The Millennials simplified.

[_moinmoin]

I'd still call my wife 'TBM' but this describes her more and more. Lately she has been relaxing on things and seeing the leaders as fallible. This has been helped a lot by recent actions by the leaders. She recognizes their attempts to use weasel-words to lie with the technical truth. She recognizes the absurdity of having a victim's help line that is staffed by lawyers who are in charge of litigating against victims. She doesn't try to defend these actions as somehow the wisdom of God that we just can't understand yet. She recognizes them as simple mistakes that have no justification.

This is very different from how she and I saw the church 10 years ago.

I see this as healthy for the Church. I wrote a paper years ago highlighting the emphasis the Brethren have historically put on not blindly following, and on questioning and having mature, self-reliant testimonies.

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publ ... gerous#en1

I freely admit that this is unofficially frowned on in current Church culture (many Mormons pay lip service to fallibility, but when pressed, won't ever give recent examples or even past ones beyond maybe Adam-God or the priesthood ban), but it hasn't always been so, and will have to be so again. That's a good thing.

Both the Church and its members will be the stronger for it and better off when the pendulum swings back. I think (just my own feel and observation) that President Nelson is readjusting based on reaction to his downgraded idea of revelation (whatever thought I am thinking = revelation). He seemed really subdued this last conference after the giddy barrage of the first year. I think that reality is settling in about the "Mormon" de-emphasis (the Church hasn't even changed the major websites yet).

[_moinmoin]

I don't know how you fix this in Mormonism. It is inherently high-stakes if you take it seriously. How do you convince parents that they should respect their children's decisions despite the fact that their very souls are on the line?

I think that as this becomes more prominent, families learn to deal with it on an individual basis (with varying degrees of success, but improvement). It is inherently high-stakes, but most parents love their children even when their choices sadden them. Most don't burn the bridge, so I think this is an era where people are learning to do that. By necessity.

[_moinmoin]

From experience, The third generation of my family members raised in the church, which would be myself (only child) and my cousins on my Mother’s side, the number is 2 out of 22 who are still members/TBM. Most are Millenials, while myself and one other are Gen-X.

They are also not marrying or having nearly as many children (one third) as the previous generation did.

I think this is part of the sifting, and it's inherently highlighting differences in strength in different extended families. My extended family "batting average" is the exact opposite of yours, and there are others like that. I think that overall activity and commitment is dropping, but it's also staying the same or increasing among other key families. And these families are much more likely to have more children, so the trend might continue to accelerate in both directions for different families.

[_Lemmie]

:lol: Oh sure, and the less actively involved who still want to attend a religious service get to "choose" to ignore being called "the drag-inducing barnacles of uncommitted members"!! Much more of a choice.

It'd be one thing if I chose to attach my barnacle self to the church. I would have much rather attached to a rocky shoreline on some beautiful seaside cliffs but my parents attached me to that stupid boat!

Don't I know it! At least my barnacle self (and my barnacle children and spouse) can enjoy the view from a couple thousand miles away. That helps a lot. Less commentary on what a drag we are.

[_Lemmie]

From experience, The third generation of my family members raised in the church, which would be myself (only child) and my cousins on my Mother’s side, the number is 2 out of 22 who are still members/TBM. Most are Millenials, while myself and one other are Gen-X.

They are also not marrying or having nearly as many children (one third) as the previous generation did.

My family is similar. I think it helps a lot that Millennials, at least the ones in our extended families, are not marrying until more, if not all of their school is finished. They are adults when they decide to marry or not, have children or not, etc. And though I shouldn't have to say it (but I will since this is a Mormon board), that goes for females as well as males.

[_Flaming Meaux]

The church has a problem with the millennials and unfortunately the solution would be to tear down the organization itself.

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.

