Uptick in GenZ / Millennial apostasy?

[Kenngo1969]

25 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

... service plaque for a military guy?? Never seen one of those before ha. I guess when no one around here goes military why would there be one right!?

No one around where?

[Stormin' Mormon]

9 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

How many GAs didn’t serve missions who are not draftees or converts?

None of the current first presidency served missions.  They were not draftees; they served in the military or National Guard by choice. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/18/2021 at 11:20 PM, 2BizE said:

You are correct Kenngo. I am referring to President Nelson’s campaign against the use of the word Mormon to refer to the church.  Keep in mind the previous campaign a few years prior to promote the use of the word Mormon to refer to the members of the church in the I’m a Mormon campaign.

You, as others have done, took his “victory for Satan” comment out of context. The “victory for Satan” is not the use of the name Mormon per sé. It is the use of a name — any name — to supplant the name of Jesus Christ in reference to His Church. Christ Himself in 3 Nephi declared that this should not be done. President Nelson’s teaching is in line with that declaration. 
 

Based on the pushback and flack President Nelson has taken for it, it would appear that Satan doesn’t much like being deprived of that victory. 
 

[secondclasscitizen]

41 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No one around where?

Gilbert Mesa chandler az

[Stormin' Mormon]

9 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

If your bishop gets up in front of the congregation and tells the young men the mission is purely optional and they can do whatever they want you and I both know there will be a disciplinary council. He will be released from his calling and disciplined for openly and publicly opposing the brethren. 

 

If your bishop gets up in front of the congregation and tells the young men that fulfilling their ministering assignments is purely optional and they can do whatever they want you and I both know there will be a disciplinary council. He will be released from his calling and disciplined for openly and publicly opposing the brethren. 

Are there any behavioral standards that holders of the priesthood should be held to? What SHOULD a bishop teach his congregation about what is expected from a disciple of Jesus Christ?  Are there ANY responsibilities demanded of someone who holds the priesthood of God?  What power is there in a priesthood that demands nothing, expects nothing, requires nothing? 

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Gilbert Mesa chandler az

I grew up in South Scottsdale/North Tempe and I recall seeing military service plaques next to our mission plaques.  IMO, there are plenty of things in church culture, policy, doctrine, and practice to criticize, but I'm not sure this is one of them.

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, secondclasscitizen said:

The culture here is such that missions are constantly pushed.

You seem to think that the existence of the behavioral norm is the problem, and not the inappropriate enforcement of that norm by the occasional over-zealous parent or stake president.  Throwing out the norm because it's been clumsily enforced is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  It's akin to abolishing all traffic laws because sometimes an innocent person has been shot by a cop at a traffic stop.

Come to think of it, I can't think of a single behavioral norm (be it at church, at work, or at school) that hasn't on occasion suffered from maladroit enforcement, encouragement, or implementation.  Human institutions are run by humans, and are subject to the failings common to human communication.  Even inspired human beings are still human beings using human language.  And human language is loaded with opportunities for miscommunication, misrepresentation, and misattribution. 

There is nothing wrong with encouraging, requiring, pushing our young men to serve missions.  Missions are great training grounds, not just for learning how to be a disciple of Christ, but learning how to live on ones own, learning how to solve problems, learning how to set goals and be accountable for one's work, learning how to take general direction and translate it into specific action.  I am more successful in my professional career because of the lessons I learned on my mission than I would otherwise have been.

The problem, as you have noted but fail to actually acknowledge, is that sometimes the norm is pushed too hard.  The problem isn't with the norm and isn't with the pushing.  It's with the "too."  Scale back your rhetoric a bit, focus on the actual problem, and you might make some headway in your argumentation.  And maybe don't lead off with hyperbole.  A caste system it most definitely is not.   

[secondclasscitizen]

53 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

None of the current first presidency served missions.  They were not draftees; they served in the military or National Guard by choice. 

 

It wasn’t until 1974 when pres kimball declared it a duty so before that missions were jut a nice gesture. Since then every prophet whether they served a mission or not has admonished young men to do so. 
 

Those guys all get a free pass

[secondclasscitizen]

43 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

If your bishop gets up in front of the congregation and tells the young men that fulfilling their ministering assignments is purely optional and they can do whatever they want you and I both know there will be a disciplinary council. He will be released from his calling and disciplined for openly and publicly opposing the brethren. 

Are there any behavioral standards that holders of the priesthood should be held to? What SHOULD a bishop teach his congregation about what is expected from a disciple of Jesus Christ?  Are there ANY responsibilities demanded of someone who holds the priesthood of God?  What power is there in a priesthood that demands nothing, expects nothing, requires nothing? 

