Once upon a time, there were Mormons … Two hundred years from now, even a hundred years from now, will that be a phrase that appears in history books? Is it possible that, having started, grown, and flourished in the 19th and 20th centuries, the LDS Church could, in the 21st and 22nd centuries, go into terminal decline? Or to avoid that outcome, would the Church be forced to adopt such drastic changes to its practices and beliefs that you and I might not recognize the LDS Church of 2119 or 2219? These are questions to ponder while getting ready to read The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church (OUP, 2019) by Jana Riess. It’s available starting next week.
I don’t have a copy yet and haven’t read the book, but there is a preview of the book by Peggy Fletcher Stack posted at the Salt Lake Tribune. The focus of the preview (and the book) is on Mormon Millennials. As you are probably aware, the problem with Millennials is that they are losing interest in religion, at least traditional organized religion. Mormon Millennials are right in stride with their peers in losing interest in Mormonism, at least the traditional organized version thereof (the LDS Church). You can’t fight demographics. Either the LDS Church will shrink or it will change. And big change, not the little stuff: It will take more than a renaming exercise or moving from a three-hour to a two-hour Sunday meeting schedule to stop the bleeding.
Here’s a quotation from the SL Trib piece: “[I]n the mid- to late-20th century, the LDS Church’s emphasis on the nuclear family and opposition to homosexuality were ‘an attractive feature to many Americans,’ she said. ‘Now, it’s a liability.’” Is it conceivable the Church could turn from its doctrine of family salvation and temple sealings to a doctrine that focuses on individual salvation? Could the Church possibly reverse course on its now deeply entrenched opposition to gays and gay marriage to somehow incorporate full salvation for gays into its theology and doctrine? That’s the sort of big change we’re talking about.
I’m not really politicking for that particular change, just throwing out that example to show the scale of change that would make a difference. It’s on a par with the abandonment of plural marriage (the practice, at least) in the 19th century. Ask yourself: What would the LDS Church look like today had it not abandoned the practice of polygamy in 1890? It would almost certainly be much smaller, with a membership numbered in the thousands, not the millions. We wouldn’t be posting and commenting on blogs about Mormonism because there wouldn’t be much conversation about Mormonism. Because there wouldn’t be much Mormonism. On the scale of centuries rather than years, that’s a real possibility. This is a sobering thought experiment for the average Mormon of today.
A section of the SL Trib piece talks about “generational identity.” That’s an increasing challenge for the LDS Church, more so now, it seems, than in prior years. Perhaps because the Internet and smart phones have changed everything. Perhaps because the senior leadership is now three, even four generations removed from Generation Z (the most common name at this point for the generation that is coming after the Millennials). Churches grow by attracting new converts and having more babies. With both LDS conversion rates and LDS birth rates dropping, retaining as many teens and young adults as active and attending Mormons is more important than ever. But the that retention rate is dropping as well.
The Next Mormons is a troubling glimpse into the future of the LDS Church. Demographics are destiny, as they say, and right now Mormon demographics are not looking good.
Wheat & Tares 
“Is it conceivable the Church could turn from its doctrine of family salvation and temple sealings to a doctrine that focuses on individual salvation? ”
Yes….but if it did, it would concede that the Reformation was more of a Restoration than anything Joseph Smith was trying to pull off.
Already there are no Mormons by decree. We are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 😉
I read somewhere that a non-dominant religion has to thread a needle in order to survive. On the one hand if they get too esoteric, weird, whatever- nobody will join and the youth will leave. If they assimilate too much- then why bother not going with the dominate religion. I don’t know how we are doing at this sowing exercise.
The new question isn’t “which church?” but “why church?”We need to think carefully about this question because I think it is what drives millennials one way or another.
My short answer to the question of why:
1. Death -never going to get away from that. How to die which segways into how to live.
2. Cradle to grave community. Many other options but not many that work well across a lifetime.
3. Help raising children. Natural selection will intervene if we ignore this process. Other options also.
$. Venue for meaningful service. Other options also.
We could do much better in all of these areas.
Anthropologically, most cultures have religion. Dogs bark. People worship.
Out of the ashes of the old religions new ones will blossom. But what will they look like?
