The sentiment seems to be that the *snowflake* generation doesn't exist and the term is used to dismiss opposing points of view without giving them due consideration.

So, since the *snowflake* generation doesn't exist, it can't be helping to bring down mormonism.

It did get me wondering though. Is there any circumstance where a future mormon generation might (collectively) be more easily and unjustifiably offended than a preceding generation? More thin skinned without real cause? Yes its possible? No, it's not? Could there ever be a snowflake generation or is it an impossibility?

If so, perhaps this future easily & unjustifiably offended generation will bolt from mormonism at an even greater rate than the current evacuation.

The problem lies in the term "snowflake," which is used to denigrate others as excessively sensitive. The younger generation of Mormons is in fact showing greater intelligence, greater independence, and less tolerance for abuse.

There are indeed one or two posters on this site who seem to think younger people are insufficiently tough, that they should repeatedly knock their heads against walls for the simple reason that their parents and grandparents did that. But self-abuse of that sort is not "tough;" it is merely stupid.

So in answer to your question, yes there is a generation of young people who are leaving the church in larger numbers than their progenitors. If you want to say they are overly sensitive, fine, but I submit that a lower tolerance for lies and manipulation is a strength and not a weakness.

If that generation are snowflakes, may God make me one too. If he had, it would have saved me, my family, and my kids a lot of trouble. I wish I had been less tolerant of BS and had protected my loved ones better.

I wish I too were such a snowflake.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...but I submit that a lower tolerance for lies
> and manipulation is a strength and not a weakness.

Yeah, I see it as the "f*ck this boring, backward, authoritarian, knee-jerk conformist, über-conservative, hypocritical, dishonest pile of sh!t" generation.

I want more friends like that!

Did you answer my question?

“It did get me wondering though. Is there any circumstance where a future mormon generation might (collectively) be more easily and unjustifiably offended than a preceding generation? More thin skinned without real cause? Yes its possible? No, it's not? Could there ever be a snowflake generation or is it an impossibility?”

Okay, I'll try although I may not get close enough to satisfy you.

"Is there any circumstance where a future mormon generation might (collectively) be more easily and unjustifiably offended than a preceding generation? More thin skinned without real cause? Yes its possible? No, it's not? Could there ever be a snowflake generation or is it an impossibility?”

I'm going to break that down into two questions.

1) Could there be an a generation that is "easily and unjustifiably offended" by Mormonism? Sure, I guess. I just don't think that is what is happening now. People call the present generation "snowflakes" but they are not; they are in many ways tougher and more honest than older generations.

Dispensing with that loaded word, could an excessively sensitive generation arise in the future? Yes. Would that harm the LDS church? Not clear. Often insecure and easily offended people make the best cult members. The cult gives them a sense of identity, a reason not to worry about personal insecurities, an unwonted strength. In other words, cults like Mormonism may do better if they can instill insecurity and guilt in their followers. Is it wrong to think of the church as an organization run by unempathetic narcissists on the backs of intentionally weakened drones and threatened by new groups who are strong enough to note the emperor's lack of clothing?

2) Could an overly sensitive, cowardly generation arise in society in general? Again, there is danger in generalizing at this level since there will always be exceptions. But if an age-group feared financial insecurity and material difficulty and then discovered it could vote all of its kids resources to itself in order to assuage its own anxieties, that might count as an overly frightful and cowardly generation. And that describes the "Greatest Generation" and the "Baby Boom Generation."

My point is that there is great irony in a generation of people who sit in cozy recliners paid for by their children's future earnings and criticize those children for whatever reason. Perhaps "snowflakes," meaning selfish people who fear inconvenience more than the suffering of others, already exist and we are currently and prospectively living with the results.

So I guess I'm suggesting that it is the strongest who leave oppressive organizations, not the weak. Sensitivity could work the other way in some hypothetical case, but in my view narcissistic and sociopathic leaders are more dangerous than those who care about truth and about others.

Thanks.

I agree that such a generation could arise in the future.

And I agree that perhaps it’s those in the cozy recliners that might be that generation.

I’ll go alone on the next step that (1) a big chunk of many generations fall into the easily offended group and (2)the tough, brave & honest of the current younger generation give cover to the chunk of easily offended in the younger generation.

No, I agree with that. There are strong and weak, good and bad in every generation. It's tough to generalize about such things although there are certainly cohort-specific tendencies.

