Athena (#104), a very interesting post that you linked to. I don’t know that I would go so far as calling for a paid teaching corps or a church-wode council on the order of Vatican II, but that is the right kind of institutional discussion to have: What actual changes in institutional practice would be beneficial for the Church and its membership?

RT (#106), I agree the three-hour block is a bigger hurdle for visiting investigators and for those whose commitment is wavering. We can’t just write those demographics off — according to LDS discourse, in fact, those two groups ought to be the focus of our attention (missionary work and “the Rescue”).

As for LDS worthiness interviews that delve into personal or sexual topics, at the very least such discretion is for the bishop to exercise, not his councilors. Not that *any* of them receive any pastoral or therpeutic training, but for a bishopric *councilor* to undertake that discussion is entirely inappropriate, whether with an adult or with the youth. If a TR interview goes in that direction, the counselor ought to refer the member to the bishop for further discussion. Period.

You’re right, but you won’t be able to convince some long-time members — they are not working from the handbook or the spirit or the quiet teachings of current leaders. I’m glad you are airing this subject.

An additional perspective: It is wrong for a church leader to force a confession. A bishop should always be ready to receive a confession, but should never force one. This doubly or triply applies to minors. The adult-youth imbalance requires sensitivity, and ANY questioning of this sort constitutes coercion. I wonder about the legal liability of an adult who abuses his authority by forcing or coercing a confession of a minor’s masturbation. It is wrong. For the zealous bishop’s counselor who posted earlier, well, he is quadruply wrong — only a bishop can hear a confession, and a bishop’s counselor who forces a confession from a minor is wrong in every way.

Let fathers and uncles handle this matter. This is not a church matter. Masturbation might be a sin, but if so it is a minor sin (especially when committed by minors) and is not a violation of the law of chastity. It does not require confession to a bishop. It is not punishable in our disciplinary councils by express text in our handbooks. Mission presidents are instructed not to send missionaries home for this matter. This is all right. The stuff that is all wrong, in the above paragraph, is left over from the old days and is culture, not gospel or doctrine.

I’m a father, and I told our bishop that he did not have my permission to ask my son about masturbation. I will do that if it is needed. If a bishop’s counselor ever did it, I might sue him for violating long-standing and written church rules and shaming my son for his (the adult’s) own perverse interests. He would be wrong in doing so. In reality, my son wouldn’t volunteer to tell me that he was asked, and I probably wouldn’t use because that would be more shaming for my son. But regardless, the bishop’s counselor would be wrong.

I want to help that young man to become like Christ

Forcing people to feel deep shame over seemingly minor acts (that aren’t even officially specifically defined as sinful (disregarding past opinions)) seems to be more in line with what the Pharisees were doing in Christ’s time, which Jesus strongly condemned, than with what Jesus was doing.

If, as a member of the bishopric, I’m interviewing a youth and I either receive a prompting, or perhaps the youth’s parent has tipped me off that “Johnny” has been masturbating at home, I’m not ignoring that

Going after “Johnny” over masturbation will likely cause him to feel excessive shame and will likely do more harm than good. Talking with “Johnny” about a heroin usage is a completely different story (need I explain why?). Let me have you ask yourself this, Mike. Have you ever in your life masturbated (don’t feel the need to answer to me)? If the answer is no, then you are most certainly in the extreme minority of the human male population (and I would probably suspect you of lying). It is highly likely that you have, probably multiple times throughout your life. Do you feel like you actually broke the law of chastity, as it is defined by the LDS church, by masturbating and that you should have been subjected to formal disciplinary action over this? Suppose we went the opposite direction that I’m proposing and made the evil of masturbation a regular topic and undertook heavy disciplinary action against masturbators. This would kill the church. A huge number of people would be subjected to disciplinary action. The campaigns undertaken by bishoprics and stake presidencies against masturbation are psychologically harmful and actually run counter to properly defined actions in current church handbooks.

I’m sure many people expressed the same type of sentiment when the church went from an all day thing to a 3-hour block. If the church were to shorten the block, in X years members would still be pining for shorter meeting times. It’s human nature.