It’s a shame that this post takes a carefully thought-out study, using the best methods of empirical research available, and proceeds to misinterpret it using unfounded assumptions and ignoring a careful look at the data.
“Either the LDS Church will shrink or it will change. And big change, not the little stuff: It will take more than a renaming exercise or moving from a three-hour to a two-hour Sunday meeting schedule to stop the bleeding.” That’s possible, but it’s not a foregone conclusion from the data. Change, and specifically the kinds of changes that Millennials and Gen Z say they want, doesn’t appear to make a difference (and may make things worse). Look at the Episcopal Church, which has largely embraced social issues that younger Americans claim as important. It has faced a dramatic decline in the last decade (-23.8% from 2007 to 2017, currently a decline of -2.5% annually). The Community of Christ looks a lot like what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might look like if it adjusted to younger Americans’ social views. Growth in that church has come to a halt.
It’s also a mistake to assume that current trends reflect long-term trends. The United States (and the world more generally) has gone through periods of religious growth and decline. The Church has gone through periods of growth and decline. The Church’s growth rate dipped in the 1930s, then went up again in the 50s-60s.
Is it possible that the Church (and religion generally) is in an irreversable decline? Of course it is. Perhaps the world is maturing out of religion like countless sci-fi authors have predicted. Or perhaps it’s a slump before another Great Awakening. Or maybe it’s something else entirely.
The Church will certainly continue to change. It will become more global and less American. Views on some cultural issues will certainly evolve. But to assume “change or die” goes way beyond what the data actually say.
I actually think that over time the position of the Church will change regarding LGBTQ people and will eventually be a little more accepting. Will it happen in the next 20 years? Many of the current apostles will need to die out and be replaced by a more diverse group who have the ability to change.
The Church has changed before and will do so again when their back is against the wall.
My thoughts:
The LDS church left the United States in order to escape the government enforcement of its laws. Polygamy was not practiced openly until the church moved to the west, but by the time the church arrived in the Utah Territory, polygamy was an open practice.
Polygamy soon became the dominant doctrine and the identity of the church. Polygamy defined everything that it meant to be LDS. The WOW was not emphasized.
The church was forced to outlaw polygamy and soon began using the WOW as the new defining doctrine of what it meant to live an LDS life.
Currently, I feel that the WOW is waning in importance. Tobacco has gone out of style, caffeine consumption by members is high and there is no emphasis on limiting meat in any way.
So what will be the next identity of what it means to be LDS?
I am seeing Community Service as the next big focus and emphasis in LDS society. My expectation is to see Service become the identity of church members. My expectation is to see missions become more service focused and an emphasis on continuing community service after missions.
To market ‘Service to the Great Community’ and ‘Find your Church Family’ as the 2 pillars of the faith would be two concepts that would appeal to the younger generation.
The church will change. Old doctrines will not be removed, they will simply be forgotten by the next generation as they are dropped from church manuals and publications.
I expect to see female ordination in my lifetime and a separation of marriage, endowments and temple sealings.
I think LGBTQ political posturing will end and we will see that community slowly and quietly be integrated into LDS wards.
I think the church’s system of patriarchy will become more untenable for the rising generation of women. “Church has become the only place where some of these women… experience what they consider to be discrimination” Riess states.
If the church doesn’t change this, I see it becoming an existential issue. I don’t think church leaders will let that happen. I agree with Damascene that women will be ordained, especially since there is no doctrinal reason not to do so.
I love the idea of service being our center going forward, but as I look at my household full of GenZer teens, I don’t know that it is enough. They are already heavily giving service through the organizations based around their interests and passions. They are overwhelmed by service opportunities.
What they seem to be lacking is a ritual, group spirituality. I find myself lacking this as well. Our weekly meetings are study/teach/listen (with the exception of the brief service of the sacrament). I suppose the temple is supposed to be ritual spirituality and perhaps the recent changes will help with that (as a number of elements come off to some of us as weird rather than godly). Ritual spirituality seems like a hole to improve on though. How to do that, I have no idea.
Man, I’m one who tends to think the Second Coming will be a little later than most believe, but by 2119 or 2219 I’m hoping we’ll all be living in a millennial state.
