MrShorty

Jana Riess published an article referencing this news release by the church newsroom on the same day as Pew released their survey results. The press release doesn't officially mention Pew in the text, though the filename of the cover picture is "pew statement." https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/measuring-what-matters-people-behind-numbers

This came across my computer today. Perhaps because Pew is well known and already well-respected, they are known to have more of a random sampling method rather than the convenience methods that dominate most attempts to collect data on Latter-day Saints. An interesting, fairly comprehensive report. I note that disaffiliation/retention has been a hot topic this year. This report shows LDS retention (specifically of those "raised as Latter-day Saints") at 54% with some breakdowns by age and gender. This seems to be similar to what others are saying about LDS retention -- somewhere near half. Anything that strikes you as discussion worthy? https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/09/22/tradition-and-change-among-latter-day-saints-in-the-us/

Perhaps it is because this comes up at the same time as another thread talking about race, but the first thing that stood out to me was Br. Perkins "confidence" in what he is teaching here. Br. Perkins seems pretty confident that the ban wasn't based in divine inspiration (like many others), which I find an interesting contrast with what @smac97 said in the other thread that the church prefers a kind of we really don't know one way or the other. Considering this is FAIR (10 years ago), I find it Br. Perkins also contrasts with the late Sarah Allen's FAIR response to the CES letter where she tends to insist that we don't know and maybe can't know if the ban was divinely inspired. In keeping with the B. H. Roberts Foundation data that church membership is roughly evenly divided over the three stances, I can contrast Perkins and Allen with Bruce Porter's (semi-retired CES) youtube channel where he insists that race is real and that it traces back to Old Testament figures. Perhaps part of what makes this observation so interesting is that Perkins makes it seem like his conclusions that race isn't real and that scripture never teaches anything about race are clear and obvious to those who have a correct understanding of scripture. When he gets asked how 19th and 20th century LDS (leaders and members) seemed unable to understand these scriptures correctly, he attributes it to the near universal beliefs about racism in the broader culture, implying that, when such beliefs are ubiquitous, we can't expect even prophets to see past the cultural blindspots. I think the main conclusion I draw is that there is still room in the church for people who believe all kinds of different things race and the priesthood and temple ban. I'm inclined to agree with Br. Perkins, but there are plenty of others who seem to believe differently, and we're all members in good standing. That kind of diversity of belief seems to be the most interesting observation when discussing this issue.

My immediate reaction was to invoke the idea of progressive revelation and divine accommodation. In many apologetic discussions around slavery and/or the priesthood and temple ban, the idea gets suggested that God temporarily accommodates our human foibles, progressively revealing higher truths to gradually get us to grow out of evil. In a thread whose starting point is the priesthood and temple ban, my example might be slavery which we practiced for thousands of years, somewhere in the 18th century (or thereabouts), enough people started to become uncomfortable enough with the practice that abolition began to become a thing. In fits and starts, we eventually abolish slavery, and we then become more aware of the racism and tribalism that were often the basis of slavery, and we start to question those and seek to eliminate those injustices. Nowadays, as we've largely suppressed overt racism, some are pointing systemic ways that racism might still exist and we debate what, if anything, we should do about it. The main point being that, as we eliminate social injustices, we find ourselves better able to recognize social injustices adjacent to the eliminated injustices and seek to make society progressively more just. Some might even say that this is how God guides humanity to become better. The flip side might be that, as we eliminate one legitimated social injustice, we might imagine up some new injustice that really doesn't exist rather than just be satisfied with our improved state. On short notice, I don't come up with a ready example, but I'm sure it's just a matter of someone thinking about it long enough. The tricky part is in discerning what alleged injustices are truly unjust, and which ones are hyped up to stir up societal unrest. One possible discussion question, then, would be how do we feel about this kind of "progressive revelation?" How do we feel about the notion that God waits for us to recognize injustice rather than outright tell us about it through prophets or scripture? In a church that tends to be conservative, how do we feel about this model of how God slowly and progressively causes us to grow as a people?

