I have started to re-read The Next Mormons by Dr. Jana Riess and Dr. Benjamin Knoll. It might be more correct to say that I am studying it for the first time. I had been anticipating the book’s release for so long that I do think I missed some details in my voracious reading it the first time I read it.
Dr. Riess, often accompanied by Dr. Knoll, has given many wonderful interviews about the book and the survey that it is based on. I appreciated that she even took the time during the busy book launch to talk and that is here. There was even a very interesting conference that focused on this book at Claremont Graduate University and fortunately they even posted the conference presentations on YouTube.
But before I re-read even past the first 2 chapters, I saw an interesting blog post by Jana. In this blog post she mentions that one very oft question she is asked is, “What can be done to reverse some of the trends?” She mentions that she had just interviewed a fellow author David Kinnamanthat has written the books, “You Lost Me”, “UnChristian”, and a new book he co-authored called “Faith for Exiles.” This last book takes a look at not what is driving many away from Christianity, but instead what is keeping those that do remain as active Christians, or what Kinnaman calls, “Resilient Disciples.” He mentions that these individuals are not living in a society where the overwhelming majority wear the label of Christian, but instead are living more in a world that this is a minority. It is logical that this would focus on for millennial’s and Gen Z as this is when the vast majority of individuals are more likely to leave their faith when compared with later periods in their life.
So what does the book “Faith for Exiles” recommend? I have not read the book (yet), but Riess outlines the 5 ways that seem to be working. I will try and give a quick summary and then a bit of my take on how this might relate to the LDS church (If you are interested in more depth you can read the blog or even the book itself)
They focus on personal intimacy with Jesus.
Just entertaining doesn’t cut it. The church experience needs to emphasize regular devotional habits sincere worship. This generation feels they are overly marketed and honor authenticity. They want a deep emotional connection to God.
I wouldn’t say that LDS Sunday services fit in the “entertaining” column. I assume there is quite a bit of variance on how LDS individuals feel that the church helps with an intimate relation with Jesus. At this point I feel the push for obedience to the leaders overshadows and actually gets it the way of focusing on Jesus. But I do realize some do find LDS services help them relate to Jesus.
They educate with a purpose.
The faith has to engage the mind as well as the heart. Studying challenging reflections of other Christians is helpful. It isn’t helpful focusing just on, “the good old days”, but they need to be helping people in today’s world that they live in. Also it is noted that often smaller groups meeting outside a church can be more successful at keeping younger members within the fold.
After quite a few decades, I found the Sunday curriculum to be mind-numbingly boring. It felt to me that not only were we never to get into the “meat”, but I was only fed skim milk with occasional tastes of ½ percent milk. I find way to much placing of the 1950 American idea of a perfect family and not enough focus on inclusion.
As a leader I never really found any of the “training” that we attended to be anything nearly as helpful as training I received at work. I even received more “soft skills” training from work (Emotional Intelligence, Working with difficult people, etc.) To me it always seemed to either be “here is the new program” (I can see the need for some of that) or just preaching.
They help young people forge meaningful inter-generational relationships.
Churches as institutions are losing their appeal, due to factors such as sex scandals and social conservatism. Having a close relationship with an adult can be significant factor helping with retention, but this needs to be a relationship that is honest and open. The adult needs to not be focused so much on ensuring the younger generation being just as they are.
I think this is one area that the LDS church does create opportunities for these relationships. Many people keep the relationship with their young men’s or young women’s leaders for years into adulthood. There are many other situations where the young and not so young rub elbows together.
I do think that the LDS culture isn’t quite so good on the being non-judgmental. Stray just a bit off what is even culturally accepted as the right path and I have almost always seen immense pressure to get back in line. My experience tells me there are VERY few instances where someone can bring, “I read the CES letter and I have some questions, can you help me” and be meet with, “OK, let’s talk about what you read.”
They train young adults about vocation.
Those that keep young adults allow/encourage intermingling of their vocation within the church.
Riess says it about as good as I can summarize it: “Churches that are doing well with young people help them to discover what God created them to do in life and give them tools to succeed at it. Because many young adults are delaying marriage and children, most spend their 20s focusing on work. This is an opportunity for churches to teach about “vocational discipleship,” which is approaching work through the lens of an active, growing faith.”
I can’t say I have a clear picture here. I do think that young men are clearly told they need to be the family support, so make sure you have a job that will support a family. I think with young women there is a bit of latitude as long as it stays within some (narrow?) confines and does not significantly detrack from being a stay at home mother.
I wish that missions could be turned to be more in line with this suggestion. I know I had zero interest in being a salesman in a high-pressure numbers driven organization. But I have to admit it helped me become less shy than I was and more confident in unfamiliar situations.
They promote countercultural mission.