Straw man. We are talking missions here. 
 

nonone cares about ministering 

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 minute ago, secondclasscitizen said:

It wasn’t until 1974 when pres kimball declared it a duty so before that missions were jut a nice gesture. Since then every prophet whether they served a mission or not has admonished young men to do so. 
 

Those guys all get a free pass

By my count, that's the third time you've moved the goalpost.  That's not a good indication that you are arguing in good faith.

[secondclasscitizen]

47 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

If your bishop gets up in front of the congregation and tells the young men that fulfilling their ministering assignments is purely optional and they can do whatever they want you and I both know there will be a disciplinary council. He will be released from his calling and disciplined for openly and publicly opposing the brethren. 
 

yep I agree same for a mission. All optional service. We are talking missions tho. 

47 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

[secondclasscitizen]

5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

By my count, that's the third time you've moved the goalpost.  That's not a good indication that you are arguing in good faith.

How have I moved the goalpost?

[Stormin' Mormon]

Just now, secondclasscitizen said:

nonone cares about ministering 

Exactly my point.  A Bishop isn't going to tell his congregation that ministering (a priesthood responsibility that no one cares about) is purely optional.  Why would you expect it to be any different for any other priesthood responsibility? 

[Stormin' Mormon]

Just now, secondclasscitizen said:

How have I moved the goalpost?

You: not serving a mission puts you in a lower caste

Response: Well, here are several bishops who never served missions

You: Well, what I MEANT was you can't be a General Authority if you didn't serve a mission

Response: Well, here's an example of some GAs who didn't serve a mission because they fought in WWII.

You: Well, what I MEANT was someone who wasn't forced to serve in the military. 

Response: Well, here's an example of three apostles who chose to serve in the military rather than serve a mission

You: Well what I MEANT was someone who served a mission after 1974.

I'm not sure I want to keep playing this game.

[2BizE]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You, as others have done, took his “victory for Satan” comment out of context. The “victory for Satan” is not the use of the name Mormon per sé. It is the use of a name — any name — to supplant the name of Jesus Christ in reference to His Church. Christ Himself in 3 Nephi declared that this should not be done. President Nelson’s teaching is in line with that declaration. 
 

Based on the pushback and flack President Nelson has taken for it, it would appear that Satan doesn’t much like being deprived of that victory. 
 

Scott, while this may be the real intent of the change, it is not the perception experienced  by a broad number of members and non-members.  Remember he also banned any books at Deseret Book that had the word Mormon in it. Authors had to change titles or risk the book not being sold there.  This certainly shows the deep hatred Pres. Nelson has for the word Mormon.  Young people care deeply about perceptions. They don’t want to be perceived to be associated with an organization that does not represent their social beliefs. This is one reason younger folks are distancing themselves from the church and it’s leaders.

[secondclasscitizen]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I grew up in South Scottsdale/North Tempe and I recall seeing military service plaques next to our mission plaques.  IMO, there are plenty of things in church culture, policy, doctrine, and practice to criticize, but I'm not sure this is one of them.

Where did I criticize the hanging of plaques?

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Where did I criticize the hanging of plaques?

You didn't...you seemed to be tangentially criticizing your local leadership for not celebrating those who served in the military in a similar fashion to missionaries.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

service plaque for a military guy?? Never seen one of those before ha.

There are two on the board in the ward I'm in right now: one serving in the Army and the other in the Marines.

They are right up there along with the 3 elders, 2 sisters, and 2 senior couples who are currently serving missions.

Our bishop is proud of every single person on that board, and so am I.

 

[secondclasscitizen]

5 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

None of the current first presidency served missions.  They were not draftees; they served in the military or National Guard by choice. 

 

Correct. 1974 was when it was all of a sudden a priesthood duty. Those guys had no duty to do it. Now it is a duty therefore pretty much mandatory. The church’s own statement on it I posted earlier says there is only two reasons someone is EXCUSED and military service is nor one of them. 

[secondclasscitizen]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

There are two on the board in the ward I'm in right now: one serving in the Army and the other in the Marines.

They are right up there along with the 3 elders, 2 sisters, and 2 senior couples who are currently serving missions.

Our bishop is proud of every single person on that board, and so am I.

 

My old bishop would have called them disgusting selfish people…. If they didn’t go on a mission first. Maybe y’all are lucky where ur at. I seem to always be in mormonazi territory. Lol

[secondclasscitizen]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

There are two on the board in the ward I'm in right now: one serving in the Army and the other in the Marines.

They are right up there along with the 3 elders, 2 sisters, and 2 senior couples who are currently serving missions.

Our bishop is proud of every single person on that board, and so am I.

 

That’s good and good on them.