As a Xennial (a relatively newly coined term for those born between ’76 and ’84) I’d agree that losing young members is a problem that should be taken seriously. I still maintain it’s exaggerated by the bloggernacle. Thinking of my Dad’s extended family, my Mom’s extended family, my wife’s family, and what I know of the families of my siblings’ spouses (we’re talking in the hundreds), I can think of no more than eight individuals who have gone inactive or completely left the Church. I know more than that have had some faith crises, but they’ve come out of them with their testimony largely intact. I can only think of a couple of missionaries from my mission who have left that I’m aware (our mission wasn’t exactly one that would spontaneously add to a person’s testimony), and only a handful of classmates. I really don’t think I or those I grew up with led what one would call a sheltered life, but we had ample opportunities to discern the Spirit.
The things about books like these that always eats at the back of my mind is the assumption the World is innately incapable of changing, and the the Church has to by default. Although that’s a likely scenario at first glance, I think it’s only one of many.and fails to take in factors external to the Church and secularism. Additionally, when it comes to ordination and LGBTQ, I think there are too many across the spectrum that say “This is the way it is” by default. As slow as people are to admit it, science still raises a lot of questions in these regards, and revelation will always have the potential to jar both “conservative” and “liberal” members of the Church, hopefully just momentarily.
Deep down, I feel the Church is poised for some huge growth not seen previously. I don’t know exactly how that will be, but I think a lot of its values will still be intact. I hope to be spiritually prepared for any surprises, however.
Interesting question. Were the church to die off it wouldn’t be the first religious group to do so by any stretch. I was reminded by your question of the Muggletonians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggletonianism) beginning 1651, and records show meetings held up to as late as 1940 apparently. There are also massive differences. To quote from the link “Professor Lamont styles the Muggletonians “disorganized religion”. They held no annual conferences, never organised a single public meeting, seem to have escaped every official register or census of religion, never incorporated, never instituted a friendly society, never appointed a leader, spokesperson, editorial board, chairperson for meetings or a single committee. Their sole foray into bureaucracy was to appoint trustees for their investment, the income from which paid the rent on the London Reading Room between 1869 and 1918.”
And still they survived 3 centuries more or less, terminal decline can last a very very long time. And the church has a far larger and worldwide base.
The following statement quoted in the link is interesting to me, given current attitudes demonstrated by more than a few:
“In Edward Thompson’s words, Muggletonianism was a ‘highly intellectual anti-intellectualism’, and as such remarkably well adapted for survival among the semi-educated, self-taught, self-confident London artisans of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.” Beyond then the anti-newtonian stance was likely increasingly untenable, what with the industrial revolution and all.
Eli, in my circle of LDS friends your experience with inactive family would be an extreme outlier. I am the only one of four kids to remain active even though we were all raised in an active, believing home. In my ward growing up (outside the Mormon corridor), activity rates were about 35 to 40%. It’s a bit better in my current ward but we all have a lot of inactive family. Honestly, one of the good things about having really good non-Mormon friends is that I don’t worry about our relationship changing due to any faith transition on my or my friend’s part.
I see change coming to the Church and one I believe everyone could support would be emeritus status for apostles at age 70, 75, or even 80. I can only speculate, but the impact of President Monson’s failing health seemingly had much more impact on the Church than previous presidents (perhaps simply because it wasn’t as hidden though maybe I simply don’t know the history as well). As others here have suggested, having “younger” leadership might well be the catalyst needed for revelation (or policy change as one may see it) on some of the topics that appear to be deal-breakers for young people.
lehcarjt, I would go further and say that most of the LDS meetings that I attend are focused on process, we are told to study more but we don’t actually study in the meeting, we are told to attend the temple more but we aren’t in the temple for the meeting, we are told to do family history, pay tithing, serve in the community, manage our finances, etc, etc, once we leave the meeting. This means that most church meetings are functionally equivalent to business meetings. I yearn for meetings where the focus is on what we are doing right then in that gathering, meetings that have content that is experienced within the meeting, meetings that fill me rather than exhort me.
Good point KLC.
Another thing I have noticed, as a former Mormon turned Protestant, is that LDS meetings are filled with an excessive amount of self-referential dialogue. I was amused when I was attending a Lutheran church that the pastor never talked about Luther or Lutheranism. I was likewise amused to find that the Methodists are not talking about Wesley. The Anglicans are not talking about Wycliffe or Cranmer. My brother sends me the weekly sermon at his Presbyterian church, and none of them are about Calvin or Knox.
