#17 I’m a convert too, and I hear you loud and clear. To be fair, I had a lot of friends in the ward I originally joined–so even if the church’s “official” welcoming committee didn’t manifest themselves, I had connections with other people in the ward. By the time I moved to a new ward back East, I realized that I was in a population (single, young, college student in the mission field) that is largely invisible to both members and leaders. Certainly played a part in my eventual inactivity when offers of transportation* were extended to investigators and recent converts but not the college students.

* The ward was miles away from campus and there was no public transportation option. We relied on the kindness of others to get us to church, and when the awesome guy who drove us graduated and left the area, the ward dropped the ball and those of us who were left didn’t have the energy to demand that the bishopric work something out. Someone did and got the whole “Saints in Peru walk 30 miles uphill both ways to church” talk. Ugh.

I think they are a great thing, they just have collateral issues.

Hehe. That is an amusing typo considering the context…

My husband and I visited a megachurch a few years ago and they had free donuts, coffee, and soda in the lobby. I have to admit that we were tickled pink to get a free donut and can of soda. Even now, a few years later, my husband will say, “We should go to megachurch and get a free donut.” We haven’t actually followed through, but the fact that it remains part of our shtick certainly points to the inedible impression it made on us. There’s something primal about food (even food sans nutritional value)that feels very welcoming. And free stuff makes people happy.

I do think small groups could be a great thing for the church. As I commented in Part 1, I think part of the problem with retention is “the product” and that the product is faulty because it’s being produced by apathetic members. I would vote for axing Sunday school in favor of voluntary attendance of a small group during the week. Part of the problem with integrating at church is that we interact on a very superficial level-people put their best clothes and smiles and tell their best faith-promoting stories and Sunday-school answers. We rarely admit to struggles or doubts. Something I admire about other churches is the openess that often exists between members-they speak frankly about how they’re doing in their “walk with God,” and if they or their family are having problems. They readily divulge these things and pray about them together. I think LDS members feel stifled from doing so as our church setting feels set up for formal, impersonal communication. We know about each other’s problems, but we talk about them in whispered corners. So it’s hard to feel connected and comfortable at church instead of feeling like you’re putting on a front. In small groups, away from the formal church setting, people could feel free to be more intimate and more frank about who they are and what they’re dealing with. And thus feel more connected to the church.

The problem is, of course, as others have mentioned, that the church would worry about these small groups breaking off or getting weird. But this risk must be balanced with another real risk-the risk that we’ll continue to have very poor member retention because people don’t feel connected and spiritually fed. Right now the church is more comfortable with keeping more institutional control and is opting to take that risk over risking giving members more freedom. But either risk has their own set of consequences.