Fortunately, scripture and revelation prove the church to be correct no matter what happens, so no need for the church to seriously introspect about any of this. When the church is growing, it is the stone cut out of the mountain without hands spreading forth to fill the whole world (even if much of that growth was horribly exaggerated), and when the church is shrinking then its the end-times separating the wheat from the chaff. Heads the church wins, tails the adversary loses. When the church changes to accommodate, it's God adapting the church and religion for the time in which it operates; when the church refuses to change to accommodate, it's righteous steadfastness in not being tossed about by every wind of doctrine. Frankly, I find it shocking that this type of reasoning isn't viewed by many to be as convincing as it obviously is. [/sarcasm]

[_Flaming Meaux]

I don't know how you fix this in Mormonism. It is inherently high-stakes if you take it seriously. How do you convince parents that they should respect their children's decisions despite the fact that their very souls are on the line? And given the level of indoctrination I received from the time I was a toddler, how am I supposed to make an informed decision in the midst of that? All I knew was that my soul was at stake and I might as well go along with it because to leave it and be wrong was to be damned, even though the church made me miserable.

So now things are getting better, but I don't think it is because the leaders pushed it that direction. I think they are trying to hold it back but it is getting away from them.

I was among the first in my family to leave the church, so got a lot of impassioned calls and emails from my parents, particularly my dad who had been a bishop and all that. I was one of those who probably took the church way too seriously when I actually believed in it, so they couldn't exactly take the 'you just don't understand what is at stake' angle. I knew what was at stake, I spent a lot of time evaluating it, and came to the position that I couldn't in good conscience spend the rest of my life pretending for my parent's benefit. Maybe that just makes me a bad son, but my leaving, coupled with another brother leaving, made it all the easier for yet another brother and both sisters to leave, so now I've only got one sibling left in the faith.

It was very difficult for my parents, such that my father at one point sent a diatribe commanding us all to repent, insisting that we not be critical of the church in public or private, etc. But interestingly, not long thereafter something just seemed to click for him. I'm sure he wishes we were all in the faith, but it appears he ultimately decided he didn't want to risk relationships in the here and now with the vast majority of his children, so he got over it. We've got positive relationships now that are built on something more. He knows where I am at, I know where he is at, and we no longer spend our time trying to persuade each other at least as it relates to Mormonism. It wasn't always that way, because for a while I'd get the semi-annual call to repentence even though I had made my position on the subject clear, but eventually he got it. Maybe what needed to happen was for a critical mass of people around him to leave so that he realized that people of good conscience can disagree on these sorts of things. Interestingly, his growth in this regard doesn't make it any harder for his kids who choose to stay away from the faith, nor does it give them any particular incentive to return, but I laud him for making the choice to be a good human even if it makes him a slightly less good Mormon.

At any rate, if people like my Dad can become accepting of their children who choose differently, I imagine a lot of other parents are the same. I don't think that bodes well for the health of Mormonism long term, but perhaps it just shrinks down to the few thousand people that actually really really believe it and satifies itself operating as a relatively obscure branch of restorationist takes on Christianity.

[Edited to add: All the siblings in my family are Gen Xers with the exception of the youngest, so at least in my case the church hasn't proved that successful with the Xers either.]

[_I have a question]

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.

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".

But let's explore your strategy...

How would you propose the Church goes about stopping committed members having drag-inducing uncommitted babies?
How would you propose to alter the missionary programme so they stop recruiting drag-inducing uncommitted investigators?

[_fetchface]

I was among the first in my family to leave the church, so got a lot of impassioned calls and emails from my parents, particularly my dad who had been a bishop and all that. I was one of those who probably took the church way too seriously when I actually believed in it, so they couldn't exactly take the 'you just don't understand what is at stake' angle. I knew what was at stake, I spent a lot of time evaluating it, and came to the position that I couldn't in good conscience spend the rest of my life pretending for my parent's benefit. Maybe that just makes me a bad son, but my leaving, coupled with another brother leaving, made it all the easier for yet another brother and both sisters to leave, so now I've only got one sibling left in the faith.

It was very difficult for my parents, such that my father at one point sent a diatribe commanding us all to repent, insisting that we not be critical of the church in public or private, etc. But interestingly, not long thereafter something just seemed to click for him. I'm sure he wishes we were all in the faith, but it appears he ultimately decided he didn't want to risk relationships in the here and now with the vast majority of his children, so he got over it. We've got positive relationships now that are built on something more. He knows where I am at, I know where he is at, and we no longer spend our time trying to persuade each other at least as it relates to Mormonism. It wasn't always that way, because for a while I'd get the semi-annual call to repentence even though I had made my position on the subject clear, but eventually he got it. Maybe what needed to happen was for a critical mass of people around him to leave so that he realized that people of good conscience can disagree on these sorts of things. Interestingly, his growth in this regard doesn't make it any harder for his kids who choose to stay away from the faith, nor does it give them any particular incentive to return, but I laud him for making the choice to be a good human even if it makes him a slightly less good Mormon.

