The Millennials simplified.

[_Mormonicious]

In my own family we are 0 for 5 activity. Can't stand the continuous boredom in listening to the Same crap every week. For a progressive, continuous Revelation organization IT SURE REPEATS ITSELF

STUPID damned Mormons

All HAIL Google GOD

[_moinmoin]

Well, it's the "chaff" choosing to separate from what you call "wheat" and the body of the Church is already shrinking. The "drag-inducing barnacles of uncommitted members" were born into the Church, they weren't "collected". The Church is entirely passive in this process of shrinking growth rates and declining numbers in the pews, unlike your analogy where the farmer actively seeks to get rid of the "chaff". Not only that, the Church is amending policy and doctrine to try and stop the "chaff" separating itself from the "wheat".

No argument from me there. I wish the institutional church weren't passive about it, and I wish that it weren't amending policy and doctrine to try to stop the chaff to stop separating from the wheat. I think it's a fool's errand, and I think it is misguided to compromise or make concessions to try to appease people who don't love the doctrine and aren't that committed to it. I think that by doing that, you actually don't end up keeping them in the end, and you have watered down the Church and the gospel by doing it.

But let's explore your strategy...

How would you propose the Church goes about stopping committed members having drag-inducing uncommitted babies?

I don't think there's anything the Church actually can do (as in actively do) to affect this. I think that it really was prophesied, and we are seeing it in our time. As a leader spanning decades, I've seen the overall decline in strength, commitment, and dedication in many families, and for them, it really just is. All the Church can do is to preach the gospel, exhort, and through example show people the blessings of cheerfully living the gospel program.

Brigham Young told of a dream he had at a time when many members were going to the gold fields of California. In vain, he and other leaders tried to prevent this. In his dream, he ran into Joseph Smith riding a wagon, and leading a motley herd of sheep and goats of all kinds. Big, little, spotted, ragged, mangy, plump, healthy, you name it. He commented to Joseph about his bizarre collection of animals, and Joseph said, "They are all good in their place." From that point on, Brigham reported that he cheerfully let them go and wished them the best.

I gave several talks the last time I was a bishop, encouraging people not to freak out so much about inactives or non/underperformers. They are all good in their place, and they really are. Just love them, and let your example do your preaching for you.

It is just a fact that the mix of people everywhere (all people, not just LDS) right now are more soft, uncommitted, unreliable, and non-self-reliant than in previous eras. Regardless of why this is, it's the hand that we're dealt. Hopefully, those of us who aren't that way can inspire people through our example, and help the pendulum swing back in future generations. I expect Gen Xers and millennials to, some point down the line, realize that they are unsatisfied with how they are and how the world is, and many turn back again. That's my hope, anyway.

How would you propose to alter the missionary programme so they stop recruiting drag-inducing uncommitted investigators?

1) Go back to doing actual missionary work, instead of having the missionary program be a de facto activation and babysitting and coddling program for young adults.

2) Multiple parables indicate that high inactivity rates among converts are the norm. So, we do the best that we can to adequately prepare them, with this in mind, and we can certainly do a better job.

Second Amendment) We can institutionally do a better job of laying out what commitments are expected of people as members. Most people don't want to do this because they are afraid of losing them as investigators, but my goodness, trying to "rope them in" without being upfront about it is a big reason why retention is worse than it needs to be.

[_Gadianton]

moin, buddy, "it was stronger before it collected the drag-inducing barnacles of uncommitted members"; lol, I'm sorry, but that's about as obvious of a "sweet lemon" response as they come.

It's unlikely you really feel this way, and it's very unlikely the Church feels this way, considering even uncommitted members pay tithing and often take callings. And there is no scriptural justification for feeling this way. If you really do feel this way, you are likely in sin. Yes, the scriptures speak of separating the wheat from the tares, but that's not a hope of the Saints, but a matter of governance in the hands of the Lord that we as Saints aren't supposed to long for. We're, in fact, supposed to beg the Lord to be merciful, and hope it isn't time for that yet. The scriptures teach that we seek after the single lost sheep. The scriptures teach that we are heartbroken over the sheep that goes astray, not rejoicing over getting the weight off the ship. I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you to repentance, moin.

But let's consider your proposal anyway. I have to ask, where on earth is this ship moving such that it needs to lose the barnacles to get there faster?

It's implicit in the observation that proclaiming the gospel is out. Unless you're suggesting we need 100 farmers for every small lemon tree in good health, you'd need to assume that getting the dead weight off will lead to an explosion of real conversions. I'm pretty sure you're not saying that; rather, the opposite.

Perfecting the Saints? Well, in a world where the Mormon kids are gaming the system to out-do each other, getting GPAs well in excess of theoretical perfection, a 4.0, do we really need to move the ship faster? Will losing uncommitted members get your kids higher grades or better jobs? Will it make family home evening more productive?

