Saving the One (if its a man)

[slavereeno]

Not sure what prompted this, but I was curious what the female NOMs thought of it.

Right before I left my stake calling, there was an edict from the Area Authority that supposedly came directly from the 12 to only pursue rescue visits with the priesthood. I used to keep lists of both men and women who were "endowed without a recommend" and one for perspective elders, and one for Aaronic priesthood holders not ordained by age. The latter two remained unchanged since they were for priesthood already, but I was instructed to remove all the females from the "Endowed without a Recommend" list. The reasoning was that if you could get the priesthood holder active and doing the right stuff, he would lead the family back and the women would come along for the ride.

So when Christ left the 99 to go after the one, it must have been a ram and not a ewe that he was after? Shouldn't all the paintings of that show a sheep with horns in Christ's arms?

[A New Name]

This is exactly what was taught in a regional broadcast last Sunday. See a report here at StayLDS

[Red Ryder]

It makes sense from an efficiency perspective.

Look, the Mormon play book isn't very deep. It's a couple of plays written years ago that's seen it's glory and heyday come and go. If you've been in the church long enough you've seen it cycle through the same programs with different catch phrases and new program names.

How do they measure success? Have activity rates significantly increased? Are people coming back?

No! So why do members keep banging their heads against the same wall?

Because that's what Mormonism is! You do the same things over and over and over again so the church can keep your attention and devotion.

Yes, folks! You're on a hamster wheel!

Hamster teaching.
Every member a hamster.
Preach my hamster.
Hasten the hamster wheel.
Index hamsters.
Temple hamsters.
Return and report to your hamster.
Follow the hamster.
Hamster Council.
First Sunday Hamster chair circle.
Keep the hamster day holy.
Put your shoulder to the wheel and Hamster along...

[Jeffret]

It's extremely patriarchal so it fits right in with the Mormon Church. Entirely expected. Ignore the women. They don't have any particular value. Only the men are valuable. And the woman only has value as much as she is connected to a man. Notice that it completely ignores unmarried women. Maybe it just assumes the unmarried women are still the property of their fathers and will just do as he demands. Which certainly isn't the case these days. It really demonstrates the approach that top church leadership intends to take. I think it's pretty indicative of the leadership approaches of the new FP, particularly Oaks and Nelson.

It's also just flat-out wrong. It's a losing approach. In our society, women are far more likely to be involved in churches. Based upon how women are trained in our society, church participation tends to have a greater meaning and value for them. In many cases, the men go to church because that's where the women are. Anyone who has hung around the DAMU for a long time can recognize that participation is lopsided with more men involved. Especially a lot more cases of where a man would leave if only he could talk his wife into it. Though that does seem to be evening out a bit more these days. It's especially a losing approach, when you consider young unmarried women. Upper church leaders seem to be completely oblivious to that demographic and completely clueless about what is going on with them. As they exit the church, it's unlikely that more young men will participate or will entice participation from the women.

[wtfluff]

.. Yes, folks! You're on a hamster wheel! ...

... Hamster ...
... Hamster ...
... Hamster ...

Another perfect definition of mormonism.

[moksha]

Yes, folks! You're on a hamster wheel!

Hamster teaching.
Every member a hamster.
Preach my hamster.
Hasten the hamster wheel.
Follow the hamster.
Hamster Council.
Keep the hamster day holy.
Put your shoulder to the wheel and Hamster along...

Love it.

Welcome, Welcome Hampster morning
A Mighty Hampster Wheel in our Cage
O Come, all ye Hampsters
Hie to Hampsterville

[MoPag]

First of all Slavereeno, A+++ and Gold star for you for picking up on this, sharing it and asking for your NOM sisters' opinions.

Jeffret nailed it. (He always does)

It's extremely patriarchal so it fits right in with the Mormon Church. Entirely expected. Ignore the women. They don't have any particular value. Only the men are valuable. And the woman only has value as much as she is connected to a man.

In Mormonism, women are things, not people. They can be useful things when they are making "homes for spirit children" or fulfilling church callings and raising families. Remember the train wreck press conference, Nelson and Eyring were gushing about how much they "love" women, but they only mentioned their usefulness, I.e. child bearing and being a righteous influence.

Notice that it completely ignores unmarried women. Maybe it just assumes the unmarried women are still the property of their fathers and will just do as he demands. Which certainly isn't the case these days.

