April 2021 Conference Predictions/Rumors

[rongo]

36 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

1) There have been quite a few people leaving the church.  About 50% of Active Millennials are leaving.  

Where are you getting this number from? Inactive and not going anywhere in life, yes. Is that what you mean by "leaving?" Name removal? Not even close to 50% of "active millennials." 

Some/many of these will ultimately get it together, but they're definitely being impacted by generational and societal currents. 

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

only studying from church approved resources

CFR please, I would like to see what you are interpreting as saying this.

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR please, I would like to see what you are interpreting as saying this.

I think her source for this is the handbook update (which was widely highlighted in the press):

"Members of the Church should seek out and share only credible, reliable, and factual sources of information. They should avoid sources that are speculative or founded on rumor . . . In matters of doctrine and Church policy, the authoritative sources are the scriptures, the teachings of the living prophets, and the General Handbook.”

I don't think "only studying from Church-approved resources" is an unreasonable interpretation of this. Especially the "in matters of doctrine and Church policy" part. 

[Calm]

Authoritative does not mean limited to.  

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Authoritative does not mean limited to.  

Of course. But the Church is also purging older sources, such as McConkie works, President Kimball, Joseph Fielding Smith, etc. There is a lot that is really good and timeless in these, and they are clearly being discouraged, based on availability, referencing, etc. People aren't outright discouraged from reading them, but they aren't encouraged to, either. And increasingly, you have to have an old copy from your grandparents or the church library getting rid of old things. I've gotten a lot of really good books that way.  

[InCognitus]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

Of course. But the Church is also purging older sources, such as McConkie works, President Kimball, Joseph Fielding Smith, etc. There is a lot that is really good and timeless in these, and they are clearly being discouraged, based on availability, referencing, etc. People aren't outright discouraged from reading them, but they aren't encouraged to, either. And increasingly, you have to have an old copy from your grandparents or the church library getting rid of old things. I've gotten a lot of really good books that way.  

I suspect that some of the present desire to not use McConkie works such as Mormon Doctrine is due to the prior generation's extreme overuse of the book.  I remember hearing many sacrament meeting talks in my younger years that were taken straight out of Mormon Doctrine as if it was part of the Standard Works of the church.  McConkie was quoted more than Nephi or Isaiah.  But that was somewhat understandable in that day, since the internet hadn't been invented yet and the book was a ready topical source on all kinds of subjects.  It was like Mormon Google before there was Google.

[2BizE]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Where are you getting this number from? Inactive and not going anywhere in life, yes. Is that what you mean by "leaving?" Name removal? Not even close to 50% of "active millennials." 

Some/many of these will ultimately get it together, but they're definitely being impacted by generational and societal currents. 

Patrick Mason delivered a talk to the Logan Utah Cache Valley Stake in March 2021.  In this presentation, he showed statistics from studies indicating the church is retaining 46% of active Millennials as compared to 72% of Boomers.

[JustAnAustralian]

Retention over what time period?

Edited March 20, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[rongo]

8 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Patrick Mason delivered a talk to the Logan Utah Cache Valley Stake in March 2021.  In this presentation, he showed statistics from studies indicating the church is retaining 46% of active Millennials as compared to 72% of Boomers.

Virtual upvote/like for the source. It looks like the only thing online for this is John Dehlin, and I'm not going to listen to him talk at me for three hours.  

I still think he's way off, although he might be defining disengaged, inactive young people as having "left." In a sense, they have "left," for now. I just think that their lives are a mess in many areas (relationships, career, school, family, church, etc.), and their relationship to the Church is just one facet of the problem. I think/hope that many will get their acts together and come back at some point. 

[rongo]

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I suspect that some of the present desire to not use McConkie works such as Mormon Doctrine is due to the prior generation's extreme overuse of the book.  I remember hearing many sacrament meeting talks in my younger years that were taken straight out of Mormon Doctrine as if it was part of the Standard Works of the church.  McConkie was quoted more than Nephi or Isaiah.  But that was somewhat understandable in that day, since the internet hadn't been invented yet and the book was a ready topical source on all kinds of subjects.  It was like Mormon Google before there was Google.