To tie into the topic(s) on Jeff Strong's work, I've added a category to this statement, and I don't think I have significantly changed the meaning. As I explore the tensions between active, orthodox LDS and disaffiliated LDS, one common theme I encounter is the question of whether LDS who disaffiliate and do not return to activity in the church can be saved and exalted in the next life. I encounter many of the staunchest active LDS who say that they cannot. Pres. Nelson, in Apr. 2019 GC, mentioned an acquaintance of his who had long been married to an active LDS woman, taken the missionary discussions, and such, but had never joined the church. Pres. Nelson expressed skepticism (while acknowledging that he couldn't offer final judgement) that proxy ordinances for this man would be efficacious. I see many LDS who prefer to embrace the doubt and skepticism. I'm not sure about this language of "violence" for this concept. If it applies, I would suggest that there is something "violent" about expressing skepticism or doubt (or more) about an individual's or a group's hope for salvation and exaltation.

In some ways, I think this is part of what Strong's work is doing -- creating a space for the church to ask itself this. I'm not sure everyone is agreed on the answer. In one podcast, Strong talked about a pair of questions in the survey. Who do you think the church is for? A) everyone, B) all in orthodox types, C) sincere seekers if God. First time, the question asked them what they think church culture would say, and they overwhelmingly responded B. The second time, they were asked their personal opinion, and they overwhelmingly responded A. What does the church want the result to be? I think there's a lot of room for discussion.

I agree that all churches have their historical issues and mistakes. That's one main reason I haven't left the LDS church for another. It would just be trading in one set of doctrinal and historical issues for another. As a lifelong LDS, LDSism is my native "language" of religion. At some point, if there isn't going to be a church that is inerrant, what is church for? Why participate in a church at all? I recall a conversation in this forum where someone asked the value of participating in the church if it isn't uniquely church, and I responded asking if it is necessary for the church to be uniquely true to have value? Is it enough for a church to simply be good? To be found useful for a place to commune with God and other believers? As I contemplate my future relationship with the church, I find that a main question I encountere is the one I've mentioned -- the question of belonging and fellowship. As long as I feel something a little more than tolerated, I figure I can stay.

Let's look at this particular example of an alleged commandment. First, we have the idea that they knew what God wanted. It's a significant thing to claim to know God's will with some certainty. How does one come to know God's will with that level of confidence? We talk about significant spiritual experiences, but some people don't seem to be given those experiences. How should we understand this? Then we have the subject matter -- diet. Such certainty over a morally trivial topic, while morally significant issues like slavery go unaddressed. It troubles me some that we believe God is going about severely punishing people for disobedience to morally trivial practices while leaving weightier moral questions unaddressed. As far as letting myself be winnowed. I guess we'll see. This is where I think Strong has some important things to say. To be fair, I haven't read the book, but I've listened to enough podcast interviews that I think I grasp the main themes. The theme that most resonates with me is the theme of inclusion and belonging. Yes our history like other churches is messy. Our theology and apologetics fail to answer some of the hardest questions. If we can convince doubters and maybe even dissenters that they are welcome to wrestle with things alongside us while we wrestle with them, perhaps more of them will stay. I find that our high demand religion doesn't always like to extend a hand of fellowship to doubters and dissenters. Strong is asking us to consider whether or not we want to change how we approach those at risk of disaffiliation.

More and more, this is becoming important to my own faith crisis. How far does this go? One could just as easily say, if genocide feels like an obstacle to belief, it may have been designed that way and reference Saul and Samuel and the Amalekites. Or maybe human sacrifice and reference Abraham. Or racial segregation and the early 20th century church. I'm coming to really question this "teleological suspension of ethics" (Kierkegaard). Do we really believe that God through prophets throws practices at us that we find morally and ethically repugnant just to see if we will override our sense of right and wrong? And then condemn us if we choose to doubt the prophet and stick by our own sense of right and wrong? I don't know, but this feels more like a "trickster" God.