Using your logic, it would not be a violation of the Word of Wisdom if one were to use heroin, since it’s not mentioned in D&C 89.

If, as a member of the bishopric, I’m interviewing a youth and I either receive a prompting, or perhaps the youth’s parent has tipped me off that “Johnny” has been masturbating at home, I’m not ignoring that. I want to help that young man to become like Christ, so my concern is going to be on how I can help him do that, not on whether someone on the internet thinks I’ve somehow violated the letter of a church pamphlet.

Obviously discretion, adaptation to personal needs and spiritual promptings come into play in this realm, but surely you can’t seriously assert that because overt mention was removed from the handbook the church’s position has been inverted.

A bishopric member by definition has the right and priesthood keys to be a judge with the gift of discernment in israel. Teaching that masturbation is wrong and letting them choose whether to do it or not is part of Joseph’s principle.

Much like a bishopric member has no right to pry into members’ personal finances to determine whether or not they are actually paying a full 10% (members have the right to determine that by their own definitions of “increase”), bishoprics don’t actually have any ostensible right given to them in any of the most recent church handbooks (forget about what was written 30+ years ago) to pry into the fine details of the private sexuality of members. Too much prying and prodding can become a form of psychological abuse, not to mention it is extremely inappropriate. It is fine to ask the youth if they obey the law of chastity, and if they ask what that is, then you give them the official definition, which is no person should have sexual relations with another outside marriage. You have no right to hold them to your own personal definition of the law of chastity (where are you getting the idea that masturbation should exclude someone from being able to receive a temple recommend? It is not said in any current manual or church direction (again forget really old material, we’re talking current)). In the same way, a bishopric member has no right to hold a person to their personal definition of paying 10% on income (gross, net, etc.). If someone asks what they should or shouldn’t be doing, you direct them according to what the scriptures and the official handbook say, not your own personal opinion. As Joseph Smith said, teach correct principles and let people govern themselves.

Brad to your final point. The second link had church activity going back to the 1950’s. You might have missed it.

No, I saw it, but it was measuring not overall church attendance (which is what I was looking for), but only that of Catholics and Protestants. I was just wondering how to reconcile the apparent increased church attendance of Protestants with the data showing overall decline in the number of those who consider themselves Protestants (with maybe some small Evangelical exceptions, but not enough to be significant). My hypothesis is that the Catholics have been historically more church-attending than the Protestants because they came mostly from groups of people who migrated to the US later than the early Protestants, such as the Hispanics in the southwestern US, and the Irish, Polish, and Italians in the northern US. Because they came later, they were of the poorer classes and tended to be more reliant on their religious communities for economic and social support. The mainline Protestants were largely of German, English, Norwegian, and Swedish ancestry who came earlier than the Catholics. They tended to own more land, enjoy larger wealth, and were not as reliant on their religious communities for social and economic support. With increased technology and access to education, the US has become increasingly cosmopolitanized and those who used to be loosely attached to Protestantism became the Nones. Consequently the percentage of people who consider themselves Protestant has gone down, and those who still do consider themselves Protestant tend to be more attached to their traditional faith. I don’t currently have hard data to back much of my hypothesis up, but just food for thought for now.

When I was in a bishopric and asked the more generic “do you keep the law of chastity,” I had more than one youth disclose that they did not know what that was.

I’m not sure what the objection is with asking youth about this topic. If a young man wants a temple recommend to go do baptisms, he needs to be worthy. If he engages in masturbation he is not worthy of a TR. What’s being proposed here?

I should note that I’m not saying there aren’t changes underway. Nor am I denying that groups including Mormons aren’t losing members to the Nones. Just that the majority of this is primarily of those already loosely affiliated. (Again speaking in the aggregate rather than individuals) Certainly the Millenials are the group to watch. However I think the data can also be read to say that those loosely affiliated with religion have become even less so. Yet for the core group the changes aren’t that dramatic in terms of affiliation. Again though we’re in a period of very big change in this regard. As I said I’m eagerly awaiting the next ARIS study which should tell us a lot about these trends.