Church is "losing 40% of 16-24 year old members"

[Archaea]

It's a good organization if one fits within its nuclear family. Once you slip out of that definition, it's not as good a social fit.

If you're single, older and single, gay, divorced male, or an oddball family, you will have trouble fitting in socially.

Although I make this observation, I have no idea how to fix it. The family is a perfect sell, but many persons in modern society don't find themselves within the ideal. So are those outside the ideal SOL?

If one has faith in the authenticity, then it shouldn't be an issue. But let's face it, who wants to participate in a partially social organization where you don't fit in?

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Tex

Which folklore are you talking about Requiem?

Where to begin? Mormon singles' wards are havens for unmarried losers, sexual predators, the economically deprived and persecution complex suffering fringe groups.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's a good organization if one fits within its nuclear family. Once you slip out of that definition, it's not as good a social fit.

If you're single, older and single, gay, divorced male, or an oddball family, you will have trouble fitting in socially.

Although I make this observation, I have no idea how to fix it. The family is a perfect sell, but many persons in modern society don't find themselves within the ideal. So are those outside the ideal SOL?

If one has faith in the authenticity, then it shouldn't be an issue. But let's face it, who wants to participate in a partially social organization where you don't fit in?

How to fix it. That is a toughy. I go to church and often think I don't fit here. Wait a minute, I do. At least I believe the basic things these people believe.

I hear talks about families are forever, you need to be married in the Temple, you need to go on a mission, etc. I am all for those things and odds are in your favor if you do those things you will be more successful at the spiritual things in life.

They don't dare say, however that isn't always the case. To do so would give the members an out or excuse not to accomplish those goals. I wouldn't want them preaching from the stand you can have a great happy family life and not go on a mission and get married in the Temple. I wouldn't want them to tell my kids they could have a great marriage by marrying someone outside our faith.

Since those things can't be taught they have to be found out through experience. Some find not being told those things to have been a breaking of trust. A break that may cause hesitation with future trust.

I know some kids whose step father forced them to read scriptures every morning. Later they found he was a porn king and visited brothals. Kind of hard to push the read your scriptures every morning thing to them.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's a good organization if one fits within its nuclear family. Once you slip out of that definition, it's not as good a social fit.

If one has faith in the authenticity, then it shouldn't be an issue. But let's face it, who wants to participate in a partially social organization where you don't fit in?

Good points - begs the question of how typical members of family wards would react if the social aspect were to decline. What percentage of members are there only for the social, keep up with Brother Jones part of LDS activity? I would argue that many members are there only for cosmetic purposes.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Good points - begs the question of how typical members of family wards would react if the social aspect were to decline. What percentage of members are there only for the social, keep up with Brother Jones part of LDS activity? I would argue that many members are there only for cosmetic purposes.

I suppose. It seems like alot of work for that purpose. You could do the same in a local protestant church without a lot of the hassle, however.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Truth is why.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...light=unbelief

I'll engage you on the premise and ignore the provocative characterization. What you are referring to is what I think of as people rubbing up against what some have been calling the "internet church" for the first time. Clearly there are a number of people who are unable to reconsile what they learn about history and doctrine (and the combination of the two) from outside sources with that which they have learned at church.

Beyond that, however, this is also the time of life when people first encounter the opportunity to act on more serious temptations and this leads them out. Additionally this is often the first time they are away from mom and dad or the mission field and unless they are in a situation where the peer pressure is involvement in the church (like at a church school) they don't have the interest independently.

In many cases it is probably a combination of the above. I don't know how you could ever see the break down but it would be interesting. I think that the two I have mentioned have always been there. People losing faith over what you are alluding to, however, is on the rise as the access to information is on the rise. This leads right back into the discussion of whether some kind of "innoculation" would be a solution.

I tend to believe that were we to address some of the issues that are most troubling to people in a church setting at a little less superficial level, we would retain more people. Obviously this is counter to what you would hope to see, but that remains my opinion.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

I suppose. It seems like alot of work for that purpose. You could do the same in a local protestant church without a lot of the hassle, however.

Mmm, I think if I became protestant there would be pretty serious fall out within my family and among my LDS friends. I actually think that it is "less work" in some ways to stay in if you are raised LDS. For a convert, I agree, what would be the point of all that work?

Also (responding to the post you were responding to) who cares why a person is at church? We all agree that participation in any church is a net positive for a person, a family and probably society right?

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I tend to believe that were we to address some of the issues that are most troubling to people in a church setting at a little less superficial level, we would retain more people. Obviously this is counter to what you would hope to see, but that remains my opinion.

I often wonder if that would be the case...sometimes, people are just locked into their positions on issues/topics and hide behind convieniant excuses. When you take away their disagreement through reason and understanding...some other issue might pop up to mask their desire to not participate.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Where to begin? Mormon singles' wards are havens for unmarried losers, sexual predators, the economically deprived and persecution complex suffering fringe groups.

Interesting ... I don't remember encountering these stereotypes for young single adult wards. I have heard them about adult singles wards (31-45), though.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

This has been the case for a while, sadly. I remember a similar statistic and push being issued about 10 years ago. It's a dangerous age to be losing people.

There are some interesting distinctions when it comes to singles units. They have their own section in the handbook. Interestingly, although there are allowances for singles wards, there is no provision for a singles stake--only "university" stakes. That is, there's not supposed to be singles stakes that exist independently of the university environment. Given the growing numbers of "older" singles (25-35) who aren't typically still in school, I imagine this might have to evolve.

I've been told that our current stake president is opposed to all singles organizations and will not permit a singles ward in his stake. I wonder how he'll take this news.

I've been told that Elder Packer opposes the concept of singles wards, as do a few others in the 12. IMO, that's why there is no universal policy about singles. There is not a consensus on how to deal with them. I'm not sure singles wards are the way to go, to be honest. Surprisingly to some, not all young singles like singles wards but they either go to them despite that or they stay in the regular ward only to usually be pretty much ignored. I kind of like the big tent idea of a ward with lots of different types of members in it that then has different types of activities and programs to address the different needs, rather than "one size fits all" activities that mostly are geared towards families with young children.