But Latter-day Saints do an awful lot of talking about themselves as a group. It is not just too much of such talk…its at the level of a serious epidemic.
Millennials are not going to be interested in that at all. There are no borders in the Millennial mind. Any whiff of this strange group-obsessed mentality will send them running to the door.
John, I have generally noticed the same thing when substituting as organist in Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches. Except one memorable time that Lutheran minister carried on quoting Luther’s anger and potty-language. He really shocked his congregation. At least he didn’t go on to talk about Luther’s approval of polygamy — in some circumstances!
John,
Millennials apparently aren’t interested in non-self-referential discussions in Methodism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism and Anglicanism. I don’t know that any mainline Protestant denomination is in a position to lecture on what Millennials and Gen Z find compelling.
KLC, for a long time I’ve been aware of the business meeting format of the church. I’ve generally attributed it to the heavy influx of LDS leaders coming out of American business. I’ve experienced LDS meetings in the Philippines and Sweden where the business model wasn’t as dominant.
My wife once told me she felt LDS meetings are similar to multi-level marketing (MLM) pitches, similar to Mary Kay meetings she attended. In the Mary Kay meetings, the focus wasn’t on learning the features and benefits of new products. The focus was always on how to sell more products. Similarly, at church meetings she attended, she observed the focus wasn’t so much on the gospel as it was on exhortations to do better improving various numbers: rates of visiting teaching, names submitted to the temple, temple sessions attended, non-members contacted, members endowed, Book of Mormons placed, hours reading the scriptures – and so on.
Interesting article. I would be very interested in getting the book.
Yet Africa, South America, and other places in the world are still fairly religious. I gather that the LDS Church will vamp up efforts there to stave off hemorrhaging in the US and Europe.
Dsc,
Similarly, while Protestants may not be “in a position to lecture on what Millennials and Get Z finds compelling,” that doesn’t mean that the LDS church does.
Brian,
Which is why I’m not giving advice to Protestants as to how they should try to retain members and fill pews.
Thanks for the comments and discussion, everyone.
Mike, I like your observation about how “Why church?” seems like a more relevant question to Millennials than “Which church?” I recall hearing a report a few years back that a PR firm hired by the Church to assess a proposed LDS ad campaign told leaders that highlighting “Which church is true?” as part of the campaign was not a winner anymore.
Damascene, yes maybe the Word of Wisdom has run its course as a central feature of Mormon identity. I hope service and Helping Hands can be a new identifier rather than the Proclamation. Time will tell.
Dsc, I enjoy your comments even when I don’t agree with them. It is certainly the case that religious history doesn’t follow a straight path. The emergence of Pentecostalism at the beginning of the 20th century was a surprise. The decline of mainline Protestant churches and the re-emergence of fundamentalism/Evangelicalism in the second half of the 20th century was a surprise. Secularism was supposedly on the march after the Sixties but religion not only refused to go away but prospered in the late 20th century. So there will undoubtedly be some surprises in the next forty or fifty years. But the current candidate for a contemporary surprise is the rise of the Nones in America over the last ten years. That confirms rather than refutes the concerns I raised in the opening post.
As for the content of sacrament meeting, I think there is some progress in making talks more Christ-centered. But it is very hit or miss. Bishops get almost no training or direction in how to make talks and topics better. And they have too much other stuff to do to worry about it very much.
John: It’s interesting that a frequent (negative) critique of Community of Christ by LDS is that we rarely talk about Joseph Smith or Book of Mormon. I think an objective view of both churches is that they’ve diverged dramatically from 1830s movement, albeit in different directions. And I expect that to continue.
That’s not to say I don’t see considerable challenges ahead for CofC, but I believe it’s trying to respond to leadings of the Spirit. Can’t get more dangerous than that, of course.
“would the Church be forced to adopt such drastic changes to its practices and beliefs that you and I might not recognize the LDS Church of 2119 or 2219?”
Forced to adapt: Only the government can do that. Other than that, a church might choose to change a little or a lot depending on the actual goals visible or perhaps not so visible.
