Attracting Millenials--these two churches are succeeding

[bluebell]

20 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 think that's part of the problem.  Conversion needs to be to the doctrine or it won't stick.  If someone isn't converted to the doctrine, they aren't fully converted.

[Jeanne]

Seriously...who is going to listen??  Why would one expect the younger generations to listen...they don't talk anymore!  They don't look at anyone in the eye...no response and sometimes just a blank page..because they are glued to the screen in front of them.  The reality has changed...their reality is not truth unless it can be googled...pictured...texted..whatever...but there are minds in there that don't need to believe in anything..but the present.  I am sorry if this doesn't make sense..but working with so many young people on different levels..their whole concept seems to be trying to get more for less...and sometimes spirituality gets in the way of that.This doesn't mean that they are not good thinking people...it just means that we will never know if they are or not...they don't care if we know...

My daughter...my gosh...she lived upstairs in my own home and she would email me before she would down the stairs to talk to me.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Jeanne

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

I agree, but I think a big issue is attention and interest. That is people get bored. Some people find entertainment crass, but the reality is that if you get a dynamic speaker whether in Sacrament or Sunday School people pay attention more and get more out of the meetings. While it's fine to say everyone should listen regardless of the quality of the teacher or speaker, the reality is that if our talks and lessons are functional, we need to ensure people listen. That was easier when there was a captive audience with low expectations. Now with different expectations and frankly diversions with phones I think we need to adjust. Again we can blame the audience but the question then becomes whether it's about blame or results.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

Hopefully we don't make our decisions based upon what critics think.

There's no doubt that music can be used as a superficial counterfeit of the spirit. But it's also true that a lot more variety of music can be uplifting. Again, just look at the music typically used in Primary versus Sacrament. And that's not an issue of infantilizing adults but asking what the function of music is supposed to be. Our music choices largely come out of the protestant background of early members. What works for largely white Americans doesn't necessarily work well in Asia or elsewhere. I'm not saying abandon our music so much as recognize that a narrow choice of music might be fulfilling to a narrow band of people.

What I fear is that we do things because that's the way we've always done things without asking what the point is. Ultimately Church is about serving the members. While we shouldn't change for the sake of change and we should beware of unintended consequences, neither should we assume the status quo ought be maintained.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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.

I think you are downplaying far too much how big of a barrier it is to many people - especially English as a second language speakers and people who might struggle in school. Even when they can figure out what is said, it's not natural. There's a barrier that must be pierced to get at meaning. Often that means to make sense of the King James Version you require a commentary. At a bear minimum updating to something like the New King James Version by Oxford should be done. That at least replaces words no longer part of functional English or words whose meaning has substantially changed.

The gospel should be understandable even to people who might not be able to pass a Shakespeare class.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

Ultimately it's the spirit. The main problem with social converts is that they've not had that spiritual conversion nor typically have learned how to turn to God to find out what to do. That means that when things aren't entertaining or if someone offends them they have no reason to stay. Those with a true spiritual conversion stay because it is true and merely see others as impediments trying to stop them. It's very hard for someone to remain active without a true conversion. (Many do of course, but many more do not)

Edited December 13, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

3 hours 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.

2 hours 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.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

Am I missing something here, because you both seem to be saying two different things, but agree with each other.

Gray seems to be downplaying the importance of a gospel conversion and up-playing a social conversion; while rongo seems to be doing the opposite, yet you seem to agree with each other. 

This is the part I have a big problem with:

Quote

I think you're placing way too much importance of doctrine and the message in conversion

True conversion (I am not talking about active attendance) comes from trying the word, testing the seed, applying the principles, sacrificing your will for the Lord's and watching for results, speaking with God and listening for his voice speaking back.  I agree that social influence can help (or hinder) that process, but the emphasis of conversion should be the seed...the word of God. 

I think we have it backwards. Fellowship should be a natural byproduct of the true conversion of the saints.  The more we place emphasis on "the seed" aka the Word of God, the better our fellowship will become.  Alternatively, the less we emphasize the Word of God in our message, the less we emphasize the Word of God in our lives, and the less fellowship we will see in the church.   The Word is the message and emphasis, without leaving the other undone.  At least, that is how I interpret Christ's teachings. 

