Church is "losing 40% of 16-24 year old members"

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

Interesting ... I don't remember encountering these stereotypes for young single adult wards. I have heard them about adult singles wards (31-45), though.

My guess would be that it is far more prevalent amongst the 31-45 crowd. I don't know if it is still in force, but about 20-24 years ago they said no more over 30's in a singles ward.

I do know they still have singles dances where older people are. I have heard from others. Two singles dances way back in the 80's cured me of ever going to one again.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

I often wonder if that would be the case...sometimes, people are just locked into their positions on issues/topics and hide behind convieniant excuses. When you take away their disagreement through reason and understanding...some other issue might pop up to mask their desire to not participate.

Yeah I'm not saying it is a cure all. I do think it might help some people though. Clearly those are excuses for some.

The church has done a good job over the years of altering the focus of the message to deal with particular problems, however. We have become much more gender nuetral, for example, and more officially tolerant of those who don't fit the nuclear family mold (see the Proclamation of Families, where individual circumstances are allowed for). The endowment has been altered in our lifetimes for similar reasons. I'm not sure how many people we kept by making the changes we have, but it wouldn't have to be many to be worthwhile.

I'm not talking about changing doctrine. I'm just talking about exposing people earlier to things that might trouble them later. We aren't troubled by Nephi beheading Laban over the brass plates because there it is in 1 Nephi complete with an explanation of why it was necessary. Imagine learning for the first time that Joseph Smith had beheaded someone if you had never known that before or knew why it happened. Its an extreme example, but my point is that if we ignore these things in church settings then only the only voice in the debate is that of the antis.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Good points - begs the question of how typical members of family wards would react if the social aspect were to decline. What percentage of members are there only for the social, keep up with Brother Jones part of LDS activity? I would argue that many members are there only for cosmetic purposes.

I'll argue every single member falls under this definition, if we use a time element, at some point in our lives. It would be a rare, rare, member who at some point doesn't struggle, with some faith issues, some interest issues or attendance issues. In fact, Church data shows at least 80 percent of all members go inactive for a period if they remain members most of their lives.

I probably should recharacterize it, in that I doubt all are doing it to keep up, but many attend mostly out of cultural or habit. Without the social aspect, attendance would decline even further. Without friendships, associations and culture, it would be a very, somber event. Our meetings are somber enough, if you eliminate friendships, can you imagine.

At times I have felt isolated. When I do, I don't involve myself with members and the activities. It's usually my fault, as I select to separate myself.

But for my kids, it would be easy to cease attending altogether.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by BYU71

My guess would be that it is far more prevalent amongst the 31-45 crowd. I don't know if it is still in force, but about 20-24 years ago they said no more over 30's in a singles ward.

I do know they still have singles dances where older people are. I have heard from others. Two singles dances way back in the 80's cured me of ever going to one again.

Actually, the 30 line is still there, but has gone through many periods of not being enforced. Probably because it's an arbitrary, meaningless line. What's the difference between a 29 year old and a 31 year old? It made more sense when most members of singles wards were ages 18-25, but that's not the case anymore, and many YSA wards, especially in metro areas outside of Utah have average ages in the late 20s. People get married later these days, and the policy needs to catch up with that reality, IMO.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Actually, the 30 line is still there, but has gone through many periods of not being enforced. Probably because it's an arbitrary, meaningless line. What's the difference between a 29 year old and a 31 year old? It made more sense when most members of singles wards were ages 18-25, but that's not the case anymore, and many YSA wards, especially in metro areas outside of Utah have average ages in the late 20s. People get married later these days, and the policy needs to catch up with that reality, IMO.

Why would anybody at the age of forty wish to go to a church dance? They seemed hokey at 14, at 40, it would nothing short of a nightmare.

I don't know what sort of activities would be appropriate, short of a wet teeshirt contest, what would hold the interest of forty something singles?

Here is one problem. Church activities are meant to be nondiscriminatory, and not based on the ability to afford it. Most of my hobbies cost money, and I'm not somewhere to be with a bunch of old people doing mimes.

When we have ward cycling activities, I'm there.

I can't think of the solution though.

[MikeWaters]

Based on my experience in Dallas, I believe that urban youth are particularly at risk.

One year ago it was announced in a stake priesthood mtg. that our ENTIRE stake had only ONE missionary in the field.

That is beyond sad and beyond ridiculous.

We have one 16 year old who suddenly stopped coming to church about 4 months ago. We have a 17 year old that comes only about 30% of the time. The weird thing is that he wants to go to BYU, but seems to not make it to church much. A disconnect there.

Maybe it's easier with the college-bound kids, I don't know. More means, more education may mean > activity.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In fact, Church data shows at least 80 percent of all members go inactive for a period if they remain members most of their lives.

Do you have a source for this data?

Originally Posted by BlueK

Actually, the 30 line is still there, but has gone through many periods of not being enforced. Probably because it's an arbitrary, meaningless line. What's the difference between a 29 year old and a 31 year old? It made more sense when most members of singles wards were ages 18-25, but that's not the case anymore, and many YSA wards, especially in metro areas outside of Utah have average ages in the late 20s. People get married later these days, and the policy needs to catch up with that reality, IMO.

I agree with this. It seems to make sense to separate the 18-24 crowd from the 25-35 crowd, based no more on what they have in common. But I don't get the sense the church is moving in this direction.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why would anybody at the age of forty wish to go to a church dance? They seemed hokey at 14, at 40, it would nothing short of a nightmare.

I don't know what sort of activities would be appropriate, short of a wet teeshirt contest, what would hold the interest of forty something singles?

Here is one problem. Church activities are meant to be nondiscriminatory, and not based on the ability to afford it. Most of my hobbies cost money, and I'm not somewhere to be with a bunch of old people doing mimes.

When we have ward cycling activities, I'm there.

I can't think of the solution though.

In most places there are lots of activities for the 40+ group of singles. it's the late 20s and 30s that seem to be without a home under the current system.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BlueK

In most places there are lots of activities for the 40+ group of singles. it's the late 20s and 30s that seem to be without a home under the current system.

It's interesting how these systems radically change over the years, yet some seem to think that every single iteration is inspired by God and this is how it is supposed to be, and how dare anyone question it, and suggestions are not needed, wanted, or required and indicate apostasy.

I think when it comes to these sorts of things, members turn off their brains.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Tex

Do you have a source for this data?

Tex, see the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Vital Statistics, page 1527. Arch's number is very close to what the EoM reports. That article reports that only 22% are always active and 78% go inactive at some point and over half of the 78% return to activity.