NOM

Showerthought. In my parents family (parents, kids, grandkids) there are 2 non-TBMs, me and my nephew. It is far more likely that the number of non-TBMs increases than decreases. The church is bleeding members, and not just new converts and youth. So if keeping family members in the fold is priority #1, then they should be taking drastic measures. I don't envy their position. Or mine.

Aside from all of the doctrinal issues, you just can't beat Second Saturdays. They are the bomb.

Mind-numbing, monotonous, and repetitive meetings can't win. The church really does have to step up their game.

Linked wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:46 am So if keeping family members in the fold is priority #1, then they should be taking drastic measures.

What "drastic measures" could possibly be effective? I can't imagine any measures that will more effectively keep family in church that have not already been tried. I suppose that faithful families could go more fundamentalist, conservative, and insular. But that will tend to drive away more people that it keeps in.

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:36 pm I can't imagine any measures that will more effectively keep family in church that have not already been tried.

I would appreciate if if they served coffee and tea.

Give It Time wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:02 pm

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:36 pm I can't imagine any measures that will more effectively keep family in church that have not already been tried.

I would appreciate if if they served coffee and tea.

That's just one step away from saucy magazines in the foyer...

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:36 pm What "drastic measures" could possibly be effective? I can't imagine any measures that will more effectively keep family in church that have not already been tried. I suppose that faithful families could go more fundamentalist, conservative, and insular. But that will tend to drive away more people that it keeps in.

That is the rub. There are tactics individual families or the church as a whole could try but those within doctrinal and cultural orthodoxy are limited and generally the sort of thing that chases away those at the edges even if they manage to entrench those still deep in the fold. Becoming more open and welcoming helps keep people who are at the edges but 'risks' people migrating from the middle to the edges and even worse can fall into the territory of doctrinal and cultural heterodoxy. So they're stuck in a situation where you can have more less devoted to the church individuals hanging around or fewer more devoted to the church individuals hanging around, and we all know the orthodox doctrinal and cultural answer to which is better.

Dravin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:23 am

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:36 pm What "drastic measures" could possibly be effective? I can't imagine any measures that will more effectively keep family in church that have not already been tried. I suppose that faithful families could go more fundamentalist, conservative, and insular. But that will tend to drive away more people that it keeps in.

That is the rub. There are tactics individual families or the church as a whole could try but those within doctrinal and cultural orthodoxy are limited and generally the sort of thing that chases away those at the edges even if they manage to entrench those still deep in the fold. Becoming more open and welcoming helps keep people who are at the edges but 'risks' people migrating from the middle to the edges and even worse can fall into the territory of doctrinal and cultural heterodoxy. So they're stuck in a situation where you can have more less devoted to the church individuals hanging around or fewer more devoted to the church individuals hanging around, and we all know the orthodox doctrinal and cultural answer to which is better.

Actually, I don't know which the church would prefer other than to have all the members fully anxiously engaged. The reason I say that is October's VT lesson is about (re)unfolding those who stray. You point out, very well, the dilemma of keeping us in. However, what would help us leave graciously and probably keep us silent on the internet is to let us go without shaming us. No more lessons painting us as lazy, thin skinned sinners. No more rescues. No more absolute truth claims. Teaching doctrines of the celestial kingdom that has a citizenry that is more than heterosexual and in a traditional gender-roled polygamous marriage. Admit that it is (gasp) reasonable for people to have experiences and views of the church that it is not what it claims.

But that will never happen. The church believes it has the power and it wants us under its control.

Give It Time wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:24 am Actually, I don't know which the church would prefer other than to have all the members fully anxiously engaged.

I know I'm grabbing at a small part of the interesting comment. I just wanted to say that being fully and anxiously engaged does not always lead to great outcomes. I am fairly certain that part of the problems my family is facing was caused by my callings. I sacrificed my time, talents, and everything else the Lord blessed me with including my wife, children, and friends. I think the time I spent at church contributed to the emotional problems my kids have faced that I believe will ultimately lead to their exit from the church. When Bednar tells me that Sabbath observance will lead to multigenerational families, he is wildly extrapolating. When Nelson tells us that if we will hold on to the church, our families will hold on to us, he is outrageously mistaken. Being "all in" can lead to other family members seeking love and companionship from other sources.