Encouraging young adults to not follow the “me me me” culture seems to keep them more engaged with the church. Churches need to “take epic risks” to live out their faith.
I think the LDS church absolutely does some things in this area, but then it can drop off a cliff. The youth are constantly taught they are different and need to be above the world. The effort to do such as a youth I think does some emotional bonding as the youth grows up. Missions of course are huge anti “me me me” culture and many people that I know that are not interested in the LDS church in the least are impressed with people going on missions.
But I think there is only one path. If someone feels that instead of going on a church mission they want to take a year and go deep into Africa and help vaccinate against a ravaging disease, they will get some admiration, but an assumption that such an activity is not nearly as important as a church mission.
Do you agree that the 5 suggestions are good suggestions?
Do you see the church currently implementing any of these suggestions?
Do you think any of these will be implemented in the near future?
Other suggestions on what the church can do to reverse the trends?
“ At this point I feel the push for obedience to the leaders overshadows and actually gets it the way of focusing on Jesus. ”
Amen. ( I cringe when we sing “Follow the Prophet” song in Primary—how about “Follow Jesus” instead)?
“Stray just a bit off what is even culturally accepted as the right path and I have almost always seen immense pressure to get back in line. “
Yeah—like choosing to attend a university other than the BYU’s, choosing to not go on a mission, or not marrying a church member are examples that ward members couldn’t overlook with my kids.
“The youth are constantly taught they are different and need to be above the world. “
The “world” often means ie everyone that isn’t Mormon are evil. Yet, young people growing up outside the Mormon bubble in UT meet and make friends with wonderful people who aren’t Mormon and aren’t evil. (and may even be gay).,
Why can’t we just meet people where they are?
Why don’t we speak more of Jesus’ teachings—like loving one another, not judging etc etc.? Why not expand the opportunities/choices for missions to include service missions—not just proselytizing?
I don’t see significant change in the near future.
It seems the leadership training that I’ve been to is just another Sacrament meeting minus the actual partaking of the sacrament.
‘I wouldn’t say that LDS Sunday services fit in the “entertaining” column.’
#understatement
I’m not sure I understand the format of what I just read. Are the normal font points from the book and the italics your thoughts on the subject?
“If we have presidents or apostles or anybody that we do not like, let us vote them out, and be free men, and cultivate and cherish in our bosoms the principles of liberty.” — President John Taylor, 7 October 1872; “Discourse,” The Deseret News Weekly, volume 21, number 48.
Change what is expected of missionaries. A huge purpose of missions is a training ground for future leadership. Missions need to be much more service-focused. Service projects can be created anywhere. Something so much as weeding, cleaning up parks, and making meals for the sick are acts of service. Missionaries in much of the US and Europe are wafting their time doing street contracts that lead to nothing. Their time could be so much better silent. Service doesn’t have to be in Africa either. So much service is needed right in our backdoors in the US.
Sorry, me again, with another suggestion: Mormonism is a Zion-building project. Stop reading the experience of evangelicals and start studying the history/phenom of the kibbutz in modern Israel. Not kidding, get a contingent of LDS mission strategist types in dialogue with some friendly kibbutzim, stat.
Thanks for the comments.
Yes Nan, the un-italicized is me attempting to summarize what the author has suggested, then I go on in italicized to give my take as it relates to the LDS church. Sorry I didn’t make that more clear.
Thanks, Chinoblanco, but , for those to whom it matters (not me), John Taylor was not president of the Church when he gave that speech in 1872. Following Brigham Young’s death in 1877, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles governed the church, with John Taylor as the quorum’s president. Taylor became the third president of the church in 1880. Does the Deseret News Weekly citation include that title? I haven’t found it, but found the quotation in the Journal of Discourses, vol 15, page 219. Of course, including that title is quite consistent with that series of PH/RS manuals on teachings of the presidents of the church, as that series generally did not bother to note when it was reporting teachings of the man before he became president of the church.
The elephant not being mentioned, is that many believe that young people believe in climate change, gay marriage, and equality for women.
Conservatives believe we are better to be strong in opposition to these things.
I believe there is a limited time before decisions have to made on these, if young people are to remain. Pres Nelson is sticking with the hard line, Pres Oaks would surprise me if he changes. If the church is to remain relavent, when?
Happy Hubby, I just like to be sure before commenting, I have a few thoughts on your thoughts keeping in mind I am an outsider. So first I seem to recall that LDS were firmly discouraged in having a “personal relationship with Jesus” by an apostle. There are hundreds of books from every denomination on this subject and all seem to view it as a fundamental necessity in a committed faith filled life. There is on the other hand a notable dearth of writing or discussion on this subject from the LDS church you see no encouragement in this area from either the highest leadership or the general membership. Also discouraged by the LDS church are small groups meeting outside church for bible/church doctrine study or even book clubs.