[Maestrophil]

On 9/18/2021 at 8:55 AM, secondclasscitizen said:

Good point… I wouldn’t even think of giving my life for the church. I would definitely give my life for one of my brother and sister police officers or my country but def not the church. The church as an institution marginalizes people like me who have done nothing wrong. I also disagree that the prophet is anyone special.
 

Problem is I am born into a church mafia power family so I am just PIMO so I can keep family. They know I’m not buying the program but choose to ignore it for appearances sake. the church is the most important thing in my family… more important than family as well. Funny thing I seriously doubt many of my family would give their lives for the church if push came to shove. Many of them are way too comfortable. These are some of the people who many look up to because of their position and example. 

I didn't choose this quote as the only one I am addressing here, but rather to just single you out to ask some real sincere questions as a member and parent who wants to be better while still maintaining my faith and membership.

To respond to the OP question - yes I have seen this trend among the generation spoken of, and those a little older and younger as well.  It makes me sad and concerned at the same time.  Especially as a parent who has over half his children in full rejection mode of the church (4 of 6), and the remaining children in a very 'slightly' LDS mode (2).  None served missions (and I never condemned them for their decisions to not go).

So what do you recommend a person like me - a GenX dad who is active and believing - can do to improve the experience for my kids and to have them either return to faith, or feel less bitter towards the church?  It's an honest question.  I express continually that I love and accept them even if they live very different standards than I do, and I honestly think none of them doubt they are loved by my wife and I.  Still - the 4 who have left activity are very demeaning and dismissive when talking about the church and even its members.

So what more can be done? Especially given that:

 - I don't think the church will ever change chastity definitions to allow for any kind of sanctioned sexual relations between homosexual individuals.

 - I won't join in with any badmouthing or condemnation of the 1st Presidency or Q12.  I can have respectable dialog about feelings and reactions to their words and policies, but will always stop short of accusing them of being racist, homophobic, or liars.

What do you suggest from your perspective?  Is there truly anything a member/parent like myself can do, or is the gulf too wide and the hatred/resentment of the church too definite?  Could your family/ward/stake have done anything different to make it so you had a better outcome and disposition towards the church - or do you think the fact that the church has the truth claims it does simply force a gulf and you would have felt disillusioned regardless?

Edited September 20, 2021 by Maestrophil
spelling - again!

[secondclasscitizen]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

You didn't...you seemed to be tangentially criticizing your local leadership for not celebrating those who served in the military in a similar fashion to missionaries.

Where did I state local leadership should celebrate military service?

My criticism is at leaders who exercise unrighteous dominion over congregation members and harass and berate them for not serving a mission… for any reason. 

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Where did I state local leadership should celebrate military service?

My criticism is at leaders who exercise unrighteous dominion over congregation members and harass and berate them for not serving a mission… for any reason. 

I was stating that you seemed to be implying it.  Never mind.  I'm really not interested in debating.

[Fair Dinkum]

On 9/17/2021 at 7:21 PM, rongo said:

I met my wife at the Sears call center in Provo, Utah (East Bay, actually). We fielded calls about problems with Sears appliances, and scheduled repair work. While one could get the impression from our job that Kenmore products were terrible (every time a call came through, it involved problems), we realized that 100% of the calls we took were problems. People didn't call to tell us that they were having no problems, that everything was working well, etc. 

Aware of this (that anecdotal evidence and experience does not represent the reality of the overall picture), my wife and I have noticed an increasing and intensifying increase in apostasy among young adults in their 20s and 30s. This general trend has long been discussed and worried about among youth (e.g., anecdotal experience in our stakes, mission age change to "stop the bleeding," keep 'em active programs post mission and in institutes, Church magazine focus and articles, etc.), but what we're seeing is rapid, "bombshell," seemingly out of nowhere announcements from young married couples with children that they are leaving the Church or that they want to (this doesn't come "out of nowhere," but it's the first anyone knows about it). We've been called and asked advice from friends about their children (sometimes in other states), and in many cases, these apostasies are among "the cream of the crop" (youth we knew well). By the time of the "bombshell" announcements, they neither want nor are open to help, discussion, question-answering, etc. 

Is anyone else noticing this? 

I know that in certain quarters, the response to this is, "Well, no duh. The Church is false, you could drive a truck through the holes in the truth claims, they're just seeing the light about how false everything is and becoming enlightened, etc." Obviously, I disagree with this, but I do agree that the way the Church has handled some things over decades is a contributing factor. 

A member of our Stake High Council,  just had two of his children, both in their twenties, resign.  He is also currently employed in a very high profile position in the church.  Were I to mention his name several here would recognize him.  I just learned this today, so yes I've noticed this