The Millennials simplified.

[_moinmoin]

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).

There is certainly more information available to the average member today than in the 90s. Potentially available, although I find that most people still don't avail themselves of it. The Church doesn't exactly heavily advertise the Gospel Topics essays, either, for example. They are pretty much there to be there to refer to. I also think they could be a lot better than they are, and I would like it if they were actually written by the Brethren (with consultation, as needed), rather than outsourced.

Mileage really varies according to "area roulette." Our seminary teacher teaches about Joseph Smith polygamy, seer stones, etc., but I don't think this is yet the norm in most areas.

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.

No apology necessary. No, I'm not resentful, or think that people are getting off easier than they should. I'm just seeing a) people not being as happy as they could be, and b) the ripple effect that this has on future generations.

All of this discussion is based on the overarching discussion about "whence the future generations of the Church?" And I think this is the single biggest factor that will ultimately tell the tale: level of commitment at the home level.

[_fetchface]

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.

I think you have done a great job of illustrating why the church was such a toxic environment for me. I'm an introvert and when I was Elder's Quorum President (with 4 kids, all toddlers and infants at the time), I wasn't that great at it. I tried really hard though and gave it my all, but I was really miserable. I would frequently have romantic thoughts about death all through that period. It was not a good place to be in, but according to your (and many other LDS folks) worldview, I should have had some magic thing happen where I was lifted up and carried by Jesus somehow to make this experience positive. If that doesn't happen, then I'm left to conclude that I did something wrong and am at fault for Jesus not coming to the rescue and lightning my burden.

The truth is, sometimes the church just asks too much of us and Jesus doesn't fix it when it's too hard. I fixed it when I told them that I couldn't handle it anymore and they needed to find someone else. Jesus was MIA. Saying no to a calling was really hard for me but it was what I needed to do at the time.

[_Flaming Meaux]

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.

This is my hypothesis of how Type A's remain Type A's: consciously associate primarily with other Type A's, and generally actively avoid anything that might cause introspection which could potentially change one into something other than a Type A.

My one sibling that remains in the church took this path by largely disassociating himself with the rest of his siblings, actively avoiding gatherings or any other circumstance where he might even overhear anything that could be critical of his faith. He's a bishop (or was a bishop, I think he might be in the state presidency now). His kids, so far as I can tell, are on the path to being Type A's as well--they've been raised on a steady diet of the pablum that your church promotes as revelation, though his eldest daughter is just now entering college (and it isn't BYU, so we'll see how she does after she reads a few books--given that she is not married and apparently did not bow to the increasing cultural pressure for all young women to serve missions, perhaps cracks in her Type A armor are already there). I suppose it will be a true test of my brother's Type A steadfastnest if he will cut his children off should they happen to diverge from his parochial worldview. Then again, I understand his wife, herself an active and committed Mormon, mentioned to him that she thought it wrong for him to disassociate with his siblings just because they don't share his religious views (particularly since the rest of us continue to associate even though the five of us also do not have the same religious views, unless one lumps the rest of world religious experience under just the heading of 'not Mormon'), and he didn't divorce his wife--so maybe he's not really Type A after all.

[_fetchface]

No apology necessary. No, I'm not resentful, or think that people are getting off easier than they should. I'm just seeing a) people not being as happy as they could be, and b) the ripple effect that this has on future generations.

All of this discussion is based on the overarching discussion about "whence the future generations of the Church?" And I think this is the single biggest factor that will ultimately tell the tale: level of commitment at the home level.

Well, as I attempted to show in my other post, I think it is a huge mistake to assume that because you are made happy by being 100% committed that others will be as well. I firmly believed that the harder I committed myself to the church, the happier I would be but that proved to be untrue in my case.

I am definitely much happier now than I was when I was doing everything the church asked of me. No comparison. Orders of magnitude difference.

[_moinmoin]

I think you have done a great job of illustrating why the church was such a toxic environment for me. I'm an introvert and when I was Elder's Quorum President (with 4 kids, all toddlers and infants at the time), I wasn't that great at it. I tried really hard though and gave it my all, but I was really miserable. I would frequently have romantic thoughts about death all through that period. It was not a good place to be in, but according to your (and many other LDS folks) worldview, I should have had some magic thing happen where I was lifted up and carried by Jesus somehow to make this experience positive. If that doesn't happen, then I'm left to conclude that I did something wrong and am at fault for Jesus not coming to the rescue and lightning my burden.

