NOM

nibbler wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:42 am

The cure from the leader's perspective is the very thing that drives some youth away.

They just had a big indexing drive with the youth.

Church's perspective: "The kids today like computers and smartphones and stuff, and this is a computer thing so they'll love this.. I mean, computers! This is right up their alley! We'll engage them with a computer thing and they'll be excited about church; they'll love it!"

My daughter's perspective: "Indexing is SOOO boring, I'd rather watch paint dry. Please don't make me go!"

Newme wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:01 pm

Thanks- I think you’re right. However in some universities and places of employment, there has been such peer pressure to go along with ideologies that people are influenced by preference qualification. But as you suggested, it’s been estimated that about 70% of leftists are just pretending to avoid getting fired, bad grades etc.

That's a nice specific number. I'm sure you have some data to back that up. Could you share the source please?


(Yeah, I know, I realize that 83.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot to try and make some ridiculous claim sound better. Just like this one.)

Emower wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:26 pm

I am not questioning Meilingkie's recital of the event either, I am sure he is not making that up. But I do find it hard to believe that a 70 would be so bold and "unmissionary-like" to a stranger on a plane.

Perhaps the Quorum member thought he was sitting next to Mick Jagger. Wonder if long air flights have been linked to an outbreak of tall tales? That might make for an interesting study for any student wanting to find a topic for a master's thesis in sociology.

I perked up when I heard the Foursquare Church. I attended the Church of the Foursquare Gospel (same building in which Aimee Semple McPherson preached) a number of times years ago. Do they still practice speaking in tongues?

NewMe- there's an excellent National Geographic edition in the last couple of years all about the science of gender. Additionally a recent discussion at U of U by Greg Prince I believe about the science of homosexuality vs LDS church historical teachings about sex for gay individuals. I would recommend both.


As to the thread --I have 2 children in the youth program. My daughter has leaders and YW fawning over her and wants to attend everything, serve a mission, etc. She's simultaneously feeling deeply irritated at the sexism in the doctrines, especially related to priesthood, and believes JS and BYU were possibly off their rockers crazy. My son would probably respond very well to some fawning. I think he would buy in if they would pay him some attention. Leaders would be adequate. The YM themselves showing genuine interest would be ideal. However, as it stands his shelf is cracking and he's not seeing it as a loss because the church has never connected with him on a personal level. He would have been the quintessential boy scout if he thought anyone at church gives a sh*t. Instead, he's putting his efforts into calculus and studying up on hard science, including evolution.

So I see 2 issues:

-Kids today want to work with people who genuinely appreciate them.
-Kids want the facts to add up.

One might compensate for another for awhile. Without both, the church is irrelevant and useless.

Newme wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:01 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:01 pm

Newme wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:55 pm

Where are they going? That’s my concern. I hope they can find their way between extremes of religious and leftist dogma.

I think they'll be just fine. Most people live in that very wide gap between extremes.

Thanks- I think you’re right. However in some universities and places of employment, there has been such peer pressure to go along with ideologies that people are influenced by preference qualification. But as you suggested, it’s been estimated that about 70% of leftists are just pretending to avoid getting fired, bad grades etc.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that "leftist" is mostly an invented boogeyman that defines very few actual people, including universities and liberally inclusive corporations. Most people, whether they lean right or left, fall into fairly moderate, practical, live-and-let-live lifestyles. Manipulative media personalities tend to emphasize the extremes because it's good for ratings. I am a full time university student now and many of the people I interact with every day, both students and faculty are quite conservative. The biggest difference I see is that the people in a university environment are more likely to listen to each other and talk about their differences rather than overreact emotionally with either extreme "ultra-conservative" or "leftist" biases. The people who are so eager to put everyone into such narrow categories are generally letting someone else (certain talk radio hosts come to min) do the thinking for them.

On the church and it's ability to retain youth...

One thing that is pretty constant though the church is an ~66% inactivity rate. Using that, it would be reasonable to assuming that it is apples to youth as well. So if the church had 300,000 children of record born in a given year, you can expect 100,000 of those to stay active, with 200,000 going inactive and presumingly a large portion of those never being baptized and dropping off the records when they turn 18.

According to what others posted, the current youth attrition rate is somewhere around 75-85%, much worse than the normal 66% you would expect. So there is defiantly something going on beyond what is considered normal.

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:03 am

On the church and it's ability to retain youth...