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by pogi

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think that's part of the problem.  Conversion needs to be to the doctrine or it won't stick.  If someone isn't converted to the doctrine, they aren't fully converted.

I don't think the doctrine is what makes converted people stick around though. At best it might attract someone's attention and make them investigate. They'll stick around long term if they feel connected to the faith community.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

I would put it slightly differently. I think the doctrine is the "advertising" that gets people interested in the church. The social aspect determines whether or not people stay long term.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Am I missing something here, because you both seem to be saying two different things, but agree with each other.

Gray seems to be downplaying the importance of a gospel conversion and up-playing a social conversion; while rongo seems to be doing the opposite, yet you seem to agree with each other. 

I don't disagree that social connectedness leads to higher rates of activity.  However, that is simply a means to an end.  The emphasis should always be on the message...the spirit..the heart of the church.  

This is the part I have a big problem with:

True conversion (I am not talking about active attendance) comes from trying the word, testing the seed, applying the principles, sacrificing your will for the Lord's and watching for results, speaking with God and listening for his voice speaking back.  I agree that social influence can help (or hinder) that process, but the emphasis of conversion should be the seed...the word of God. 

I think we have it backwards. Fellowship should be a natural byproduct of the true conversion of the saints.  The more we place emphasis on "the seed" aka the Word of God, the better our fellowship will become.  Alternatively, the less we emphasize the Word of God in our message, the less we emphasize the Word of God in our lives, and the less fellowship we will see in the church.   The Word is the message and emphasis, without leaving the other undone.  At least, that is how I interpret Christ's teachings. 

 

I'm not totally sure, I think we mostly agree? We at least agree that connectedness is a huge thing that either keeps people in or drives people away.

But I suspect that whether or not someone feels like they are converted is mostly down to connectedness to the community. I don't think it actually has much to do with doctrine/the gospel at all. Maybe that's how it should be in theory, but that doesn't mean that's how it works in practice.

That's a notion I'm running with for now, anyway. Basing this on data from this thread:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69961-infected-with-doubt-jana-reiss-poll-part-2/

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

37 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Seriously...who is going to listen??  Why would one expect the younger generations to listen...they don't talk anymore!  They don't look at anyone in the eye...no response and sometimes just a blank page..because they are glued to the screen in front of them.  The reality has changed...their reality is not truth unless it can be googled...pictured...texted..whatever...but there are minds in there that don't need to believe in anything..but the present.  I am sorry if this doesn't make sense..but working with so many young people on different levels..their whole concept seems to be trying to get more for less...and sometimes spirituality gets in the way of that.This doesn't mean that they are not good thinking people...it just means that we will never know if they are or not...they don't care if we know...

My daughter...my gosh...she lived upstairs in my own home and she would email me before she would down the stairs to talk to me.

Jeanne,

The problem with this is that it is a broad generalization and in my experience a mischaracterization. Are some millennials like that? Sure, but certainly not all. I don't even think a majority. I have great respect for the millennials I know. They are hard working, interesting, and social. They are not empty shells. They may be different in some ways but that is refreshing. Every varies generation varies from the previous generation and the older generation generally doesn't approve.

I think embracing the strengths of millennials will also strengthen the church.

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree, but I think a big issue is attention and interest. That is people get bored. Some people find entertainment crass, but the reality is that if you get a dynamic speaker whether in Sacrament or Sunday School people pay attention more and get more out of the meetings. While it's fine to say everyone should listen regardless of the quality of the teacher or speaker, the reality is that if our talks and lessons are functional, we need to ensure people listen. That was easier when there was a captive audience with low expectations. Now with different expectations and frankly diversions with phones I think we need to adjust. Again we can blame the audience but the question then becomes whether it's about blame or results.

Hopefully we don't make our decisions based upon what critics think.

There's no doubt that music can be used as a superficial counterfeit of the spirit. But it's also true that a lot more variety of music can be uplifting. Again, just look at the music typically used in Primary versus Sacrament. And that's not an issue of infantilizing adults but asking what the function of music is supposed to be. Our music choices largely come out of the protestant background of early members. What works for largely white Americans doesn't necessarily work well in Asia or elsewhere. I'm not saying abandon our music so much as recognize that a narrow choice of music might be fulfilling to a narrow band of people.