I am also not so sure that the LDS church has any leg up on the generational thing, sure some people keep in touch with their leaders from childhood but overall the LDS church has the same problem as other churches which you pointed out young people are just supposed to accept things the way the previous generation handed it to them and today’s youth are doing that all that much.
I can see from your posts on the vocation point that you are at a total loss, which honestly I find a shameful result from a church. Christianity has a deep and centuries old exploration of what it means to fulfill your vocation, employment or work you do in the world at large according to what fits with your talents and personality, as a Christian with accompanying values and beliefs. In your breadwinner/homemaker box there is no discussion about how to be Christian in the world of work only that you must make money and all women are confined their entire lives in the homemaker box no matter the other talents they may have been given by God.
Your last part is just awful, this bonding you you view as a positive, is a result of being taught and considering yourselves different and above from those outside your faith, To those of on the outside your view of yourselves is quite apparent and comes across ( and feels) as arrogant, exclusionary, and self-righteous. As far as missions I can’t disagree more with your thoughts and I can guarantee that no one I know young or old is going to place more value on a proselytizing mission than a service one. What’s more among those I talk about religion with IRL proselytizing missions are viewed as the embodiment of a “me me me” religion.
If we are talking about reversing the trend of younger members leaving the Church, it is not clear to me that the Prez Oaks/Nelson axis wants to reverse the trend. They may view their constant barrage of unpopular issues as sort of a refiner’s fire. A way of strengthening the base of the Church by eliminating the progressive and “weaker” members. This perhaps in preparation for the Last Days. Until I see a change in their emphasis, I don’t see the exit abating.
Many argue that to slow the exit of young members a better “inoculation” effort needs to be made. I don’t like the word inoculate. I think the Church needs to make it’s case in a straightforward and honest way. Then let the individual decide if the Church is the religion for them. Apologists frequently do more harm than good. If a person decides to leave, there should be no shunning. It shouldn’t tear families and friends apart.
If the Church really wants to rejuvenate itself, it needs to give the young (and old) members a reason to stay. From my experience, an expanded concept of service would be a good start. And this would certainly fit in with a renewed emphasis on the teachings of Christ.
Nan. Thanks for your comments whatever kind of “outsider” you are. Part of the reason I blog is to get other people’s perspectives.
You mention that the last part is awful while I view it as positive. You might be reading more “positive” vibes than I meant. Maybe it is just that I HATED all English classes and have probably written more lines of computer code than prose.
I was trying to comment on how a church increases the bonding from the individual. It has been stated that “the main convert on a mission will be the missionary himself” (or herself, but … well I am not going there today). So I was trying to point out that missions are a rather “epic” demonstration of faith that tends to keep the youth associated with the church, right at a time when others tend to leave.
I do have issues with missions.
Well first of all I have seen plenty of evidence that being a missionary does not insures that the young person will remain in the church plenty of young men leave afterwards and more and more are leaving early.
Though I do think the age change for women will insure that young ladies get little to no college education, move straight to marriage and having kids and they will be locked in the church Young men don’t seem to follow the plan as regularly. But over all I am coming to the “Mormon missionary experience” as one it was acted upon by those brought up in the church to believe “they are different and need to be above the world” except in my case I would leave out the word need, because they all appeared to believe they were the cat’s pajamas and we were chopped liver. I think that you will see a negative going forward because young Mormons are in many ways similar to their non-Mormon counter parts in being more inclusive as such they view those outside in a more favorable light and they are not as prone to hold themselves above others making the “bonding” of the missionary to the church weaker. And you have those outside the church interested in things spiritual but but not things religious due to covering up dreadful behavior, compromising values for political gain, these people have “cut their teeth” on the Catholic church horror, heard about scandal and hypocrisy after scandal and hypocrisy from various famous religious leaders. As a result they do not see what young Mormons are doing in proselytizing as valuable in anyway and do not accord these missionaries any respect. The ones who go to disease ridden areas, starving ,poverty stricken areas, who provide medical services to areas where it is unavailable, with the only goal to alleviate suffering of those in need, those people have respect.
@Rogerdhansen
I am not sure that expanding members “service” is the way to go unless drastically reducing the time members spend doing busy work in the church is included in this expanded service. Without reducing meetings and ridiculous callings what you have is just a lager amount of time spent by individual member doing church stuff instead of spending time with family.
Nan
You’re right, for more humanitarian service to work among the regular membership, the number of make-work jobs and callings needs to decline dramatically. The issue of paring Church positions was discussed in a separate OP in relation to streamlining stake organizations. So I totally agree with you.
But with full-time proselytizing missionaries, a transformation to increased humanitarian service could occur almost immediately.