When someone calls young people "snowflakes," they put the question on the level of stereotype. The first reaction to that has to be stereotypical. The second-level answer, though, should be more detailed and accurate: like the fact that there are all sorts in any generation.

..."by their fruits, shall ye know them."

Exactly. And the past couple of harvests have been rather poor, so this one may well mark an improvement.

Imagine a generation that is self-confident enough to leave familial cults and refrain from impoverishing its descendants. . .

Early days, to be sure, but so far they are doing quite well.

...ah yes, the cup half-full. You are right. Let's just wait and watch. And besides, when/if the SHTF, we'll all be @ room temp anyway.

Tru fax.

But will room temperature still be what it is today?!

...depends on which brand thermostat you have, and how accurate it is. Honeywell, Carrier, Trane, Ecobee, are good choices.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When someone calls young people "snowflakes," they
> put the question on the level of stereotype.

Older generations have been bemoaning the "toughness" of younger generations as long as there have been older/younger generations.

Remember the trite put-down, "You're complaining about riding a bus to school? Why, we used to walk 5 miles to school in driving snowstorms every day! And it was uphill...both ways!"

Same thing, new name.

Long live snowflakes :)

Well you know more than anyone would know the past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Besides, lots wife and I have a greed that it’s possible that a snowflake generation could arise.

If I had to characterize the younger generation (people in their 20s and 30s,) I would say that the ones that I see are motivated, responsible, and hard-working. They are technologically very literate and they are open to new solutions for any given problem.

The economy has not been very kind to them, so they have had to be adaptable and inventive when it comes to earning a living. Many of the 20-somethings that I know have some sort of side gig, such as driving for Lyft, a shop on Etsy, etc. Many are also weighed down by college loans. College tuition was not excessive back in my undergraduate days, but it has gotten out of hand in recent years. It started to trend upwards in the 90s, when I was in grad school and had an increase of more than 18% in one year alone.

Because young people are technologically literate, they look up anything in a heartbeat. I think it will be more difficult to keep them from the truth. Because it is more difficult for them to earn a decent living, squeezing 10% out of them may be a hard sell as well. And because they are adaptable and open to new solutions, leaving their religion may be less traumatic for them.

All IMO.

They’re also being asked to trust the generation that sold them out. It reminds me of a scene from Office Space:

Peter Gibbons : Lawrence, you awake?
Lawrence : Yeah.
Peter Gibbons : You wanna come over?
Lawrence : No, thanks, man. I don't want you fucking up my life, too.

I second what Lot's Wife and Summer said and would only add that the church has nothing to offer those coming into their adulthood at this time. It doesn't resonate with truth and it doesn't add any richness or thoughtfulness to the lot they face today. They have no answers to today's questions.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I second what Lot's Wife and Summer said and would
> only add that the church has nothing to offer
> those coming into their adulthood at this time.
> It doesn't resonate with truth and it doesn't add
> any richness or thoughtfulness to the lot they
> face today. They have no answers to today's
> questions.

Right on, Devoted Exmo.

Exactly my opinion as well.

Younger generations today are, statistically speaking, more educated than ever before, and the internet allows them to find evidence for the church's lies much more quickly.

I don't see what "snowflakes" have to do with anything.

No expert on the younger generation- the snowflakes as they are called. But in terms of the church, the females of this generation are the true rebellious ones and this has the most far reaching complications for tscc. They are the bearers of the future generation(s)and are less desiring to do so, the nurturers of future Mormons and lessdesiging to do so, the breadwinners equally t their husband and insisting on it. The church saw this loss, decreased temple attendance by females-even if high tithe paying familes- and made recent changes in temple ordinances. Whether the church can stop the bleeding is questionable and their panic is noticeable especially concerning “snowflake” women. May it ever be so....

Gatorman

Snowflakes (and they exist) aren't that common in any generation. Those who are currently in school tend to act out for praise and attention from older authority figures. It's widely believed, although false, that activist children can get funded forever and stay in school forever.

I agree, calling someone a snowflake is a personal attack that never seems to address whatever issues is actually being discussed.

I don't know how church membership retention numbers align with age groups, but I do know that I have five kids, and only one continues to have anything to do with the church. I am not sure how this compares to previous generations.

Also, my kids may have drifted away from the church due to other factors. For example, when one of my kids told me he did not want to have anything to do with the church, I asked him if he was sure and if that is what he wanted. He said yes. I told him that I was proud of him, and that I wish I could do the same thing.