At any rate, if people like my Dad can become accepting of their children who choose differently, I imagine a lot of other parents are the same. I don't think that bodes well for the health of Mormonism long term, but perhaps it just shrinks down to the few thousand people that actually really really believe it and satifies itself operating as a relatively obscure branch of restorationist takes on Christianity.

[Edited to add: All the siblings in my family are Gen Xers with the exception of the youngest, so at least in my case the church hasn't proved that successful with the Xers either.]

Gen X-er myself with younger siblings that are probably millenials. My parents are 0 for 3.

My brother left the church while I was on my mission, so I remember receiving a special charge from the SP upon my release to bring him back into the fold. Even as a freshly-returned missionary, I knew there was something not right about that and I made no attempts to chastise him.

My Mom doesn't handle direct confrontation well so she would do things like invite him over for Sunday dinner and just happen to invite the sister missionaries over. They pressured him into letting them "practice" the discussions on him, and he let them really have his unfiltered thoughts, which was just as awkward as you might imagine it. Mom was told in no uncertain terms that she crossed a boundary and never to do it again.

I want to give my Mom a little credit and say that she probably didn't know how hurtful it is to continuously be told that you are unacceptable by your otherwise nice family and friends, but that's what it is: continuously broadcasting that you are unacceptable. moinmoin is doing the same thing in this thread. Anyone who isn't getting with the program is a barnacle slowing the boat or chaff, trash in other words.

But my Mom has also come a long way since then and no longer pushes it. My brother was the trailblazer. I have been disaffected for 7 years now and she has never tried to push me back to church even once. My Dad had a couple but he was very good at trying to understand my thinking and then he did some research and checked into my concerns and just admitted that I had valid concerns, left it at that, and never brought it up again.

[_Flaming Meaux]

My Mom doesn't handle direct confrontation well so she would do things like invite him over for Sunday dinner and just happen to invite the sister missionaries over. They pressured him into letting them "practice" the discussions on him, and he let them really have his unfiltered thoughts, which was just as awkward as you might imagine it.

Wait, are you one of my siblings?

My wife still participates to some degree in the church (not sure if attending once a month is still sufficient to count as 'active' as it was when I was a ward clerk nearly 20 years ago), and we still feed the missionaries on occasion (I live in the same state in which I served, and up until I transitioned to a new job in a bigger city some 18 months ago, I actually lived for a few years in one of the areas in which I served back in the 90s). My wife specifically asks for 'no proselytizing' and honestly, I think a lot of missionaries find it relieving. They can simply show up, have a meal, have a genuine conversation, be themselves, and not have to worry about firing up the tear ducts to make a spiritual message seem sincere. I've had some interesting conversations with some when they realize they can be 'off.' That said, occasionally there is a hyper-zealous missionary who does not feel bound to honor the conditions under which the meal was offered which makes a little awkward. I purposely try to avoid introducing anything potentially testimony-shattering, but these same types tend to be flabbergasted that their 'inspired' commitment pattern doesn't seem to work.

I did have one poor sister insist on sharing a message about how Christ loved me and how it was never late to come back no matter what I'd done. "Will you attend church this Sunday?" she asked. When I told her that I didn't attend church not because (i) I felt unworthy, (ii) I was offended, (iii) I had a bunch of unresolved sins, or (iv) I desired to watch football on Sunday instead, but rather because I didn't actually believe in the faith, she got a deer-in-the-headlights look and decided it was time for them to go.


Anyway, glad to hear your Mom has improved over time. Mine once told me that the reason my wife and I were struggling with fertility issues was because our children were waiting in heaven for me to return to the church so I could bless them in the church when they were born. Sad thing is that she actually probably believes it, but even sadder that she didn't seem to even give a thought as to what a hateful thing that is to say. (We did later have a son, who was not blessed in the church, but who has had a wonderful and delightful childhood nonetheless.)