is great. I love piano. There are some traditional hymns that I really enjoy but I don't believe for a moment that the one style of music is the only appropriate form of worship. It gets very dull. There is some beautiful contemporary LDS music that isn't even allowed in sacrament meeting. Such a shame.

If you consider well thought out and well delivered sermons to be  "entertainment", and that we could never expect the church to compete with others, then that is a sad admission about the quality of worship services in the church.

Style of music isn't a gimmick. Scriptures people can understand isn't a gimmick. Sermons that help people connect to the gospel of Jesus Christ isn't a gimmick. They are necessary tools for attracting, developing, and maintaining congregations seeking salvation through Jesus. If His message isn't accessible because of poorly organized and delivered worship services, then I think it's fair to ask why we're not demanding improvement.

 

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, pogi said:

For your CFR, I am thinking about the leaked bubble chart of the church of the issues leading people away from the church.  I don't know what data they used to create that chart, but I suspect they have their sources.   Do you really want a link?

My personal preference is non-organ music and modern English scriptures, although I favor variety and have no problem with some organ music occasionally.  But those are superficial to the gospel.  I would love it if the church mixed things up a little, but I fully agree with Rongo on this issue.  Those are just gimmicks and will not instill life-long commitment and conversion to gospel principles.

What other options for music do you suggest?  A band? Orchestra? Electronica?  Remember that we don't have paid musicians like other congregations to arrange and perform music.  The only other viable alternative to the organ is the piano or acapella.  Also, keep in mind that these are all superficial and subjective taste preferences and have nothing to do with the gospel.   

There certainly are benefits to a paid ministry as far as quality music, well thought out and prepared pastors.  It is their livelihood, of course they are going to put more into it.  The LDS church will never be able to compete with the level of entertainment and compelling speakers that paid ministry churches can produce. 

This reminds me of a scripture in Mathew 23, comparing the superficial outward appearances with the inward treasures:

Christ condemned these types of superficial gimmicks.  He cares about the heart.  The message.  That is what matters.  As Christ made it very clear, it is not the package that matters as much as what is inside.  I suspect that we are loosing millennials due to shifting cultural values and principles.  Less value is placed on long-term commitment to anything, and is replaced with instant gratification.  Less value is placed on in-depth research and introspection and is replaced with instant google searches and answers.  Less value is place on discipline to ancient and enduring principles (required for discipleship), and more value is placed on the next popular fad.  Less value is placed on seeking God's will, and more value is placed on fulfilling personal will.  Millennials don't want to change for God, they want God to change for them.  That is true in the work force, and I suspect it is true in religion too. 

I think you're placing way too much importance of doctrine and the message in conversion. I think it's all about how connected people feel to the religious community. Millenials are no more or less shallow than previous generations. They're just a bit less connected to the religious community. Maybe that's because the nature of community is changing.

 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think you're placing way too much importance of doctrine and the message in conversion. I think it's all about how connected people feel to the religious community. Millenials are no more or less shallow than previous generations. They're just a bit less connected to the religious community. Maybe that's because the nature of community is changing.

I think this is directly related to our struggles with conversion. Most people who are baptized don't care about (or know much about, frankly) the Restoration and the unique doctrines of the Church. They join for other reasons (social, like you point out), and the fluid nature of these reasons leads them into a "pie crust" relationship with the Church. I don't think it's solely an LDS problem.

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think this is directly related to our struggles with conversion. Most people who are baptized don't care about (or know much about, frankly) the Restoration and the unique doctrines of the Church. They join for other reasons (social, like you point out), and the fluid nature of these reasons leads them into a "pie crust" relationship with the Church. I don't think it's solely an LDS problem.

Agreed. I think this is a pretty universal issue.

[mnn727]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

You hate Shakespeare. You're not alone. But, can you understand it? Do you actually have trouble understanding the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants?

Where did the bottom fall out and 18-40 year-olds suddenly can't understand scriptural English? And how does that not indict their competency?

Yes, I have trouble understanding many archaic scriptures, I can read the words, but the intent often slips by me and all I'm doing is reading the words rather than 'Feasting on the words of Christ'.  I don't even try anymore, I read modern English versions of the Bible and the BoM (and yes, there is one) the D&C isn't as bad as its closer to our current language. Some of the newer Apostles, starting with Elder Holland, often quote other versions of the Bible in their talks.

 

And the "bottom fell out" decades ago, I'm 61 years old and I know a number of people in the Church my age that don't bother reading scripture due to this. Do you do your Home Teaching? ask your families if they read the scriptures on a regular basis and if not why not. Take a blind survey (written handout with no names so they answer honestly)  in your 3rd hours (EQ/HP/RS)

How does it indict yourself to call them incompetent because they are not learning an archaic form of a language that is not spoken anywhere anymore?

Sorry, but Jesus didn't speak 'Olde English". There's nothing spiritual or holy about the language, in fact the KJV version of the Bible was the common everyday tongue of the people when it was first written. So why don't we use scriptures written in the everyday tongue of the people today?

Edited December 13, 2017 by mnn727

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When a teacher finds a way to connect to a student in a way that they are eager and able to learn, that isn't called a gimmick. It's good teaching.

Agreed. However, one doesn't need different music and modern language in scriptures for a teacher to connect in a spiritual and edifying way.   I agree with the principles taught in the manual "Teaching in the Savior's Way".  Do you take issue with any of the teachings in there?  I also appreciate that our members are not trained ministers, but simple servants doing their best.  We are all edified through our service and ministry to others as much, if not more than the ministry of other's to us. 

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's not just "organ" music. That's fine on occasion, but it's the entire style of old hymn music. I agree that variety is great. I love piano. There are some traditional hymns that I really enjoy but I don't believe for a moment that the one style of music is the only appropriate form of worship. It gets very dull. There is some beautiful contemporary LDS music that isn't even allowed in sacrament meeting. Such a shame.