Redeeming the dead? It's not like you're rolling into the Salt Lake valley and building a temple from scratch. It's not like the lack of commitment of others is delaying your ability to worship in the house of the lord. I fail to see how getting rid of "dead weight" helps here either.

But I am interested if you can provide a target, one that isn't defined in terms that are circular, that the Church is expected to sail toward with haste once the dead weight is scraped off the bottom of the ship.

[_RockSlider]

Yes, it does, but I think a better course is to let the wheat separate from the chaff and to "cull the herd," so to speak. Yes, the body of the Church shrinks under that scenario (so, no more touting Rodney Stark predictions), but the Church is also stronger. In many ways, it was stronger before it collected the drag-inducing barnacles of uncommitted members.

I also think many of Jesus' parables and statements by Church leaders point to the Church being purged and tested. While you and Jana Riess are undoubtedly correct that we are losing millenials (I saw that as a bishop and see it in the youth I interact with), I'm not desperate to "keep" them by compromising in standards and doctrine. And, I think many of those who stray will eventually look into returning and recommitting once after the school of experience.

It seems that in following your posts in the past that I have been impressed with your level-headedness and having a good grasp of the situation. I know, who cares what I think, but I was disappointed in your response here, based on the noted respect I'd gained from previous posts of yours, this is a let-down.


How true that old saying: One Churches Trash is another Human Secularism's treasure!

And Ironic that to Humanities success in the coming years, Fundamentalist religions are the barnacles holding progress back.

But I do hope that you are correct. Keep chasing the treasure out!

[_Simon Southerton]

...I'm not desperate to "keep" them by compromising in standards and doctrine. And, I think many of those who stray will eventually look into returning and recommitting once after the school of experience.

I think you are overly optimistic. The Church has a long history of being dishonest with its members. Once trust is lost its really hard to get it back. The other big problem is that the Church's foundational scriptures have been thoroughly exposed as fraudulent. Once out of the control of the Church these Millennials will be exposed to the truth in all its glory. FairMormon, Interpreter, Meldrum etc are doing an outstanding job of helping to expose the fraud.

[_Physics Guy]

One hypothetical explanation for the weirdly steady linear growth of LDS church membership from 1990 to 2015 or so is based on the postulate that there are two types of Mormons. Call them Types A and B. Type A Mormons are able to draw in converts and to keep multiple children in the church. Type B Mormons do not proselytize successfully and cannot keep their children in the church.

The tricky point is: when Type A Mormons make new Mormons, are those new Mormons Type A or Type B?

If every A makes more A's, then membership will grow exponentially. If A's only make B's, however, then growth will be linear until the A's begin dying and will fall to zero when all the A's are gone. Then numbers will stay constant until the B's die, leaving no Mormons at all.

The hypothesis about Mormon church growth which is based on the postulate of Types A and B is:

The last Type A Mormon was born in 1990.

[_Mormonicious]

One hypothetical explanation for the weirdly steady linear growth of LDS church membership from 1990 to 2015 or so is based on the postulate that there are two types of Mormons. Call them Types A and B. Type A Mormons are able to draw in converts and to keep multiple children in the church. Type B Mormons do not proselytize successfully and cannot keep their children in the church.

The tricky point is: when Type A Mormons make new Mormons, are those new Mormons Type A or Type B?

If every A makes more A's, then membership will grow exponentially. If A's only make B's, however, then growth will be linear until the A's begin dying and will fall to zero when all the A's are gone. Then numbers will stay constant until the B's die, leaving no Mormons at all.

The hypothesis about Mormon church growth which is based on the postulate of Types A and B is:

The last Type A Mormon was born in 1990.

Very True. Generational Mormonism is an essential part of growth and stability to the organization. As untested converts enter the system, they bring with them their own idioms that must be destroyed by the organization before they corrupt the belief system. Thus as Stinckley once stated in General Conference the Pioneer Stock is the backbone of Mormonism.

[_fetchface]

I wish the institutional church weren't passive about it, and I wish that it weren't amending policy and doctrine to try to stop the chaff to stop separating from the wheat. I think it's a fool's errand, and I think it is misguided to compromise or make concessions to try to appease people who don't love the doctrine and aren't that committed to it. I think that by doing that, you actually don't end up keeping them in the end, and you have watered down the Church and the gospel by doing it.

You mean like when they stopped making women cover their faces and started allowing inclusive weddings outside the temple without a 1-year penalty? Are those the sorts of things you see as negatives? What specific things are you talking about? Do you see 1890 or 1978 as a watering-down of the church and gospel?

