subgenius wrote:As i said before, and the facts seem to confirm, the OP is ill-conceived with little regard to nothing more than a cynical opinion for matters mostly unknown.
I am pretty sure the matter of young men leaving the Church has been discussed in many leadership meetings. I know it has been discussed on message boards. However, any discussion without open demographic membership data can never be truly accurate. I am still wondering about the number of members attending meetings on any given Sunday. That number is much more meaningful than total membership estimates. Likewise the number of men attending Sunday Services versus the number of women is crucial to spot disparities and trends. Breaking the numbers into cohort age groups is better still.
People, people! The reason for the higher number of active LDS women in Utah than active LDS men is clear: because active LDS women aren't able to find mates in the mission field, and have a demented idea that there are lots of active LDS men just dying to get married who reside in Utah. So the women move to Utah. Imagine their surprise to find that the number of active LDS men residing in Utah who want to get married is the same as or lower than the men in the stake they moved from.
Active LDS men have as much trouble making a commitment as men of any other religious persuation. And the Brethren are finding that their way of dealing with the situation (conference talks and firesides, telling the men to get off their duffs) just isn't working. And Heaven itself cannot persuade LDS leadership to find a new way.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.