While I too would like to see some more variety, I predict that if such changes were to occur, retention would not improve until we address the core issues.  Conversion should not be to the musical program of the church.  If it is, it will not endure.  It is not about the music. The music is just icing on the cake, an accessory to the gospel.

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If you consider well thought out and well delivered sermons to be  "entertainment", and that we could never expect the church to compete with others, then that is a sad admission about the quality of worship services in the church.

 I don't expect the quality of talks to compete with trained and paid ministers who compete for livelihood. 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Style of music isn't a gimmick. Scriptures people can understand isn't a gimmick. Sermons that help people connect to the gospel of Jesus Christ isn't a gimmick. They are necessary tools for attracting, developing, and maintaining congregations seeking salvation through Jesus. If His message isn't accessible because of poorly organized and delivered worship services, then I think it's fair to ask why we're not demanding improvement.

While style of music is not necessarily a gimmick, it certainly can be.  If the sole purpose of changing the music in the church is to attract millennials, then it is a gimmick.  At least it would be viewed that way by the critics. 

As far as scriptures go, the Book of Mormon is pretty simple.  The Bible has plenty of modern English versions that can be used for personal study.  In church, the Old-English version is rarely shared with out expounding on, and talking about what it means.

The tools necessary for attracting, developing, and maintaining congregations is 1) good seed and 2) good earth.  The church can only provide 1 of those.  We present simple gospel seeds without gimmick, without white-washed sepulchers and fancy packaging, without showmanship, and without pay or monetary reward or professional training.  We don't offer sequoia trees as some congregations try to solicit, we offer plain and precious seeds.  In a generation of fast-food, millennials don't seem to have the patience for seeds. 

 

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

Agreed. I think this is a pretty universal issue.

Perhaps more emphasis on doctrine and the gospel message could help solve the issue of superficial conversion.   That is the way Christ taught anyway and seemed to work for him.

Edited December 13, 2017 by pogi

[california boy]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

For your CFR, I am thinking about the leaked bubble chart of the church of the issues leading people away from the church.  I don't know what data they used to create that chart, but I suspect they have their sources.   Do you really want a link?

My personal preference is non-organ music and modern English scriptures, although I favor variety and have no problem with some organ music occasionally.  But those are superficial to the gospel.  I would love it if the church mixed things up a little, but I fully agree with Rongo on this issue.  Those are just gimmicks and will not instill life-long commitment and conversion to gospel principles.

What other options for music do you suggest?  A band? Orchestra? Electronica?  Remember that we don't have paid musicians like other congregations to arrange and perform music.  The only other viable alternative to the organ is the piano or acapella.  Also, keep in mind that these are all superficial and subjective taste preferences and have nothing to do with the gospel.   

There certainly are benefits to a paid ministry as far as quality music, well thought out and prepared pastors.  It is their livelihood, of course they are going to put more into it.  The LDS church will never be able to compete with the level of entertainment and compelling speakers that paid ministry churches can produce. 

This reminds me of a scripture in Mathew 23, comparing the superficial outward appearances with the inward treasures:

Christ condemned these types of superficial gimmicks.  He cares about the heart.  The message.  That is what matters.  As Christ made it very clear, it is not the package that matters as much as what is inside.  I suspect that we are loosing millennials due to shifting cultural values and principles.  Less value is placed on long-term commitment to anything, and is replaced with instant gratification.  Less value is placed on in-depth research and introspection and is replaced with instant google searches and answers.  Less value is place on discipline to ancient and enduring principles (required for discipleship), and more value is placed on the next popular fad.  Less value is placed on seeking God's will, and more value is placed on fulfilling personal will.  Millennials don't want to change for God, they want God to change for them.  That is true in the work force, and I suspect it is true in religion too. 

I agree with most of what you wrote here, but I would like to offer a suggestion that I think is doable and no cost.  A while back I attended Glide Memoral church here in San Francisco.  It was so different from a Mormon service.  The first thing I noticed is that not everyone was dressed the same.  It felt like everyone was welcome and it was more important that you come for yourself and. not for the expectations of others.  Just a completely different vibe.

They also had an amazing choir.  Kind of like the black gospel choirs, but not all black.  Again everyone was welcome.  When they sang, the whole audience was involved.  And when the audience sang with them, there was so much energy and love in the air it felt like the walls of the church could not hold it all.  NOTHING static about it. They connected with everyone present.  It was not a passive event.

The goals of the church is completely different than most churches.  It is centered around helping the poor and reaching out to those in need.  They serve 3 meals a day to whoever shows up as well as offering shelter to as many as they can.  Google them if you want more information.  They believe that they can bring people closer to Christ more by serving than by learning dogma.  

 

I am not suggesting that the Mormon church should become a church like Glide Memorial.  I am only suggesting that perhaps it should look at how others are approaching this issue and see if there is anything worthy of the church to consider adapting.

Edited December 13, 2017 by california boy

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Perhaps more emphasis on doctrine and the gospel message could help solve the issue of superficial conversion.   That is the way Christ taught anyway and seemed to work for him.

Again, I don't think conversion is necessarily about the message. People feel converted when they have strong ties to the community. When they have weak ties or their friends (community) start to doubt, they start to doubt. At least that's how it looks like to me based on the survey data in that other thread.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Again, I don't think conversion is necessarily about the message. People feel converted when they have strong ties to the community. When they have weak ties or their friends (community) start to doubt, they start to doubt. At least that's how it looks like to me based on the survey data in that other thread.

I agree. Doctrinal/Restoration converts are more likely to stay and to stay active and productive. Social converts are more likely to join, but also to tire of the Church or just as easily leave or go inactive.