Perhaps the ability of the younger generation to depart has something to do with their parents, too?

You rock! What a parent!

I don't think there is a snowflake generation. You have to assess the actions of each individual and yes, some of them are snowflakes.

The snowflakes are mostly the kids that had the teacher's comments in purple ink on their school papers, because some people found the red ink and frowning faces in the teacher's comments to be hurtful. Many school policies have contributed to kids these days growing-up without being capable of participating in any kind of competition. How can they enter a competative workforce if the concept of competition itself is hurtful to them? Fortunately not all of the kids were affected the same way. Some of them followed the example of their baby-boomer parents. In my grade school as a baby-boomer, we were taught that competition is good, and that you should try to win. Some kids won a blue ribbon. Some kids won a red ribbon. Some kids went home with no ribbon at all. Everyone went home friends and many of the kids decided that next time they would try harder to win the blue ribbon. That sure beats the prevailing culture in some schools that says that awarding any ribbons at all is unfair because it supposedly harms the self-esteem of some kids who didn't win.

This culture made its way in to the colleges in many cases, where one political party's ideaologies more than any other are often taught to the students by tenured professors who got their jobs through connections and as political favors. This shouldn't be allowed to happen in publicly subsidized colleges and universities. You can't blame these young students. They're acting out what they were taught and the cirriculum is not often about critical thinking skills as much as it is about adhering to political correctness. So more than anyone, the baby-boomer parents and teachers who learned how to work and compete and to achieve for themselves, but who didn't pass those skills along to their children are the ones to blame.

I think it's very unfair to blame the baby-boomers for supposedly sitting in their recliners, while spending their kids future wealth. Wealth from one generation to the next is cumulative and is measured by more than by just money and debt. These kids wouldn't have their I-phones and a 24/7/365 internet connection (and the benefits of those things) if not for the hard work from those who came before them. Investment debt is good and we don't live in a zero-sum world. The older generation has always controlled and benefitted the most from societiy's money. But if we can't compete in a competative world then yes, the baby-boomers will be the last generation to enjoy many of the comforts of life that are available in our society now. Our trading partners want to out-work us, out-educate us, and out-perform us. They'll do whatever they can to win that blue ribbon and the benefits that go with it. If we put weak negotiators and un-competative products and services up against them and then cry foul when they win, they'laugh while passing us by and beating us in a competative world. That is everyone's fault if today's kids were never taught how to compete in a competative world.

In fact, wealth IS measured by numbers. Any person's wealth is, by definition, the sum of his assets minus the sum of his liabilities. That's true of countries as well. The only difference is that if a highly indebted individual dies, his debts are wiped away whereas when a generation that impoverishes a country dies off, its burdens are transferred to the next generation.

What is the numerical situation? US national debt exploded from about 1980 onward. It went from 30% of national output to roughly four times that number now. How did that tragedy occur? People voted to cut taxes but not spending. There were "trickle down" and other rationales behind this, but the promised miracle never happened and the US was left with a national debt that 20 years ago made Italy a laughing stock.

The official national debt, however, is but the most superficial manifestation of the problem. The Greatest Generation and the Baby Boom Generation voted for generous social security, medicare, military pensions, and other benefits but refused to pay for them. The laws of arithmetic worked inexorablly here as well. Unfunded liabilities went from an insignificant level in 1970 to massive levels today--about three years' GDP according to the Treasury and much more according to private-sector economists.

So what have the Greatest and Baby Boom Generations bequeathed to their children and grandchildren? Everything the country generates for between four and 10 years belongs not to the younger generations but to their creditors.

How will that debt be discharged? There are three ways. First, the people who voted for the unfunded spending and promises may, in a fit of responsibility, forsake their mortgage interest deductions, social security promises, and other benefits while also raising taxes massively. Second, future generations must lose their benefits and pay much higher taxes. Third, governments will continue to pass the buck until inflation accelerates and erodes the value of both the debt and our children's wealth.

But we can go farther than merely listing the possibilities: we can handicap them. Is there any chance that older people will decide to pay for what they have already spent? No way. "We earned it," they will protest. By default, then, younger people will see their benefits cut and taxes raised, and the remaining debts will be inflated away.