What I fear is that we do things because that's the way we've always done things without asking what the point is. Ultimately Church is about serving the members. While we shouldn't change for the sake of change and we should beware of unintended consequences, neither should we assume the status quo ought be maintained.

I think you are downplaying far too much how big of a barrier it is to many people - especially English as a second language speakers and people who might struggle in school. Even when they can figure out what is said, it's not natural. There's a barrier that must be pierced to get at meaning. Often that means to make sense of the King James Version you require a commentary. At a bear minimum updating to something like the New King James Version by Oxford should be done. That at least replaces words no longer part of functional English or words whose meaning has substantially changed.

The gospel should be understandable even to people who might not be able to pass a Shakespeare class.

I am not opposed to improved and more dynamic lessons, I am not opposed to more variety in music, I am not opposed to scriptures with more plain English.  I wish many of these things would change in the church.

However, I am realistic and recognize that we will never be able to compete with professionally trained paid ministers and musicians.  Our teachers are volunteers with other demanding responsibilities, careers, and families to take care of, they don't have the time, or the monetary motivation quite honestly, to prepare exceptional lessons like a paid ministry does.  Nor should we pressure or expect them to.  All that we should expect of them is to come with the spirit of the Lord.  Many don't.  That is the problem.  What I am hearing from you guys would require a significant time commitment and even greater sacrifice from the members, who are already feeling stretched thin.   We shouldn't be complicating the issue with more demands, more expectations, more time commitments, more show.  On the contrary, we should be encouraging simplification.  Strip it all down to the bare bone basics - the gospel taught in spirit and love.  Simple music, sure more variety in songs would be nice.  But as far as the music goes, again, I don't disagree, but that is not why people are leaving the church, sorry! 

I am not saying that these are bad ideas, I am saying that they are missing the heart of the gospel...the Spirit...love. Simplicity.

Edited December 13, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not totally sure, I think we mostly agree? We at least agree that connectedness is a huge thing that either keeps people in or drives people away.

But I suspect that whether or not someone feels like they are converted is mostly down to connectedness to the community. I don't think it actually has much to do with doctrine/the gospel at all. Maybe that's how it should be in theory, but that doesn't mean that's how it works in practice.

That's a notion I'm running with for now, anyway. Basing this on data from this thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69961-infected-with-doubt-jana-reiss-poll-part-2/

What information from that thread are you basing your opinions on specifically?

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think the doctrine is what makes converted people stick around though. At best it might attract someone's attention and make them investigate. They'll stick around long term if they feel connected to the faith community.

I think you are dead wrong.  It is precisely the spiritual fruits of living the doctrine that makes people stick around  They are less swayed by negative social influence and fluctuating cultural/worldly dynamics.  

Let me be the first to tell you that it is the fruits of the gospel for me.  Plain and simple.  I like my faith community, but I am an introvert and would rather do my worship alone in the mountains quite honestly. 

 

[Jeanne]

55 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Jeanne,

The problem with this is that it is a broad generalization and in my experience a mischaracterization. Are some millennials like that? Sure, but certainly not all. I don't even think a majority. I have great respect for the millennials I know. They are hard working, interesting, and social. They are not empty shells. They may be different in some ways but that is refreshing. Every varies generation varies from the previous generation and the older generation generally doesn't approve.

I think embracing the strengths of millennials will also strengthen the church.

I gave you a rep because I know that I am only speaking of my own experience...and it is likely that I am blinded by that experience...I hear you.  I spoke with an anger that is really in my corner of the world...and it is small.  Thank you.

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would put it slightly differently. I think the doctrine is the "advertising" that gets people interested in the church. The social aspect determines whether or not people stay long term.

I think you are missing the target big time.  The goal is not to simply get people to stick around.  It is not about church activity, it is about gospel activity in our daily lives.  If the sole purpose was to get people to come to church, there are much easier ways to do that - church would be a big delicious pot-luck every Sunday with no expectations at all...we might offer grace for the food and a small spiritual thought, you know, to put it all in perspective and make us feel good about ourselves...