Yes^^ because remember women are things. An unmarried woman is a broken thing because she can no longer (well in their minds shouldn't) preform her primary function of childbearing. An unmarried woman with children might need support from the church and that is not good for business. No need to find them.

It really demonstrates the approach that top church leadership intends to take. I think it's pretty indicative of the leadership approaches of the new FP, particularly Oaks and Nelson.

I agree. They are all about the "ideal family." The ideal family has to have a righteous priesthood holder at it's head, or it is no longer ideal. They can't come out and say that non-ideal families aren't welcome, but they can shove the Fam Proc down our throats every Sunday, then we leave they won't bother to come find us.

[MoPag]

Yes, folks! You're on a hamster wheel!

Hamster teaching.
Every member a hamster.
Preach my hamster.
Hasten the hamster wheel.
Follow the hamster.
Hamster Council.
Keep the hamster day holy.
Put your shoulder to the wheel and Hamster along...

Love it.

Welcome, Welcome Hampster morning
A Mighty Hampster Wheel in our Cage
O Come, all ye Hampsters
Hie to Hampsterville

We Thank the Oh God for a Hamster
Joseph Smiths First Hamster
The Spirit of Hamster
Teach me to Walk in the Wheel of Hamster

[Reuben]

I think patriarchy is only one reason.

Another, related to patriarchy but not quite the same, is that the church is hurting for priesthood holders. There's a minimum number of Melchizedek priesthood holders needed for each unit. Units are being closed and merged from not having enough. This must be terrifying at HQ.

There seem to always be enough women for the Primary and Relief Society callings. No deficit, no attention needed.

Another is the 2:3 ratio of men to women. As long as there's tons of pressure to marry within the faith, this is bad even from a secular standpoint. (Under these conditions, men get overly picky, too many women end up lonely, and those who do marry are overly young.) The view at HQ must be that the church is failing to carry out its divine mandate to create as many Forever Families as possible. Also, multigenerational yaddah yaddah no we swear we don't feel entitled to members' children it's about strong families yaddah yaddah yaddah. Obviously, the best solution is to bring our inactive single RM brethren back.

[MerrieMiss]

I'm not surprised. As a YW I was taught the other side of this concept: if you don't marry a worthy, active RM, you won't stay active in the church because women follow their husband's instruction; we were then shown examples of various women who had less active or non-member husbands to make this point stick.

Thus, if one teaches the man and reactivates him, she will follow and obey her husband.

So there it is, full circle.

(Until writing this I hadn't really thought about how subtly this reinforces the woman's place behind her husband, particularly as it relates to the temple. No wonder I was such a confused teenager/young adult.)

[Thoughtful]

The problem is women now are in the paid workforce and see that no where else in life are we treated this badly except when walking down a street alone in a bad neighborhood. We are calling bs and membership is bleeding women. The husbands seem to like it when the women are fed up because then the underwear is way sexier.

[alas]

Occasionally there are advantages to being worthless to the church. They have left me alone with zero attempts to reactivate me. It is nice not to be bugged.

[DPRoberts]

It makes sense from an efficiency perspective.

Look, the Mormon play book isn't very deep. It's a couple of plays written years ago that's seen it's glory and heyday come and go. If you've been in the church long enough you've seen it cycle through the same programs with different catch phrases and new program names.

How do they measure success? Have activity rates significantly increased? Are people coming back?

No! So why do members keep banging their heads against the same wall?

Because that's what Mormonism is! You do the same things over and over and over again so the church can keep your attention and devotion.

Yes, folks! You're on a hamster wheel!

Hamster teaching.
Every member a hamster.
Preach my hamster.
Hasten the hamster wheel.
Index hamsters.
Temple hamsters.
Return and report to your hamster.
Follow the hamster.
Hamster Council.
First Sunday Hamster chair circle.
Keep the hamster day holy.
Put your shoulder to the wheel and Hamster along...

You forgot hamsterize

[Just This Guy]

Sounds like the mentality that women are not able to think for themselves. IF you can win the man over, the thinking for the family has been done. Wonder where they got that idea...

[crossmyheart]

Sounds like a completely normal LDS male-centric decision.

