We’re in a period of norm shifting probably on par with the changes in the 60’s. It’s not yet clear what will result from that.

The realpolitik premise for embracing SSM is not to attract new liberal converts, but to retain the rising generation of liberal (at least on this issue) youth.

So just like the plot of The Book of Mormon, the musical?

I agree. I agree that the primary direction of religious beliefs is whatever is popular and accepted by the current generation. But it still doesn’t necessarily tell us what those beliefs will be, just where to look for the leading edge.

That said it does seem like within Evangelical Christianity, or at least some forms, that women have more roles open to them. I’ve seen many smaller evangelical groups with female pastors – although admittedly a lot of Evangelicals have tended to go the opposite direction in many ways. Far more than Mormons. I’d love to know which group maintains their membership better.

First, historically, missionary work and what drives its success has repeatedly transformed the Church. This doesn’t create a logical necessity, but it is very likely. The race isn’t always to the swiftest, but that’s the best way to bet.

Second, I think that it is a mistake to assume that liberalizing church positions on SSM or the like is the rout to missionary success. It might be, but I don’t think this is self evident. Outside of North America and Europe, I’m not sure that the embrace of SSM is foreordained or a proselytizing boon. Within Europe and North America, were the Church to embrace SSM etc., I am doubtful that cultural liberals would begin flocking into the pews.

In a sense, Mormonism is still too small to be a real mass movement. If you are 2-3 percent of the population, you don’t have to appeal to 50 or even 40 percent of the population to experience massive growth. You only need to appeal to about 5 to 10 percent of the population.

I can think of changes in the Church that I would like to see, but I think it’s a mistake to suppose that changes-I-would-like-to-see=increased-missionary-success.

However, there is another path we can go down (see #26) which is one where we identify as the small, persecuted band whose marginalization is not as important as purity and continuity. Personally, I see a LOT of that narrative coming from members and leaders. There are two reasons I think that we could go down this path much farther than we have in the past. First, the church is rich. For the first time in our history we have money, lots and lots of money. So much money that we don’t know what to do with it except buy large tracts of land. If there has been one huge success of the church since McKay it has been the financial prowess and discipline of the church. However, hese resources can insulate the church, especially the central bureaucracy of the church from being forced to “compromise”. You see this in other institutions all the time. Wealth from past success slows the rate of change even in the face of radically shifting and altered external circumstances. Given this the leaders will have to decide that membership growth matters to them because economically it doesn’t have to. Second, is simply critical mass. The growth of the church from the 50s on has simply made the church much bigger and therefore more stable but it is still small enough to show some growth through organic growth from children born into active families. There is a lot to be said for a narrative that focuses on “quality” of growth of “quantity”. Its a bigger base so our days of being “fastest growing” are going to be over no matter what. The church has been burned in painful ways from overexpansion in places like much of South America and Africa. The “paper” wards of Chile are a prime example. That was a real headache to clean up.

My point is that I don’t take for granted the assumption of the OP that a missionary growth orientation is the one that church will inevitably embrace. I honestly hope it does because that is more likely to create a church I am more spiritually comfortable in. It is only these pressures that appear to have led the church to make any moves toward a more moral place in regards to the equality of women and LGBT people. I am most fearful that the church will simply retrench and insulate itself with its wealth. There are signs that lead both ways at this point. I pray we choose the more open and “market” responsive path.

While I think you’re being a bit hyperbolic about our worship services, I do agree that for many people they go to church because of their testimony and thinking they should rather than necessarily feeling enriched. That said, I think the primary purpose of church is to provide a place for us to serve rather than necessarily be enriched. I think a big problem of the church is thinking that church attendance is for us rather than a place for us to serve others. This leads to problematic expectations and disappointment. That said, I sure wish we rethought how we do church.

Regarding others though, is the issue church or the fulness of the gospel. That’s not to say church isn’t an issue. Believe me, I was on my mission primarily teaching black investigators with wards primarily made up of white often somewhat bigoted members in the south – dealing with the reality of church was a huge issue. Yet I just recently was contacted on Facebook by an investigator from 25 years ago thanking me for bringing her into the gospel. And a few years after coming home I heard that most of these nearly all white wards were now half black. So I think we can focus on the limits of church service and neglect the power of the gospel and what a testimony really empowers.

As for the question of why don’t more members do missionary work, that’s easy. Who would we do it with? Do active members of the church really have that many friends? I know my neighbors, but they could be considered acquaintances at best. I don’t share any interests with them. The closest that any of them came to offering to hang out together was the time one of them offered to share some beers with him at his place. It’s kind of hard to live my standards as socialize in that environment.
When do most middle class neighbors associate with each other? At little league sports events on Sundays. Kind of strikes down the whole keep the Sabbath Day holy if I’m attending those.
On the other hand, lets say that one of my co-workers would be open to an invitation to learn a little bit about the church. With the way that boundaries are drawn, none of them live in my ward, my stake or even the mission I live in! It’d be quite the drive for them to come out to my ward, and unless they’re in hook, link and sinker, it’d seem very odd to them to have me attend with them in a congregation near their house; where I would stop attending with them once they got baptized.
In between keeping the Sabbath Day holy and Home Teaching and callings sucking up most week nights, when would I even get a chance to make friends?

Social networking has complicated matters in that it has enabled members to have new types of conversations about the LDS church that social convention would not permit in the chapel or even face to face with other members. It allows members to be more open an honest about negative feelings they have towards the church.

–Brad L (16)

Yes. Personal story. Two weeks ago I found the Mormon Spectrum website (http://www.mormonspectrum.org/). It pointed me towards two groups in my area of the world of folks who are culturally Mormon, but whose thoughts diverge a bit from correlated LDS thought. I went to one meeting and it was a breath of fresh air. For the first time in a long time I felt like I was able to talk openly with people about what I honestly think about the world. Basically I’m culturally Mormon, yet deeply agnostic. Surprise, surprise, there are other folks in my community who are culturally Mormon and agnostic. Very refreshing. I’d be happy to discuss this more if anyone here has questions.

Second anecdotal story. Recent converts in my local ward are folks who want to be accepted. They want to belong. My neighbors and fellow church members are genuine Christians who honestly care about people. This last Sunday I looked around our congregation and saw a lot of people who feel belonging, but probably not too many people committed to deep doctrinal beliefs. I bet only 20% of my ward is committed to doctrine and 80% are interested in the genuine communal nature of Mormonism. Just a guess.

Future of Mormonism? More of the same. People want to belong. People want community. People want to know their neighbors. People want meaningful relationships. People want safety nets.

So, I wonder if the future successful missionary teaching subject will include seeing Bible stories differently than we see them today. I wonder when our church will teach that women witnessed the resurrection or a woman in Mark anointed Jesus’ feet (Thanks, Julie Smith!) If women were given the authority to preside and officiate alongside of men, then wards and stakes might multiply because women could be counted whereas now men are the only ones that count. No, this is not my own original idea, but I heartily subscribe. I wonder if our church demonstrated humility and apologized for their racism, sexism and homophobia if they could attract future global converts.