There are things I don't like in McConkie's voluminous works, but overall, he's very good. I just don't like how the Brethren are fossilizing everything that isn't the simplified/correlated current offering (coinciding with everything you "really need" on LDS Tools). People like me can read a variety of old and current sources, but this will become a shrinking number with the Church going in a different direction. It's a sad loss of scope of Mormon thought.

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

There are things I don't like in McConkie's voluminous works, but overall, he's very good. I just don't like how the Brethren are fossilizing everything that isn't the simplified/correlated current offering (coinciding with everything you "really need" on LDS Tools). People like me can read a variety of old and current sources, but this will become a shrinking number with the Church going in a different direction. It's a sad loss of scope of Mormon thought.

I think it has already become a shrinking number.  I know very few members personally who read these things.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, rongo said:

I think her source for this is the handbook update (which was widely highlighted in the press):

"Members of the Church should seek out and share only credible, reliable, and factual sources of information. They should avoid sources that are speculative or founded on rumor . . . In matters of doctrine and Church policy, the authoritative sources are the scriptures, the teachings of the living prophets, and the General Handbook.”

I don't think "only studying from Church-approved resources" is an unreasonable interpretation of this. Especially the "in matters of doctrine and Church policy" part. 

If the church only wants us to study from church approved resources, why do we have Deseret Book?

[InCognitus]

13 hours ago, rongo said:

I think her source for this is the handbook update (which was widely highlighted in the press):

"Members of the Church should seek out and share only credible, reliable, and factual sources of information. They should avoid sources that are speculative or founded on rumor . . . In matters of doctrine and Church policy, the authoritative sources are the scriptures, the teachings of the living prophets, and the General Handbook.”

I don't think "only studying from Church-approved resources" is an unreasonable interpretation of this. Especially the "in matters of doctrine and Church policy" part. 

"Studying from Church-approved resources" is not the same thing as "authoritative sources" for "doctrine and Church policy".   Studying church history, for example, is not the study of doctrine and Church policy.  There are many other things we could be studying that have nothing to do with doctrine and Church policy. 

The full context of the quote is as follows:

Quote

38.8.45

Seeking Information from Reliable Sources

In today’s world, information is easy to access and share. This can be a great blessing for those seeking to be educated and informed. However, many sources of information are unreliable and do not edify. Some sources seek to promote anger, contention, fear, or baseless conspiracy theories (see 3 Nephi 11:30; Mosiah 2:32). Therefore, it is important that Church members be wise as they seek truth.

Members of the Church should seek out and share only credible, reliable, and factual sources of information. They should avoid sources that are speculative or founded on rumor. The guidance of the Holy Ghost, along with careful study, can help members discern between truth and error (see Doctrine and Covenants 11:12; 45:57). In matters of doctrine and Church policy, the authoritative sources are the scriptures, the teachings of the living prophets, and the General Handbook.

These two paragraphs are aimed at the information we "share" with others.  I see this as the Facebook principle, not the "we should only study Church-approved sources" principle.  And we should be "wise" and use discernment in what we study.

Edited March 20, 2021 by InCognitus

[amo]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

"Studying from Church-approved resources" is not the same thing as "authoritative sources" for "doctrine and Church policy".   Studying church history, for example, is not the study of doctrine and Church policy.  There are many other things we could be studying that have nothing to do with doctrine and Church policy. 

The full context of the quote is as follows:

These two paragraphs are aimed at the information we "share" with others.  I see this as the Facebook principle, not the "we should only study Church-approved sources" principle.  And we should be "wise" and use discernment in what we study.

I don't think it's only aimed at the info we "share". There's the word "AND" in the phrase that should make a difference, don't u think...? (Members of the Church should seek out and share..."). There's also the place (location, location, location...) where the "invitation" is given ("Seeking Information from Reliable Sources")

[amo]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I suspect that some of the present desire to not use McConkie works such as Mormon Doctrine is due to the prior generation's extreme overuse of the book.  I remember hearing many sacrament meeting talks in my younger years that were taken straight out of Mormon Doctrine as if it was part of the Standard Works of the church.  McConkie was quoted more than Nephi or Isaiah.  But that was somewhat understandable in that day, since the internet hadn't been invented yet and the book was a ready topical source on all kinds of subjects.  It was like Mormon Google before there was Google.