One thing that is pretty constant though the church is an ~66% inactivity rate. Using that, it would be reasonable to assuming that it is apples to youth as well. So if the church had 300,000 children of record born in a given year, you can expect 100,000 of those to stay active, with 200,000 going inactive and presumingly a large portion of those never being baptized and dropping off the records when they turn 18.

According to what others posted, the current youth attrition rate is somewhere around 75-85%, much worse than the normal 66% you would expect. So there is defiantly something going on beyond what is considered normal.

My wife and I were in the YM/Primary a couple of moves back. We were both being pushed fairly vigorously to attend woodbadge. She more than I surprisingly enough. The stake primary leaders were concerned about the transition from primary to YM/YW because apparently they were losing a high percentage of kids in the transition. I want to say the percentage was higher than 50%. And they thought woodbadge was the answer.

Emower wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:13 am

My wife and I were in the YM/Primary a couple of moves back. We were both being pushed fairly vigorously to attend woodbadge. She more than I surprisingly enough. The stake primary leaders were concerned about the transition from primary to YM/YW because apparently they were losing a high percentage of kids in the transition. I want to say the percentage was higher than 50%. And they thought woodbadge was the answer.

What is "woodbadge"? I've never heard of that.

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:21 am

What is "woodbadge"? I've never heard of that.

Boy Scout adult leadership training program. Supposed to be a very good leadership training program in general, not just about scouting.

Jeffret wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:28 am

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:21 am

What is "woodbadge"? I've never heard of that.

Boy Scout adult leadership training program. Supposed to be a very good leadership training program in general, not just about scouting.

My wife attended Wood Badge and really enjoyed it. She made a few friends that she still contacts on occasion. I don't know if Wood Badge will continue being a mainstay of the adult's LDS youth leadership training after December. It has depended on how much support the local stake leadership gives it and I expect the budget to be less amenable starting in 2018.

Thoughtful wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:14 pm

NewMe- there's an excellent National Geographic edition in the last couple of years all about the science of gender.

Gender Revolution

Corsair wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:37 am

Jeffret wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:28 am

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:21 am

What is "woodbadge"? I've never heard of that.

Boy Scout adult leadership training program. Supposed to be a very good leadership training program in general, not just about scouting.

My wife attended Wood Badge and really enjoyed it. She made a few friends that she still contacts on occasion. I don't know if Wood Badge will continue being a mainstay of the adult's LDS youth leadership training after December. It has depended on how much support the local stake leadership gives it and I expect the budget to be less amenable starting in 2018.

If they are depending on scouting for keeping the boys in, they need to quickly rethink pulling out of scouting for the older boys. Say it works and the younger boys start really enjoying Cubs and are excited to move onto Boy Scouts. They look ahead and see that the church only sponsors Boy Scouts up through 14, so they look around for a troop they can stay in through Explorers, and not have the pressure of getting their Eagle before 14, when Mom does more than the kid does. So, starting at 12 or so, they find a non!ormon troop. Oops, lost that kid.

The other side of this coin is that they improve Cubs scouts to keep the boys involved and the girls look at the good program the boys have and look at their supper lame activity days program, and they get mad because of the sexist treatment. As they look ahead to nothing but more sexist treatment, they feel less valued and drop out. This has been a problem for over 50 years because I compared what my brothers got to do in scouting to what I got as a girl and decided that Mormon God does not love his daughters. First huge item on my shelf. Eventually the weight of Mormon God does not love his daughters is what broke my shelf. As the world starts treating women like real full fledged human beings, the female half of the church will see even more clearly how badly the church treats females and more and more will leave. Back when I was a kid and getting angry about it, it was late 1950s and that was just how the world was. But now it is not how the world is.

Culper Jr. wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:55 pm

nibbler wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:42 am

The cure from the leader's perspective is the very thing that drives some youth away.

They just had a big indexing drive with the youth.

Church's perspective: "The kids today like computers and smartphones and stuff, and this is a computer thing so they'll love this.. I mean, computers! This is right up their alley! We'll engage them with a computer thing and they'll be excited about church; they'll love it!"

My daughter's perspective: "Indexing is SOOO boring, I'd rather watch paint dry. Please don't make me go!"

I remember when I attended seminary, they had all-day BoM read-a-thon's. You would go to seminary or church, and read the BoM all day. Come in your PJ's, bring pillows, etc. They had donuts, juice, light lunch etc. It was hyped up quite a bit. Of course, not a lot of reading actually happened as giggling, tickle fights and frequent "bathroom breaks" quickly took over the event.