The truth is, sometimes the church just asks too much of us and Jesus doesn't fix it when it's too hard. I fixed it when I told them that I couldn't handle it anymore and they needed to find someone else. Jesus was MIA. Saying no to a calling was really hard for me but it was what I needed to do at the time.

I think you've been let down by leaders, as well (your mission president, your bishop/stake president when you were an EQP, etc.).

I think the Church can be really hard for introverts. Under the new adult "Come Follow Me" initiative, there is a focus on more "group discussion and present to the class" in Sunday School (at least in the last two wards I've been in). The intent is to flush out the wallflowers and not leave them room to hide, but for many, that safe space to hide and just listen and think is exactly what they need, and trying to put them on the spot can drive them away. When I was a bishop, I could address that (one of our GD teachers was really aggressive about calling on people who weren't volunteering, and having an attitude of "We'll wait." I had to tell her to cease and desist, because there were introverted people who wouldn't go when it was her turn to teach).

[_Lemmie]

I think you've been let down by leaders, as well (your missionary president, your bishop/stake president when you were an EQP, etc.).

That's a difficult position to support, based on your statements. How can it be you behaving "successfully" in the lds church when things go well for you, but when someone else makes the same commitment and it doesn't work, that it's the fault of their leaders?

What's much more likely is that different people make different choices about how to live their human lives, and it is not rational to think that what works for you MUST work for everyone else, including every person in your family. Your definition of lds who are committed, etc. and anyone who leaves as not committed reminds me of how people used to describe others when i was growing up in Arizona, not far from where you are now. Mormons would describe the entire planet of humanity simply as "members" and "non-members." Like you, there was the presumption that only "members" had lives worth living.

I think you have done a great job of illustrating why the church was such a toxic environment for me. I'm an introvert and when I was Elder's Quorum President (with 4 kids, all toddlers and infants at the time), I wasn't that great at it. I tried really hard though and gave it my all, but I was really miserable. I would frequently have romantic thoughts about death all through that period. It was not a good place to be in, but according to your (and many other LDS folks) worldview, I should have had some magic thing happen where I was lifted up and carried by Jesus somehow to make this experience positive. If that doesn't happen, then I'm left to conclude that I did something wrong and am at fault for Jesus not coming to the rescue and lightning my burden.

The truth is, sometimes the church just asks too much of us and Jesus doesn't fix it when it's too hard. I fixed it when I told them that I couldn't handle it anymore and they needed to find someone else. Jesus was MIA. Saying no to a calling was really hard for me but it was what I needed to do at the time.

Wow, fetchface, that's a brutal position to be in while trying to raise babies. I'm glad you were able to change things. I don't believe in a god, but if i did, i can't possibly imagine one who would sanction limiting the definition of a good and successful life the way TBMs do.

[_Lemmie]

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

Going back to this, I'm surprised at this response. My TBM sibling recently told me the two hour block change was done so that there is more time to focus on families.

[_moinmoin]

Going back to this, I'm surprised at this response. My TBM sibling recently told me the two hour block change was done so that there is more time to focus on families.

That is the official spin, and it's not nonsense. Freeing up some family time was a bona fide objective, I believe, but it's only an hour a week. I think (my opinion) that trying to get more people in the habit of regularly attending all of church was "more" of the reason than making an hour a week available to families. It certainly does do that.

The new study program is . . . pretty slim pickens. We already study scriptures as a family, and we're following the assigned program, but the new study program is pretty obviously tailored to people/families who haven't been.

[_moinmoin]

That's a difficult position to support, based on your statements. How can it be you behaving "successfully" in the LDS church when things go well for you, but when someone else makes the same commitment and it doesn't work, that it's the fault of their leaders?

I wasn't blaming it on his leaders. I was simply pointing out (as fetchface has referred to in the past) that past leaders have contributed to where he is now. Not the penultimate reason, but a contributing factor. For example, had his mission president not betrayed and failed him (as he's explained), I wonder if anything would be different for him. Maybe nothing. But, putting myself in his shoes with what happened on his mission, that betrayal would certainly have had some sort of impact on me and how I view church authority. And then with his subsequent struggles as an EQP with his young family, etc., well, they're all factors in the loss of belief. Not the sum total, but parts.

[_honorentheos]

I suspect had fetchface found the Church to be a reliable source for sharing it's own history or Joseph Smith to have been a morally supportable vehicle for sharing Gods will perhaps leadership failure would be limited to seeing those leaders as the problem and not the Church itself.

Perhaps those experiences open the door for people to question the foundation of their worldview but the results of that investigation come down to how well it withstands that scrutiny.