[Calm]

Organ music is not easy to play and there are likely many more that could play on a piano or keyboard than an organ, so to suggest sticking with organ as our basic musical instrument for SM because of the lack of musicians seems unrealistic to me.

Substituting a decent quality keyboard for an organ would probably save quite a bit of money as well while allowing for a variety of sounds like a decent organist can provide as well as open up the list of members who could help out.  I live in a musician dense ward where musical numbers are always being performed and they are excellent, yet we have only only two members who are comfortable playing the organ...they alternate the calling over the past decade and a half we have been here.  Same thing has happened in other wards I have been in though.  It was the only calling my mom got for most of her adult life and she was sick of it by the time she was a senior.  And she never played music for fun anymore.

When I was in Primary for a couple of decades, new music was being added on a regular basis.  Often there was a new song with the yearly Primary program.  It is more difficult given we don't have singing practice for adults anymore, though I have been in wards that set aside a few minutes in RS to learn a hymn better, but I see no reason why we can't start singing more Primary songs in SM. New songs could be introduced there and then moved into Sacrament Meeting on a more regular basis rather than just a handful.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't think the doctrine is what makes converted people stick around though. At best it might attract someone's attention and make them investigate. They'll stick around long term if they feel connected to the faith community.

I know lots of people who do not at all feel connected to the community but who stick around because they 'know' it's the gospel of Jesus Christ (LDS mommy groups are full of women who do not enjoy church, absolutely hate RS, but go every week because they have a testimony).   Like the disciples of old they ask "to whom should we go?" and believe that there is no other option.

 

[Guest]

On December 12, 2017 at 1:36 PM, mapman said:

The average age to get married in the mid-1700s was like 30.This was the generation that fought in the Revolutionary War and gave us all the freedoms we enjoy. Although people have a hard time imagining this, living like it's the 1950s isn't the answer for all times and places. Part of the reason that a lot of young Mormons have a hard time being a single member is because people equate being married with being competent and mature. Believe it or not single adults can be competent and mature and don't need to be treated like teenagers.

I agree that having more people living with their parents can be problematic (I think its somewhere between a quarter and a third of millennials). Economic insecurity and the increasing difficulty for young people to be able to afford buying homes I'm sure has a lot to do with it. I don't think it is all people playing video games in their parents' basements. 

I have not seen unmarried young people being treated as teenagers, or unfit to serve, or lacking wisdom and maturity. It is my experience that they are treated according to their ability. Now of course some callings require someone to be married, but ,any others did not. But remember is not only young people who may not be married, but also older widows and widowers as well. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Seriously...who is going to listen??  Why would one expect the younger generations to listen...they don't talk anymore!  They don't look at anyone in the eye...no response and sometimes just a blank page..because they are glued to the screen in front of them.  The reality has changed...their reality is not truth unless it can be googled...pictured...texted..whatever...but there are minds in there that don't need to believe in anything..but the present.  I am sorry if this doesn't make sense..but working with so many young people on different levels..their whole concept seems to be trying to get more for less...and sometimes spirituality gets in the way of that.This doesn't mean that they are not good thinking people...it just means that we will never know if they are or not...they don't care if we know...

My daughter...my gosh...she lived upstairs in my own home and she would email me before she would down the stairs to talk to me.

So true, many of the things you point out. But there are many who surprise you and us and rise to the occasion. They also become mighty men and women in the service of God, showing no fear. Many like the "sons of Alma", who aid in the conversion of people some thought could never be reached. 

[Gray]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

I think you are missing the target big time.  The goal is not to simply get people to stick around.  It is not about church activity, it is about gospel activity in our daily lives.  If the sole purpose was to get people to come to church, there are much easier ways to do that - church would be a big delicious pot-luck every Sunday with no expectations at all...we might offer grace for the food and a small spiritual thought, you know, to put it all in perspective and make us feel good about ourselves...

I'm not really talking about the goal - more about the reality behind why people affiliate or disaffiliate with churches. Doctrine changes. Every church has its own unique doctrines, but social dynamics seem pretty universal.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

I think you are dead wrong.  It is precisely the spiritual fruits of living the doctrine that makes people stick around  They are less swayed by negative social influence and fluctuating cultural/worldly dynamics.  