It sounds like indexing is the new read-a-thon.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:32 am

Newme wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:01 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:01 pm

I think they'll be just fine. Most people live in that very wide gap between extremes.

Thanks- I think you’re right. However in some universities and places of employment, there has been such peer pressure to go along with ideologies that people are influenced by preference qualification. But as you suggested, it’s been estimated that about 70% of leftists are just pretending to avoid getting fired, bad grades etc.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that "leftist" is mostly an invented boogeyman that defines very few actual people, including universities and liberally inclusive corporations. Most people, whether they lean right or left, fall into fairly moderate, practical, live-and-let-live lifestyles. Manipulative media personalities tend to emphasize the extremes because it's good for ratings. I am a full time university student now and many of the people I interact with every day, both students and faculty are quite conservative. The biggest difference I see is that the people in a university environment are more likely to listen to each other and talk about their differences rather than overreact emotionally with either extreme "ultra-conservative" or "leftist" biases. The people who are so eager to put everyone into such narrow categories are generally letting someone else (certain talk radio hosts come to min) do the thinking for them.

If you’re at BYU or another conservative university, that’s what you’ll see when “the campus is your world.” But have you seen what’s been going on at Berkeley, UCLA and other universities that “allow” mainly liberal speakers and when there is a request for conservative speakers, they cover their faces and attack people and property? They’ve often been called “Leftists.”

And the personal attacks along with illogical reasoning I’ve received has been by people who self-identify as leftists. So, no, it is not a “boogeyman” term. Hater, bigot and homophobes are such terms, when used to try to shoot a messenger of facts Leftists find inconvenient.

“America’s top universities are bastions of liberalism. That general idea probably won’t surprise many people, but the numbers behind it might.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 04be64c2b4

Newme wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:50 am

And the personal attacks along with illogical reasoning I’ve received has been by people who self-identify as leftists. So, no, it is not a “boogeyman” term. Hater, bigot and homophobes are such terms, when used to try to shoot a messenger of facts Leftists find inconvenient.

Please identify those. If you're going to make such claims, please support them.

moksha wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:32 pm

I perked up when I heard the Foursquare Church. I attended the Church of the Foursquare Gospel (same building in which Aimee Semple McPherson preached) a number of times years ago. Do they still practice speaking in tongues?

Well, I call it babbling, but if that´s what speaking in tongues is (usually while singing to be honest) then yes, they are.
It´s a bit..... odd...........

Jeffret wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:57 am

Newme wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:50 am

And the personal attacks along with illogical reasoning I’ve received has been by people who self-identify as leftists. So, no, it is not a “boogeyman” term. Hater, bigot and homophobes are such terms, when used to try to shoot a messenger of facts Leftists find inconvenient.

Please identify those. If you're going to make such claims, please support them.

I already explained extensively how someone on the old NOM harassed me and sent me personal threats for stating harmful but factually based statistics and medical consequences of homosexual practices. Many other self identifying “leftists” have called me & others “hater, bigot & homophobe” simply for stating facts.

What I think so often happens like with people going through faith crisis - is they go from Fowler’s stage 3 to stage 4 but they long for the sense of belonging. So people will join in casting verbal stones even when the target is factually correct and it is cruel, all because they miss feeling part of a group. This mob mentality is dangerous though. It makes people act insane and say or do things they’d never say or do if they were by themselves. Mob mentality is one of the ugliest parts of humanity - it hurts many people.

Newme wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:07 pm

I already explained extensively how someone on the old NOM harassed me and sent me personal threats for stating harmful but factually based statistics and medical consequences of homosexual practices. Many other self identifying “leftists” have called me & others “hater, bigot & homophobe” simply for stating facts.

I missed that part. I would read it if you want to reference it or give me some way to find it.

As for 'simply for stating facts", I'm still waiting for you to provide any.

Jeff,
You’re being dishonest. You know I posted facts from the USCDC along with links on the other thread.

What I wonder is considering public knowledge is available about the harm & premature death associated with homosexual practices - why would you want to support or encourage behavior known to cause suffering?
Why?????

Newme wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:12 pm

why wouod you want to support or encourage behavior known to cause suffering?

What at all give you the impression that he is encouraging any behavior at all?

What gives you the right to try to deny others the opportunity to live their lives they way they choose and believe to be best?

-lost