My DH probably could be easily re-activated with the right finesse and calling. My ward has completely missed this opportunity. Thank God

[LaMachina]

I think this is an example of the church actually trying to work smarter rather than harder...as misguided as it may be. You give the reason right in the OP slavereeno:

The reasoning was that if you could get the priesthood holder active...he would lead the family back

If you can save one sheep and 5 come back with it that's a pretty big and efficient score. Considering how all corporations try to win our business and often do it by targeting different members of families it's not a terrible theory. But of course, the church being the church, they're antiquated and sexist in their approach.

If it makes anyone feel better, I am an endowed, MP holding patriarchal authority over a family of five (including of age, unbaptized minors!! A true gold mine for any missionary!!) without a current TR and not a single ward member, missionary, bishop or Stake president as attempted to save me. Not sure what that says about me

We did get a tepid invitation to ward conference once 4 years ago. And even one child's recent expressed interest to attend a few youth activities here and there has been met with extreme awkwardness rather than excitement over any possible return to the fold. But I digress!

[Jeffret]

I think this is an example of the church actually trying to work smarter rather than harder...as misguided as it may be.

That's probably their intent, but it really doesn't work that way. In our society religious participation is significantly driven by women. Women are more likely to believe in god, to take religion seriously, to engage in religious practices, and to attend religious services. In many cases, the men who do go to church, do so because of the women, that's where the women are. The same isn't as true the other way around. Ignoring the women and going solely after the men involves going after the demographic that is harder to win over. It used to mean a bigger payout when successful, though that is shifting significantly these days, but the risk was always bigger. Perhaps other missions were different but in mine the payout was greater when we baptized a father / husband, but if we had concentrated solely on them, we would have baptized far less.

Ignoring (young) unmarried women is a very short-sighted approach. Especially in today's society with the current shifts and hot discussion. Telling them explicitly that they don't matter is going to increase their already growing exodus.

[alas]

I been thinking about this, and if I was running the church, I would place my greatest effort at keeping the women active. In my experience, 90% of the time, if the wife goes inactive, the husband quickly follows. So, really the easiest solution to shrinking numbers is keeping women rather than reactivating men. Compare the amount of effort involved in making church meaningful to women, compared to dragging men back when the whole family is inactive. If the momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

If women enjoy church, they will stay active even with a unbelieving inactive husband. So if the whole family is inactive, chances are it is because the mother stopped going, and so SHE would be key to reactivating the family.

And studies show that the majority of the time children follow the mother's religion rather than the father's in mixed faith marriages. Again, the woman is key rather than the man.

And I have long thought that the way the church caters to men is part of the problem. All men are mentored for *leadership,* but only one out of 50 even get top leadership at the ward level. So, not getting the glory they were groomed for, they drop out as adults. They are like spoiled children being given so much that they don't cope well as one of a crowd as adults. In adult life, you don't get merit badges for every little accomplishment. After their mission, they just become one more cog in the machine, which was not what they were groomed for as young men.

[slavereeno]

Compare the amount of effort involved in making church meaningful to women, compared to dragging men back when the whole family is inactive. If the momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

True, well said.

[StarbucksMom]

I been thinking about this, and if I was running the church, I would place my greatest effort at keeping the women active. In my experience, 90% of the time, if the wife goes inactive, the husband quickly follows. So, really the easiest solution to shrinking numbers is keeping women rather than reactivating men. Compare the amount of effort involved in making church meaningful to women, compared to dragging men back when the whole family is inactive. If the momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

If women enjoy church, they will stay active even with a unbelieving inactive husband. So if the whole family is inactive, chances are it is because the mother stopped going, and so SHE would be key to reactivating the family.

And studies show that the majority of the time children follow the mother's religion rather than the father's in mixed faith marriages. Again, the woman is key rather than the man.

And I have long thought that the way the church caters to men is part of the problem. All men are mentored for *leadership,* but only one out of 50 even get top leadership at the ward level. So, not getting the glory they were groomed for, they drop out as adults. They are like spoiled children being given so much that they don't cope well as one of a crowd as adults. In adult life, you don't get merit badges for every little accomplishment. After their mission, they just become one more cog in the machine, which was not what they were groomed for as young men.

Amen, Alas. For all the lofty credentials of the white guys at the top; lawyers, doctors, large business owners etc. they sure are ass backwards stupid. How can they really believe that members, (especially youth) are buying their male superiority bulls%*t in the year 2018??