Who is really in charge? If God, then changes will happen as God commands; not until and not unless such happens. If not, then I really don’t care because I wish to attend a church appointed by God. This is part of what DSC refers to above; by changing fundamental doctrines to follow current fads, churches offend their traditional members and fail to recruit very many new members. They show themselves to be social clubs rather than authorized or appointed by God. Social clubs are a fine thing of course and I have seen no mention of “God” in the comments above. Plain to see everyone here already sees the Mormon church as just a social club founded by Joseph Smith but high time to get with the times.
Should the LDS change fundamental doctrines it is revealed that the church has become more fearful of persons rather than God.
Changing procedure is a fine thing; already the church has adapted to electronics in a big way. That is doubtless why it really is no longer necessary to sit for three hours in a church. You can get church any time you want on your iPad. It’s quite amazing. A wealth of scripture, books. music, video, commentary in my hands; so much that it would take an elephant to lift it were it all on paper and film.
D&C 3: 4 For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him.
7 For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God….
Hilarious Michael 2:
Who is in charge of what?
How many times have we, beginning with Brother Joseph, declared as a church something to be a revelation and had to back away from it? Hundreds of times? John Taylor said destroy polygamy and you destroy Mormonism. I knew something like ministering was better than what we were doing back in the 1980’s and I repented of home teaching then. I was laughed at but look who is chuckling now?
This is a Mormon blog. Is God in charge of it? Is He in charge of LDS.org? God is bigger than the Internet and he could destroy it in a second. He hasn’t yet. He allows this blog and many others to exist. Some are pretty nasty anti-Mormon. Sovereign God is in charge of everything and you can’t pretend to read his mind because His ways are not our ways.
Did God command Luther to start the Reformation? Or rather how did God cause that happen? During the recent 500 year anniversary of Luther I came to realize we Mormons need to pay better attention to Luther who did far more for the salvation of man than Joseph Smith. He was deeply flawed, worse than most of us.
Not everything that falls from the lips of those we sustain as prophets is true or worse to be overgeneralized. The greatest thing Elder McKonkie said in my opinion was: “We were wrong.” Being certain is no substitute for truth. DC 3:4 can easily be turned around and pointed right back at Joseph Smith and his carnal desires for at least 30 women besides his wife.
My SIL is a deeply spiritual man and has a higher code of moral conduct than most Mormons I know. He is unaffiliated at this time. You think he doesn’t walk with God in his own way? How small-minded not to see the work and glory of God in his life and his love for my daughter and his family and the people he serves at his occupation.
Jesus taught us to feed my sheep. We have to focus on helping people more than thinking God is leading us to conveniently ignore their burdens and to fear them when they don’t conform to our often false expectations. When we denied Priesthood ordination to black people was that feeding the sheep?
We see through a glass darkly in this life. Those who see clearly are blind.
Michael 2 said, ” I wish to attend a church appointed by God.”
Michael 2….you need cut that tree down closer to the base. Your belief that there is a church “appointed by God” is a product of your (possibly life-long) association with Mormonism. But that is a construct that you need to challenge. There are millions of Christians who don’t believe there is such a thing. They believe in the “invisible church.”
It is called the invisible church, because you can’t look up its address in a phone book.
When Jesus comes for his people, he won’t need to consult membership records to make sure he has the right group of people.
I do not doubt that the church will lose membership in the United States in the next few decades due to the growing indifference towards religion among the millennial generation. I do expect to see continued growth globally, though. I do not see it changing its stance on SSM or homosexual acts or the like and that will probably cause a continuation rhetoric against the church as more and more mainstream Christian religions embrace those ideas. And I doubt very much that future generations of apostles will deviate in any significant manner from the doctrines that have already been promulgated. I actually expect a doubling down on the current doctrines and possibly seeing the Family Proclamation being canonized so as to dispel any doubt on their stance. The church will not change doctrines in order to retain people. It cannot do so because it would require it to repudiate all of the prophets that have preceded them, effectively repudiating the restoration.
Glenn
John, thank you for responding.
I have made a choice to believe that God has appointed a structure to facilitate human instruction in godly affairs and for efficiently bearing one another’s burdens. Whether I chose correctly might not be knowable in this lifetime, but changing horses midstream (a metaphor) is even less wise.