The truth is, Joseph Smith wouldn't recognize the church today, nor would he recognize the church as it was when you grew up. The church has been changing from day one and will continue to do so. Some people will see the changes as a watering-down of the gospel and some will cry tears of joy when they don't have to cover their face in the presence of God, or when they can finally get the priesthood and go to the temple, or when they don't have to make their parents stand outside when they get married, etc.

[_moinmoin]

It's unlikely you really feel this way, and it's very unlikely the Church feels this way, considering even uncommitted members pay tithing and often take callings.

My "barnacles" analogy was actually more directed at attending members who *don't* accept callings, *don't* pay tithing, don't really live the gospel program in the home, etc. than it was to classic "inactive" members. The non-attending, non-participating members aren't as much of a drag. Many people would be surprised if they knew which attending members don't pay tithing, or which attending members won't accept callings, and like you indicate, there are uncommitted members who actually do. They are all good, in their place!

And there is no scriptural justification for feeling this way. If you really do feel this way, you are likely in sin.

That depends on what is in my heart. I'm not perfect, not by a long shot.

Yes, the scriptures speak of separating the wheat from the tares, but that's not a hope of the Saints, but a matter of governance in the hands of the Lord that we as Saints aren't supposed to long for. We're, in fact, supposed to beg the Lord to be merciful, and hope it isn't time for that yet. The scriptures teach that we seek after the single lost sheep. The scriptures teach that we are heartbroken over the sheep that goes astray, not rejoicing over getting the weight off the ship. I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you to repentance, moin.

Point well taken. The "same ten people" aren't perfect, and sometimes tire of carrying disproportionate loads. You're absolutely correct, though, that they can certainly improve in their attitude and outlook.

But let's consider your proposal anyway. I have to ask, where on earth is this ship moving such that it needs to lose the barnacles to get there faster?

It isn't a matter of getting anywhere in a hurry. Rather, it's about the barnacles ceasing to be barnacles for their own sakes. Not operating at potential and living under privileges is spiritually harmful, causes cogdis, and is a drag on the people themselves. Brigham Young taught that the Savior's yoke is easy, and his burden is light, but only if we turn everything over to him and let him shoulder it. If we take half-measures, and hold onto our pet habits and ways, then the yoke is, as he says, "galling." I think this is the problem with those who find living the commandments and standards to be wearing or a burden. And, they and the Church reap the whirlwind in the ripple effect with their children and grandchildren.

It's implicit in the observation that proclaiming the gospel is out.

Can you expand on this? It isn't implicit to me . . . Nor, do I think it's self-evident.

Unless you're suggesting we need 100 farmers for every small lemon tree in good health, you'd need to assume that getting the dead weight off will lead to an explosion of real conversions. I'm pretty sure you're not saying that; rather, the opposite.

Correct. I'm not saying that trimming the dead weight leads to an explosion of real conversion, at least not in the short term. It saves those who formerly were dead weight, but now are contributing parts of the good ship Zion.

Will losing uncommitted members get your kids higher grades or better jobs? Will it make family home evening more productive?

No, but it certainly improves their own spiritual lives when they switch from the uncommitted to the committed column. And a ripple effect down through generations, if the conversion is genuine enough . . .

Redeeming the dead? It's not like you're rolling into the Salt Lake valley and building a temple from scratch. It's not like the lack of commitment of others is delaying your ability to worship in the house of the lord. I fail to see how getting rid of "dead weight" helps here either.

It helps them, who were formerly dead weight, as they now receive their own personal blessings for participating in temple work. The dead weight, almost by definition, aren't making the temple an important part of their lives. When this changes, they're no longer dead weight. Does that make sense?

But I am interested if you can provide a target, one that isn't defined in terms that are circular, that the Church is expected to sail toward with haste once the dead weight is scraped off the bottom of the ship.

Other than the above? Again, why must the ship sail with haste? And again, it's not a matter of dry-docking the ship to improve peak efficiency, it's about trying to get the barnacles inside the ship so they aren't buffeted by the drag. The ship is fine, barnacles or no. It's the barnacles that we're concerned with, for their own sakes and in their own right.

[_moinmoin]

It seems that in following your posts in the past that I have been impressed with your level-headedness and having a good grasp of the situation. I know, who cares what I think

I do, RockSlider! And thanks for the compliments.

but I was disappointed in your response here, based on the noted respect I'd gained from previous posts of yours, this is a let-down.

Is this still the case, in light of what I just posted to Gadianton?

How true that old saying: One Churches Trash is another Human Secularism's treasure!

And Ironic that to Humanities success in the coming years, Fundamentalist religions are the barnacles holding progress back.

But I do hope that you are correct. Keep chasing the treasure out!

I'm not sure that the truly uncommitted are going to be that much of a boon to the secular humanists, either.