But, then again, wasn't the author of Mormon doctrine an Apostle...? Aren't we supposed to "quote" from Prophets and Apostles and GA...?

[rongo]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

If the church only wants us to study from church approved resources, why do we have Deseret Book?

To make certain people a lot of money. And for people to buy kitsch.  

[InCognitus]

32 minutes ago, amo said:

But, then again, wasn't the author of Mormon doctrine an Apostle...? Aren't we supposed to "quote" from Prophets and Apostles and GA...?

He wasn't an apostle when he wrote Mormon Doctrine.  

[InCognitus]

37 minutes ago, amo said:

I don't think it's only aimed at the info we "share". There's the word "AND" in the phrase that should make a difference, don't u think...? (Members of the Church should seek out and share..."). There's also the place (location, location, location...) where the "invitation" is given ("Seeking Information from Reliable Sources")

The word "and" is all over in the statement.  Which one did you have in mind?   Like, "information is easy to access and share", or "seeking to be educated and informed".   For sharing matters of doctrine and Church policy we should be using reliable Church sources and not the opinion expressed by someone's blog post.

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, rongo said:

To make certain people a lot of money. And for people to buy kitsch.  

In this post is  code for "I'm much more cynical towards the church than I used to be"?  

  

[rongo]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In this post is  code for "I'm much more cynical towards the church than I used to be"?  

  

I've always felt that way about Deseret Book.  

Seriously, for a serious gospel scholar --- especially one who is interested in doctrine, policy, and Gedankengut of the Restoration, Deseret Book is the "spiritual twinkie" outlet. It's fine for the "Time Out for Women" or "EFY" crowd, and that's the intended audience. And where the money in this niche market is at. 

[JAHS]

On 3/18/2021 at 11:28 AM, nuclearfuels said:

For men: repent. For women: You are Enough. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I've always felt that way about Deseret Book.  

Seriously, for a serious gospel scholar --- especially one who is interested in doctrine, policy, and Gedankengut of the Restoration, Deseret Book is the "spiritual twinkie" outlet. It's fine for the "Time Out for Women" or "EFY" crowd, and that's the intended audience. And where the money in this niche market is at. 

What deep doctrinal book exists (and is currently in print) that you can't buy at Deseret Book?  My last purchase there was Science and Mormonism:  Cosmos, Earth, and Man.  I also purchased a book there a few years ago by Emily Belle Freeman (who frequently speaks at TOFW) that got me through one of the hardest parts of my life and in a lot of ways saved my relationship with my Father in Heaven. 

It seems so silly to attempt to say that someone can't be a serious gospel scholar and also appreciate some aspects of TOFW and EFY or shop at Deseret Book.  Some people take themselves way to seriously.  

[Bob Crockett]

5 hours ago, amo said:

But, then again, wasn't the author of Mormon doctrine an Apostle...? Aren't we supposed to "quote" from Prophets and Apostles and GA...?

No he wasn't. 

But the last time I checked there were several references to Mormon Doctrine in conf talks. 

[Emily]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

It seems so silly to attempt to say that someone can't be a serious gospel scholar and also appreciate some aspects of TOFW and EFY or shop at Deseret Book.  Some people take themselves way to seriously.  

I agree.  There's nothing wrong with "Soup for the Soul" books. Even if you are far beyond the "milk" stage in your gospel studies, other people are not. Many of those books are very helpful when people are struggling, or looking for answers on more basic religious topics.

Even if you are a thorough carnivore when it comes to religious studies, lighter books are excellent fodder for quotes to sprinkle in talks, hang on the wall or give you something to discuss with other members. It doesn't hurt to say, "Yes" when your friend offers to lend you their latest read for that alone.

At any rate, you can find serious books at Deseret Books...but it's too expensive to actually buy them there. 😝

Edited March 21, 2021 by Emily

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

What deep doctrinal book exists (and is currently in print) that you can't buy at Deseret Book?  My last purchase there was Science and Mormonism:  Cosmos, Earth, and Man.

Anything on doctrine or Church history not published by the Church publishers.

Like anything by Signature Books for instance.  You couldn't even get the Journal of Discourses until a few years back.  They are improving but @rongo is correct.  Deseret Book isn't the best source for a lot of good gospel study material.  There are far better options in Salt Lake.

Edited March 21, 2021 by JLHPROF