The fact that the church needs to set aside a night for families to be together should be a huge red flag. Other churches don't do that because they leave their members time to be with their families.

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:36 pm

Linked wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:46 am So if keeping family members in the fold is priority #1, then they should be taking drastic measures.

What "drastic measures" could possibly be effective? I can't imagine any measures that will more effectively keep family in church that have not already been tried. I suppose that faithful families could go more fundamentalist, conservative, and insular. But that will tend to drive away more people that it keeps in.

Good point. The drastic measures come in different forms for different families, depending on what they feel will help the most. For some families they disown the lost sheep to avoid infecting the others. For other families they recognize that may be a losing strategy and try to maintain contact but find other ways to lessen the impact like enforcing the narrative that apostates are lost and their reasons must not be valid (this is my family). I probably used the wrong word with drastic, let's change it to "they should be taking action".

Dravin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:23 am That is the rub. There are tactics individual families or the church as a whole could try but those within doctrinal and cultural orthodoxy are limited and generally the sort of thing that chases away those at the edges even if they manage to entrench those still deep in the fold. Becoming more open and welcoming helps keep people who are at the edges but 'risks' people migrating from the middle to the edges and even worse can fall into the territory of doctrinal and cultural heterodoxy. So they're stuck in a situation where you can have more less devoted to the church individuals hanging around or fewer more devoted to the church individuals hanging around, and we all know the orthodox doctrinal and cultural answer to which is better.

Yes, what Dravin said. There aren't good options.

But some people/families see their everything, their eternal family, at risk and decide they have to do something. Like kick their kid out of the house, or refuse to accept their gay kid's SO, or at minimum force their teenager to attend church, seminary, and mutual. These actions probably hurt more than they help.

Give It Time wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:24 am You point out, very well, the dilemma of keeping us in. However, what would help us leave graciously and probably keep us silent on the internet is to let us go without shaming us. No more lessons painting us as lazy, thin skinned sinners. No more rescues. No more absolute truth claims. Teaching doctrines of the celestial kingdom that has a citizenry that is more than heterosexual and in a traditional gender-roled polygamous marriage. Admit that it is (gasp) reasonable for people to have experiences and views of the church that it is not what it claims.

This is beautiful. Realizing I didn't believe the fundamental teachings of the church was very difficult. All of the sudden I went from a good guy to a bad guy. Very confusing. But if you lower those walls then people will come flooding out.

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:36 pm I suppose that faithful families could go more fundamentalist, conservative, and insular. But that will tend to drive away more people that it keeps in.

Maybe some physics minded poster could post an equation showing that the greater the force applied to a liquid in a container with an opening, the greater the outflow of liquid will be from that container.

moksha wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:00 am Maybe some physics minded poster could post an equation showing that the greater the force applied to a liquid in a container with an opening, the greater the outflow of liquid will be from that container.

"Showerthought" Love it!


I guess the church really didn't do anything to prepare our TBM family members for situations like this. In fact they promised them that it wouldn't happen if they were obedient. Like blazerb said Nelson, Bednar and countless others have taught obedience is the key to keeping your family together. So when family members fall away the TBMs are programmed to think it's their fault and internalize everything. It's either that or think the Q15 might be wrong.

Since they aren't prepared, they don't know what "drastic measures" to take. They are probably waiting for a step by step guide from the COB to how to deal with disaffected family members.

blazerb wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:51 am

Give It Time wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:24 am Actually, I don't know which the church would prefer other than to have all the members fully anxiously engaged.

I know I'm grabbing at a small part of the interesting comment. I just wanted to say that being fully and anxiously engaged does not always lead to great outcomes. I am fairly certain that part of the problems my family is facing was caused by my callings. I sacrificed my time, talents, and everything else the Lord blessed me with including my wife, children, and friends. I think the time I spent at church contributed to the emotional problems my kids have faced that I believe will ultimately lead to their exit from the church. When Bednar tells me that Sabbath observance will lead to multigenerational families, he is wildly extrapolating. When Nelson tells us that if we will hold on to the church, our families will hold on to us, he is outrageously mistaken. Being "all in" can lead to other family members seeking love and companionship from other sources.

The fact that the church needs to set aside a night for families to be together should be a huge red flag. Other churches don't do that because they leave their members time to be with their families.