Let me be the first to tell you that it is the fruits of the gospel for me.  Plain and simple.  I like my faith community, but I am an introvert and would rather do my worship alone in the mountains quite honestly. 

 

I'm sure there are exceptions but I think for most people it does come down to community, not doctrine. People stay in the church when they have strong community ties. They leave the church when life events happen live divorce or their social group (close friends) starts disaffiliating.

 

[Gray]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

What information from that thread are you basing your opinions on specifically?

I'm thinking of these two items:

 

Quote

"In general, it seems that the two strongest factors of predicting doubt in contemporary Mormonism are church attendance and social networks.  Those who attend regularly and have more Mormons in their social networks are more likely to be Believers, while those who attend less regularly and have more no-Mormons in their family and friendship circles are more likely to be Doubters.  Those who are married and have advanced degrees are also more likely to be Believers than Doubters." (p.15)

- "It is also notable that the number of family members who have left the Church does not make an independent difference in predicting the likelihood of someone being a Doubter once controlling for the other factors described above.  Friends leaving the Church seems to matter more than family leaving the Church." (p.15).

 

[Gray]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I know lots of people who do not at all feel connected to the community but who stick around because they 'know' it's the gospel of Jesus Christ (LDS mommy groups are full of women who do not enjoy church, absolutely hate RS, but go every week because they have a testimony).   Like the disciples of old they ask "to whom should we go?" and believe that there is no other option.

 

Sure, but how long can they keep that up? I think people like that are at greater risk for disaffiliation.

[rongo]

Just now, Gray said:

Sure, but how long can they keep that up? I think people like that are at greater risk for disaffiliation.

I think that people like that are much less likely to disaffiliate. The issue is that comparatively few converts are of this type; nearly 100% are social converts. I think this directly impacts retention, and this despite overall very good efforts at fellowshipping. That is, I don't think not doing a good job of fellowshipping is the source of our retention struggles. I think it's inherent in the phenomenon of social converts. 

I agree with you that, for most converts and even for many members now, social connection is a much bigger factor and influence than doctrine than testimony. Those for whom doctrine, testimony, and testimony of the history is most important (Davis Bitton just rolled over in his grave) are very likely to stay and stay strong.

[rongo]

I also don't think that putting all of our eggs in the social connection basket will bear fruit, since this is such a fickle thing. People get bored, restless, footloose, etc. all the time ---- in spades for those with heavy social media involvement. I think even many people with very strong friendships ebb and flow in terms of activity and connectedness. If they don't have a firm conviction and love for the Restoration, I think it's difficult to maintain enthusiasm and activity long-term. All wards have people who gladly come to activities and do things with members, but don't enjoy practicing the gospel in their lives (study, prayer, service, etc.) or church worship. I don't think that updating scriptures or music would actually move the needle with these people; I think they would remain largely social Mormons. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Sure, but how long can they keep that up? I think people like that are at greater risk for disaffiliation.

From my experience (which i know is only anecdotal) they seem to last a long time, and have a wonderful relationship with their Savior and His gospel, which is the whole point of the existence of the church.  

[HappyJackWagon]

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

I also don't think that putting all of our eggs in the social connection basket will bear fruit, since this is such a fickle thing. People get bored, restless, footloose, etc. all the time ---- in spades for those with heavy social media involvement. I think even many people with very strong friendships ebb and flow in terms of activity and connectedness. If they don't have a firm conviction and love for the Restoration, I think it's difficult to maintain enthusiasm and activity long-term. All wards have people who gladly come to activities and do things with members, but don't enjoy practicing the gospel in their lives (study, prayer, service, etc.) or church worship. I don't think that updating scriptures or music would actually move the needle with these people; I think they would remain largely social Mormons. 

I think the doctrine/ belief system works in tandem with the social aspect. Both are important. In times when a person struggles with one the other can be a strength. But I also agree with Gray, that eventually some people simply get worn out if they are clinging to the church when only one of those things is working for them.

Then, take the individual who doesn't find much value in the community/social aspect, but is there solely because of the beliefs and doctrines. When those doctrines are challenged, when the truth claims seem less true, when the messy history and fallibility of prophets becomes a major concern, they fall away because they don't have the anchor of the social connections. Without the social it becomes very easy to walk away when a testimony is challenged.