“When Jesus comes for his people, he won’t need to consult membership records to make sure he has the right group of people.”
Perhaps he will do exactly that: Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
But perhaps the Revelator was mistaken.
The Other Mike asks questions, perhaps rhetorically but they are good talking points.
“declared as a church something to be a revelation and had to back away from it?”
I leave the counting to others, but in the early years it seems to have been rather common.
“John Taylor said destroy polygamy and you destroy Mormonism.”
He was right in a certain sense; THAT Mormonism is indeed (mostly) destroyed!
“I knew something like ministering was better than what we were doing back in the 1980’s and I repented of home teaching then.”
Nothing has changed for me. I have always approached it as providing friendship, understanding and service. I don’t call it ministering. That’s for angels.
“God is bigger than the Internet and he could destroy it in a second.”
As can the Russians or the NSA. Make sure you’ve backed up your data.
“Did God command Luther to start the Reformation?”
Depending on what you mean by “command”, probably so.
“The greatest thing Elder McKonkie said in my opinion was: ‘We were wrong.’ “
It seems odd to take pleasure in someone else being wrong. I’ll think about some other Greatest Thing He Said.
“Being certain is no substitute for truth”
I use a nearly identical phrase when apprentices are certain what is the problem with the computer.
“DC 3:4 can easily be turned around and pointed right back at Joseph Smith and his carnal desires for at least 30 women besides his wife.”
Only 30? Alas, no internet. He could have had carnal desires for thousands and not just women.
“You think he doesn’t walk with God in his own way?”
I do not think about how people I have never met walk with God. It seems you don’t approve of how Joseph walked with God.
“Jesus taught us to feed my sheep.”
One of you and 7 billion sheep. How’s that working for you?
“When we denied Priesthood ordination to black people was that feeding the sheep?”
The number of things that are Not Feeding Sheep is many.
“Those who see clearly are blind.”
An unusual definition of “blind”.
I live in Australia. We have just had the highest ranking catholic in the country, Archbishop George Pell, convicted of sexual abuse of children, and go to prison.
This is an example of religious leaders loosing the moral authority to declare judgement on others. He was anti gay marriage too.
The arguments above, about whether the church should/could end discrimination against women and gays, is not the real question. The question is how many people believe the church leaders have any moral authority to discriminate, especially if you believe as I and many younger people believe, God does not discriminate, and the leaders are not defending the gospel but their culture, as they have often done for a time in the past.
I have just been in India, Jordan and Egypt, where most people are religious. Where there are a billion hindus, half a billion buddists, and 1.8 billion muslims. There are also 1.2 billion catholics. I often see the argument that the majority of mormons are conservative so they (maybe 5 million) must be right. In the context of billions?? Others have already taken their teachings to the earth and we are fighting loosing battles defending homophobia and patriachy.
“The question is how many people believe the church leaders have any moral authority to discriminate”
All of them. Church leaders automatically have moral authority over their followers. The weekly reminder: “and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them.”
In this context the giving of commandments is through those church leaders of which we write.
“I and many younger people believe, God does not discriminate,”
It seems God chose carefully his chosen people. Of course, different gods chose different chosen people.
Real non-discrimination is difficult. You go to a restaurant and say, “surprise me, I don’t care!”
Micheal, To people who see the world as you do, who equate church leaders with God, there is no question of whether church leaders have moral authority. To others and that seems to be a sizable minority, if the leaders keep getting it wrong on social issues, then they can not be trusted on social issues. If they stick to the gospel OK, but if they claimed the gospel included racism, then opposition to birth control etc. And then claim the gospel requires sexism and homophobia, they may loose some credibility.
At present we discriminate against the children of gay couples, to protect the children, while refusing to protect children from hetrosexual predators.
Your comments about discrimination, may make sense to conservatives, to others who acknowledge discrimination is a problem, they look like making light of a problem you are unable to acknowledge it. As we are on a blog that says one of the reasons people leave the church is the churchs discrimination, wanting to redefine discrimination doesnt really cut it. Not helpfull.
I have never heard a church leader acknowledge any responsibility for membrs leaving , and I wouldn’t expect you to, but the reality is that most people who leave say the church is responsible for their leaving.