The Millennials simplified.

[_moinmoin]

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?

No, for me, it's much more the dumbing down/watering down of the church experience and expectations. E.g., Preach My Gospel, Come Follow Me, missionary "fun" instead of missionary "work," two-hour block, etc.

Don't get me wrong --- I like the two hour block, but I think we all know that it is to try to keep people attending because church has been boring for a long time. I think it would have been better to attack the reasons why church is boring, and a lot of that has to do with some of the updates to "current" over "old-fashioned." And, our "teacher improvement" efforts do not actually improve teaching --- people regularly ditch the "teacher council" meetings. For wards who still hold them.

Things like that.

[_honorentheos]

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.

I'm curious what it is that the uncommitted are failing to commit to that is a problem?

[_moinmoin]

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.

I think you're on to something in thinking that there are Mormons who are able to keep their posterity active and engaged, and Mormons who aren't. I think, anecdotally, from what people post here, that this forum is overwhelmingly people who stem from Type B families. I mean, only a 2 for 22 batting average, and then people chime in with their own anecdotal experience that is the same? I don't know anyone who's family has it that bad. And then there are people like me (and many others I know) whose extended families through generations fare very well as far as activity, fertility, service, and continued commitment. Like with colonies of resistant and non-resistant bacteria in a lab, some colonies are wiped out by the antibiotic, and some perpetuate generations. Obviously, the Type As are the future of the Church, even when the Church contracts numerically.

I don't think your hypothesis about Type As or Type Bs only being able to bring in As or Bs through missionary work checks out. I think that result is a mixed bag, no matter which type one is.

[_moinmoin]

I'm curious what it is that the uncommitted are failing to commit to that is a problem?

In all cases, the problem is primarily for them and their posterity's spiritual grown and progress. Secondarily, it's that they don't contribute to the church, thus leaving more burden on the committed, but this pales in comparison and in importance to the impact and ripple effect it has on them (and future generations).

In a nutshell, it is the things that contribute to having one's own self-reliant testimony. Any list that could be made all leads to that.

[_honorentheos]

I'm curious what it is that the uncommitted are failing to commit to that is a problem?

In all cases, the problem is primarily for them and their posterity's spiritual grown and progress. Secondarily, it's that they don't contribute to the church, thus leaving more burden on the committed, but this pales in comparison and in importance to the impact and ripple effect it has on them (and future generations).

In a nutshell, it is the things that contribute to having one's own self-reliant testimony. Any list that could be made all leads to that.

Based on what?

[_moinmoin]

Based on what?

Can you clarify? I'm not sure what you're asking.

Thanks!

[_honorentheos]

Based on what?

Can you clarify? I'm not sure what you're asking.

Thanks!

What defines the parameters for the above?

[_moinmoin]

What defines the parameters for the above?

It's going to be subjective, and mileage will vary, isn't it?

Although, people who try it for themselves (Alma 32) learn for themselves in a way that isn't directly transferable to others. All they can do is testify, and invite them to try themselves.

[_honorentheos]

Maybe. It would also seem that any given person's lower bound for what is an acceptable level of commitment will also be subjective. Or perhaps meaningless.

[_fetchface]

No, for me, it's much more the dumbing down/watering down of the church experience and expectations. E.g., Preach My Gospel, Come Follow Me, missionary "fun" instead of missionary "work," two-hour block, etc.

Don't get me wrong --- I like the two hour block, but I think we all know that it is to try to keep people attending because church has been boring for a long time. I think it would have been better to attack the reasons why church is boring, and a lot of that has to do with some of the updates to "current" over "old-fashioned." And, our "teacher improvement" efforts do not actually improve teaching --- people regularly ditch the "teacher council" meetings. For wards who still hold them.

Things like that.

I think I follow what you are saying and I agree that addressing root causes is always better than treating symptoms, but a lot of what you are saying doesn't fit my experience.

I came of age in the '90s and I think things have been getting slowly less dumbed-down. I have no experience with Preach my Gospel or Come Follow Me (I only attend Sacrament as a goodwill gesture to my wife) but I find it hard to imagine a more dumbed-down church experience than what I got. I was 32 when I learned that Joseph was a polygamist from Wikipedia. Let that sink in. That's how dumbed-down my church experience was. We didn't know much except that the second coming was imminent (I honestly believed that It would happen before I was old enough to marry).

I apologize if I am reading you wrong but I detect more than a little resentment that you are working hard and others are not. Would that be a fair statement to make? It seems that most of your complaints are leveled at people getting off easier than they should.