This is probably one of those questions to throw at Johnathon Stapley or Scott Woodward/Casey Griffiths or similar church history nerd. I can recall seeing official instructions (probably in the old Melchizedek Priesthood instructions manuals) that indicated that a father could participate in the blessing of his own children even if he wasn't ordained. I can also recall seeing that instruction come and go over the years. My impression is that this is a practice that has faded in and out of official favor over the years, like women giving healing blessings. I apologize that I can't generate a reference, because I didn't keep any of those old manuals, and it didn't seem like something important enough to retain documentation for. I expect that someone who wanted to could work through some old priesthood manuals and find it, and even document when it was in and out of favor.

Both and... When I look at LDS and Biblical history, I see the people of God, following their prophet leaders, actively endorsing and promoting slavery and racial segregation. Not merely accidentally giving the impression that they aren't completely opposed to these practices, but active endorsement and promotion. When I see these issues discussed by devout LDS, the general consensus seems to be that God will know how to redeem these people in/from these sins. I figure that, if God can redeem people who actively promoted slavery, God also knows how to redeem people who endorse violating the word of wisdom or the law of chastity. That I think is the biggest part of the tension around your second statement -- just how far does God's mercy and grace and forgiveness and redemption go? I think, for devout LDS, it is sometimes hard to accept that God actually knows how to redeem sinful people. We cannot look past Alma's declaration that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, so we don't really believe your second statement. We give lip service to it, but, when the rubber hits the road, we don't trust that God can redeem "those people." I think it does. I think that "hopeful universalism" reduces our obligation to repent at some level. I can acknowledge that there is a lot of unresolved tension here, but, at some level, it leaves open the very real possibility that God will redeem people who don't repent in this life. As I noted above, our history contains plenty of examples of people who have not repented (in this life) of sins that are about the worst the 21st century mind conceives of, and, yet, we tend to also insist that God has the means to redeem even them. If we really believe that God can redeem the ancients in spite of their misconstrual of sins, then I think God can redeem us when we misconstrue God's call to repentance in our day. I understand that there is a real tension here. With two years to prepare, is there anyone in church curriculum or in the podcast universe around CFM that wants to prepare a lesson on Alma 45 that does a real deep dive into what Alma is really saying about God being unable to look upon sin with any allowance, when scripture and history are full of examples where God commands, endorses, or even turns a blind eye to sin?

I hope we hold these two ideas in tension at the same time, as well. For the devout, 1 is pretty straightforward. I find many devout LDS who seem unable to hold onto number 2 -- especially when we are talking about someone who has left the church. I encounter so many who insist that someone who has left the church is irredeemable unless they return to activity in the church before they die. If they die in their disaffiliated state, they cannot be redeemed and exalted. Personally, as I try to hold both ideas in tension, I find myself in a place that I've heard Teryl Givens describe as "hopeful universalism." That God so perfectly knows every one of His children that He will know how to show them their errors (mostly in the next life) in such a way that they will repent and accept Christ's atonement and the restored gospel. That includes those who disaffiliate from the church. I recognize that we LDS have a certain dislike for universalism; we don't like the idea of people getting some kind of "free pass" to get the same blessings that we struggled to cling to.

