The Millennials simplified.

[_toon]

The church needs to become an organization that is comfortable letting the people who don't want to be there leave. Can you imagine a version of the LDS church where parents don't pressure kids who don't want to attend church? It would be the opposite of my childhood, that's for sure.

Until the Church gives up on its exclusivity claims, I don't think it will ever fully get there. I don't see too many people who believe that the Church is the only organization that has necessary saving ordinances and that both faith and active participation are necessary for exaltation ever being comfortable letting people who don't want to be there leave. There are those who will respect that decision and even support someone who leaves, but I don't think there are too many who are comfortable.

That said, I think there is a growing number of active and engaged members who don't subscribe to or put much weight in those exclusivity claims. But they're not likely to be in the leadership.

[_fetchface]

Until the Church gives up on its exclusivity claims, I don't think it will ever fully get there. I don't see too many people who believe that the Church is the only organization that has necessary saving ordinances and that both faith and active participation are necessary for exaltation ever being comfortable letting people who don't want to be there leave. There are those who will respect that decision and even support someone who leaves, but I don't think there are too many who are comfortable.

That said, I think there is a growing number of active and engaged members who don't subscribe to or put much weight in those exclusivity claims. But they're not likely to be in the leadership.

Right? One thing I have noticed is that there have to be at least a couple of talks every General Conference that assault the dignity of people like me. Church leaders feel compelled to go out of their way to portray people like me as evil or stupid (remember that stupid rescue boat analogy where the kid demands Perrier water?). They just can't help it, given the theology. Someone who is just fine without the one true "rescue boat" is something that they truly cannot comprehend.

Leave me alone, rescue boat! I'm busy enjoying the beach!!!

[_Flaming Meaux]

Until the Church gives up on its exclusivity claims, I don't think it will ever fully get there. I don't see too many people who believe that the Church is the only organization that has necessary saving ordinances and that both faith and active participation are necessary for exaltation ever being comfortable letting people who don't want to be there leave. There are those who will respect that decision and even support someone who leaves, but I don't think there are too many who are comfortable.

That said, I think there is a growing number of active and engaged members who don't subscribe to or put much weight in those exclusivity claims. But they're not likely to be in the leadership.

Right? One thing I have noticed is that there have to be at least a couple of talks every General Conference that assault the dignity of people like me. Church leaders feel compelled to go out of their way to portray people like me as evil or stupid (remember that stupid rescue boat analogy where the kid demands Perrier water?). They just can't help it, given the theology. Someone who is just fine without the one true "rescue boat" is something that they truly cannot comprehend.

Leave me alone, rescue boat! I'm busy enjoying the beach!!!

The problem is the barnacles, I tell you!

[_Flaming Meaux]

There's nothing wrong with the boat! Why do people keep mentioning the boat? It's the people on the boat that failed.

[_Morley]

It can be even tougher for intellectuals.

Yes, it can. But, doesn't have to be. And isn't always. : wink:

Oh, I think is mostly is. In what ways is the LDS Church welcoming to (or even accommodating of) intellectuals?

This is a serious question. I would love to read your explanation.

[_I have a question]

In the 1990's Packer famously outlined what the Brethren saw as the main threats to the Church.
“The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals.”
Has it changed? [/rhetorical]

[_Morley]

moinmoin-

I should clarify that the above query regards the present tense. Not some time fifty or a hundred years ago.

[_Flaming Meaux]

moinmoin-

I should clarify that the above query regards the present tense. Not some time fifty or a hundred years ago.

Would also be interested in something more substantive than, "Wink, wink, you know, and I know, but many out there don't know, and their testimonies can't handle knowing, so just go along with the program and pretend for the benefit of others and maybe you'll get a good casserole out of it." I heard something very close to that from a bishop once.

[_Gadianton]

Hi moin,

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,

That's fine, but my point still stands with that update. Where is the ship going such that these members are causing a problem getting there? Your frustration with them not doing their share I will take up at the end, I literally have a revelation for you.

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.

*cough*. Moin, buddy, we're all friends here, okay? No stress to be perfect, and so no need for post-hoc interpretations that obviously had nothing to do with what you originally meant. I mean, it's a nice save, if this is how you wish to think about it going forward.

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

well, you said:

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.

All I meant was losing the barnacles shrinks the church, implying that the ship isn't thrusting forward in terms of membership, which implies missionary work is stagnant to negative.

Now, about your frustration with active members who don't pull their weight. I recently received the words of a high ranking GA along with several others where the sentiments were a little more candid than I've heard in official settings. Specifically to your point, he assured us based on revelation that the work in the spirit world is just as difficult as it is here, and that you will be working there, essentially, nonstop. And so even in the words of one of the very elect, the ship is going nowhere, no matter how hard you row. He didn't specify beyond the resurrection, but until then, for hundreds if not thousands of years, it seems as if you are doomed to a life of thankless labor. I think you have few options here, moin. I personally recommend grabbing a putty knife and scraping yourself off the bottom and be free. But should you chose to go the distance, I recommend that like unto Paul, that you learn to rejoice in your afflictions.

[_Physics Guy]

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 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.

It's certainly not obvious that keeping the kids in the church, and bringing in unrelated converts after brief acquaintance, are related abilities. If one considers sales as a somewhat similar endeavor to evangelism, then I'm sure there have been many successful salespeople who alienated their children, and many parents whose children stayed close to them who never struck it rich in sales.

The Type A and B postulate is not based on any serious thinking about how conversion and retention may work for individuals and families. While that is obviously a weakness in the postulate, in a way it is also a strength. The empirical data seem to show startlingly steady linear growth over a whole generation, during which the church more than doubled in size. So a whole lot of everything that was happening in church numbers, over a whole generation, was this steady linear growth. Data that simple and striking might still somehow be due to a conspiracy of many complex factors, but to fall back on that lazy assumption would be irresponsible until we've looked really hard for some single, simple cause.

The very fact that church growth over a generation has combined conversions and births, and yet has stayed so steadily linear, suggests that evangelism and retention may not really be so different after all. Conversion and baptism of children both add some number of new Mormons each year. We have to ask seriously whether both those growth mechanisms are effectively controlled by one common factor which has somehow stayed constant between 1990 and 2015. I agree that the existence of such a common factor would be surprising, but I think the surprising data of church growth compel us to look for it.