I think you're absolutely right. I also think the brethren would like that inconvenient information to disappear.

Yeah, in my immediate family, some of their kids stayed and some left. However, one sister with 8 kids had 100% temple marriages &\or missions among them. She did everything right and was seriously banking on prophetic counsel that if you do everything right, your kids will stay in the church. Raise up a child, etc.
Then in the last few months three of her kids have been posting antimormon memes on FB. Much as I want the church to fail I feel bad for her. She is a genuinely good person and conscientious parent. She hasn't discussed the recent apostasy in her family, but I'm certain she feels hurt and wonders where she went wrong.

MoPag wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:18 am "Showerthought" Love it!


I guess the church really didn't do anything to prepare our TBM family members for situations like this. In fact they promised them that it wouldn't happen if they were obedient. Like blazerb said Nelson, Bednar and countless others have taught obedience is the key to keeping your family together. So when family members fall away the TBMs are programmed to think it's their fault and internalize everything. It's either that or think the Q15 might be wrong.

Since they aren't prepared, they don't know what "drastic measures" to take. They are probably waiting for a step by step guide from the COB to how to deal with disaffected family members.

Those exploding bottles of soda are a perfect metaphor! So appropriate it's exploding, a mess and it's even soda!

Having been in the position the 15 are wrong or I believe immoral things is a very difficult place to be. This dilemma isn't as great for members, but accepting that the leaders of this church could be wrong, not just in theory, but in fact was very difficult.

Give It Time wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:24 am Actually, I don't know which the church would prefer other than to have all the members fully anxiously engaged.

I'd argue that fully anxiously engaged falls under the more devoted category, even without going into the church rhetoric of giving all your time and talents to the 'kingdom' just from the phrase "anxiously engaged" we're talking either a level of engagement that causes anxiety or them wanting members to have anxiety over if they are doing enough. This is not Mormonism at the edges, this is full on in the fold Mormonism. So if the church wants all members fully anxiously engaged it isn't happy to have members be and stay at the edges or take any middle-way path through Mormonism.

Fair enough, the church wants more anxiously engaged members rather than less of them, but the same message can't preach anxious engagement and middle-way/fringe acceptance. Preaching anxious engagement is prima facie preaching fewer more devoted members over big tent Mormonism. At least in my mind, but I'm open to arguments to the contrary.

Give It Time wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:02 pm

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:36 pm I can't imagine any measures that will more effectively keep family in church that have not already been tried.

I would appreciate if if they served coffee and tea.

And donuts, which are already in keeping with the WoW.

The Beast wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:26 am

Give It Time wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:02 pm

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:36 pm I can't imagine any measures that will more effectively keep family in church that have not already been tried.

I would appreciate if if they served coffee and tea.

And donuts, which are already in keeping with the WoW.

Donuts for the coffee and shortbread cookies for the tea.

Give It Time wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:43 am

The Beast wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:26 am

Give It Time wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:02 pm

I would appreciate if if they served coffee and tea.

And donuts, which are already in keeping with the WoW.

Donuts for the coffee and shortbread cookies for the tea.

I don't care what they serve, but I would sure love a bit of social time after meetings....make that instead of one of the meetings.

I think one of problems why the church is losing people is that the sense of community has disappeared. It is easier to ask question when you are not as connected socially, so now days, we not only have internet with ready access to information to make one doubt, but the lack of any strong community ties, makes it much easier to entertain doubts. Then lack of a strong community makes it easier to leave. The only people with strong community ties are those in leadership positions that forces them to get to know people. Back in the old days, before the block when there were six or so meetings a week, people got to know pretty much everyone in their ward, even if they didn't have a calling. Now, you get to know a few who are in leadership positions and then those you interact with outside of church because of your calling. It was worth it to me to stay active just for the social and community aspects.

Give It Time wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:43 am

The Beast wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:26 am

Give It Time wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:02 pm
I would appreciate if if they served coffee and tea.

And donuts, which are already in keeping with the WoW.

Donuts for the coffee and shortbread cookies for the tea.

You may be onto something. Imagine some radical and secretly apostate bishop implementing an optional "social hour" during Sunday School or Priesthood/Relief Society. This would be an excellent experiment in how far the institutional church would allow a local leader to try something new.