I think you are right. The caution I would make is, when you decide to force someone into such a decision, make sure it is an absolutely critical decision. As a bio-ag major at BYU within living memory of Elder McConkie's Deadly Heresies talk, some of the saddest case studies were those who decided they had to choose between the church and evolution. I think it was Patrick Mason who observed that, at times in our history, we have insisted on putting things in our truth cart that don't really belong there. I think the hardest part of any "choose ye this day" type of decision is knowing when God really demands that kind of decision and when our "exclusivist" type culture demands it. Strong claims that 80+% of his group sought out someone to talk to, so I can't explain why your sample set doesn't reflect that. Perhaps Strong's convenience sample is over-representing those who talk about it or maybe it's just luck of the draw. I'm reminded of a short video I saw by Jared Halverson in which he talked about a close relative (in-law, I believe) who left the church because they couldn't find anyone to talk over their concerns with. Jared vowed to himself that he would make sure that people around him were aware that he was able and willing to have those conversations. I know that I am careful about who I share my own faith crisis with. Strong's data shows that those conversations go poorly with some groups of people. As we're saying, figuring out how to help those conversations be better is a big part of the conversation. I could be reading to much into this. One thing I feel like I encounter among devout LDS is the underlying assumption (I'm not sure it is even conscious) that anyone who "makes a real effort" or "gives the church a fair hearing" will inevitably come to the same conclusion as the other devout members of the church. Of course, the same thing can be seen from the worst of the church's critics, who seem to believe that everyone who gives the church a fair hearing will come to their same conclusions. I cannot speak for all (though I don't believe I'm alone) that the best conversations I have are those where my sounding boards don't care what conclusion I come to, as long as I am using reasonably good judgement. They will respect whatever conclusion I come to. In a space talking about how these conversations go with devout LDS, I feel like all to often, coming to the "wrong" conclusion will lead devout LDS to assume that I must have been insincere or biased against the church or some such. That would be one thing I would suggest that devout members of the church could change if they wanted to make these conversations "better." I think you're right. I wonder if we can allow that being active in the LDS church may not be the best thing for all of His children. Tangent alert: As we come to the end of the genocidal conquest narrative portion of our OT studies, I find it interesting what kinds of "misconduct" get attributed to God. I find it interesting (if not a bit troubling) how many LDS and Christian commentators who are willing to defend attributing things like genocide or slavery to God. All things considered, God allowing good people to leave the church and be good people outside the church seems pretty mild compared to the other kinds of misconduct that we attribute to God.

As I've been monitoring the conversation around the internet, I'm finding a common theme or tension. In some ways, I think these conversations with Dyer and his team contrasted with the conversations I see with Strong (aside: I think it would be great to get them both on the same podcast and let them compare and contrast their different data sets) is where to place "blame" for the trends in disaffiliation that we're seeing. It would probably require a deeper dive into the whole of the data to really tease this out, so I'm not sure that anyone has really pressed the issue. What I'm seeing is that Dyer and his team like to emphasize these kinds of statements that seem to put the onus for disaffiliation on the disaffiliates themselves while seeming to characterize the church and the devout members as innocent bystanders. Strong's emphasis has been on "culture" and trying to push a narrative where, if devout church members were "better" at talking with potential disaffiliates, then fewer would disaffiliate and the disaffiliates are just responding to what the devout members say and do. To polarize the conversation, it seems that everyone either wants to claim that the disaffiliates themselves are all to blame or the church is all to blame. I just don't think it is a clear dichotomy. I think people who disaffiliate make choices and otherwise have their part to play in their own disaffiliation, AND the church and its devout members make choices and have their part to play in people's disaffiliation. I feel like the better conversations would try to understand what is happening in the middle ground where we try to understand how both parties are interacting together. While we're trying to parse out blame for the disaffiliation phenomenon, the other difficult thing I see in this particular quote is when does God Himself become complicit in disaffiliation? I recognize that it's kind of a "problem of evil" question, but, if Dyer is right about this being the strongest predictor, then why doesn't God make Himself a little less hidden for these people? Strong notes that many of these disaffiliates wrestle with things for years before pulling the plug. If God would just be a little less stingy with His "presence" in their lives, would fewer disaffiliate? Or could this observation tell us something about God's priorities? I have noted before that it seems that the church's ultimate priority is to convince people to stay active and participating in the church. What if that isn't God's highest priority?

I came out 77% Givens, and 70% ProgMo, and only 47% McConkie.