The notion that younger generations are spoiled, don't know how to compete, and are poorly educated is thus a canard. The truth is that it is their parents and grandparents who are spoiled--who spoiled themselves--and who additionally need a few more lessons in basic arithmetic. The inter-generational theft has been monumental, and no quantity of fuzzy thinking will make the debt and unfunded liabilities vanish into thin air.

How is it that the math doesn't ever seem to work out when we talk about retirees and military veteran benefits for those who spent their whole lives working and paying in to the system, but it makes perfect sense for the government to sink money in to social programs for the poor, many of who have never paid in to the system or that pay very little, and who tend to have large families at a young age (who also tend to need welfare), instead of going to college and either getting jobs or starting successful businesses? You have to reward performance for actions that benefit society, not that add additional liabilities to society. I am just glad it's not a zero-sum game. Maybe I should just quit my job and go on welfare. The more I work and pay taxes, the less worthy I seem to be of keeping my own earnings, or of having an eventual retirement some day (according to some people anyway). The working baby boomers didn't run-up the national debt. The politicians of our generation on both sides of the aisle did. Whether or not they made good investments for us with some of the money along the way remains to be seen. Too many of them from both sides of the aisle had their hands in the pot too.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2019 10:14PM by azsteve.

There's a lot of extraneous stuff in there. No one says veterans don't deserve what they have been promised, and no one said anything either way about benefits to the poor.

But you know, I hope, that the biggest entitlements by far are those that accrue to the middle class. That isn't a question of ideology: it's a matter of counting.

The problem is that people in the middle class have, for a couple of generations, said that they paid into "the system" and hence deserve the promised benefits without asking whether they paid anywhere near enough to finance those benefits. As shocking as it may seem, the answer is "no." That's why there are such huge deficits in the budget, social security, etc.

You write that "The working baby boomers didn't run-up the national debt. The politicians of our generation on both sides of the aisle did." In a democracy, that distinction makes no sense. Did you vote for Democrats? Republicans? The present government? If the answer to any of those queries is "yes," you (or I or anyone) are complicit. Those entities espoused different pipe dreams, but they all had the same effect: to give the Greatest Generation and Baby Boom Generation an excuse to do what they collectively wanted, which was to live far beyond their means--even if that meant robbing their kids.

The welfare state is a middle class edifice that disproportionately benefits, through social security and medicare and the other biggest entitlements, the middle class. That is why those entitlements have long been considered the "third rail" of American politics. Everyone else's entitlements are immoral but don't you dare touch mine! The desire to avert one's eyes from these tawdry facts is understandable, but facts they nonetheless remain.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2019 03:32AM by Lot's Wife.

"So, since the *snowflake* generation doesn't exist, it can't be helping to bring down mormonism."

I would say that the snowflake generation is working more in the greater political sphere and isn't concerned about mormonism particularly. But all these legislation's that were instigated by the snowflakes certainly affect christian and mormon churches.

I won't go into the specifics because it's political and that would get deleted on the board (probably?). So to conclude that the snowflakes aren't bringing down mormonism is only looking at part of the evidence. The evidence OP want's to look at which is represented on the board. Just my take :)

I'm intrigued.

I usually find myself on the side of legislation that christian's oppose. :)

I'll think this over-

Who are these children coming down,
Coming down like gentle snowflakes from the skies?
With entitlement trailing from them as they go?
And never compromise in their eyes?

Who are these young ones growin' bold, growing strong
Like unique flakes inside the storm?
Who will not bend with the wind or the change
But stand to fight the org alone?


(chorus)
These are the few, the snowflakes saved for latter days
To come the last days of the org these are they in latter days
These are the strong, the foyer folk rising in plain sight
To win the battle raging in the hearts of Mormons today


Strangers from a realm of light who have forgotten all
The mem'ry of their former life, the purpose of their call
And so they must teach us why they're here and who they really are.
They must teach us why they're here and who they are.


In their snowflake armor they march forth to conquer all
And with their snowflake eyes ablaze with resolve watch ignorance fail
But first they must teach us why they're here and who they really are
They must teach us why they're here and who they are.
https://ldslyrics.livejournal.com/12230.html

I'm not sure what to make of this . . . (where did it come from?)

but I love it---

It's from Saturday's Warrior.

Look it up.

Ah. Thanks.

I think I heard Dehlin interview the guy who wrote the music.

I don't think so.

https://ldsmag.com/saturdays-warrior-how-it-originally-came-to-be/

They both appear to be very much not people who would talk to Dehlin.

this guy?

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/lex-de-azevedo/