Merry Christmas and Cheers to the Fall of Mormon Stories

[Teancum]

On 12/22/2025 at 11:58 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

To me your suggestion implied that because we are hemorrhaging members (lie) that we should leave off missionary work and concentrate on not losing/getting back members.

Those two parables speak of gathering as many as possible (missionary work) and a sifting (falling away). Just because people are sifting doesn't mean we stop harvesting.

A close friend of mine who served as a mission president in one of the Santiago Chile missions focused much of his missionaries time on finding and activating the inactive. Stakes in his mission had many wards that had 1000 members on the list with around 100 members attending. The strength of the wards and stakes were decimated by this and activation seemed a higher purpose than new converts.

[Teancum]

On 12/22/2025 at 10:27 PM, Pyreaux said:

This "Ex-Mormon" community is so high churn because people "graduate" from being angry and realize they miss a real community. Your identity is a reactive identity. People eventually move on once they’ve processed their anger. Without a shared theology or positive goal, that community will turn on itself.

I think this is spot on and I think Dehlin and others have experienced this when they have tried to build a sustainable community of ex and disaffected members. I do not think any have had much success. I could be wrong as I do not follow such groups and where I live there is not a lot of LDS people-active, ex or disaffected so a community is tough to sustain with those low numbers.

[Pyreaux]

On 12/29/2025 at 2:41 PM, Teancum said:

Where did I describe joy at getting under the skin of active members. You mean people here on this board?  I guess we need to define what moving on means. I have moved on in some ways, and in other ways I have not. See my additional post. And I really will likely never move on entirely because as I noted in my other post, much of who and what I am is tied to Mormonism. I can't remove that from me anymore that I can change my sex, my last name, or my national citizenship even though I may be very disappointed with America currently. 

 

I am not sure what your point is here.

Well I have not completely abandoned Mormonism so there is that. So in some ways I have not "left."

 

An invested antagonist?  Ok, maybe so but I am not sure what that means. But if posting on this board, giving financial support to two organizations critical of the church and following some social media groups for disaffected members then I guess you are correct. 

Ok I am game so long as we both keep it polite.

I am not sure how this is relevant.  Your leader pull in annually as much as Dehlin does with their salary and cushy perks, which I really do not nor ever have begrudged them and I think they should be paid more for what they do. To hire the equivalent would of GAs would likely cost much more.

 

I applaud that but you and I both know that that amount is a pittance compared to the massive assets the church holds.  They could and should do much much more IMO.

 

Does MS claim to be The Church of Jesus Christ?  Does John Dehlin  demand I pay to listen to his podcasts?  Does the MS mission statement include in its purpose humanitarian aid?  Nope. As for counseling services I do not know that Dehlin does this anymore but it is irrelevant  and this is really a big time false equivalency. But when John claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ and requires ten % for access to his best podcasts then you might have a point. Otherwise not so much.

Nope. Your tithing does not go to welfare last I checked.

Yes tithing does likely go for that. 

The church has soup kitchens?  Where?

Well now you really don't know where your money goes because the church does not tell you. And then there is that pesky read the fine print on your donation slip where your designation for say money for FO or humanitarian aid can be used wherever the church wants. And by the way I continued to give to fast offering and humanitarian aid fopr years after not participating till the church but that little qualifier. After that I decided to give to organization that I knew would put the money to work helping to save lives and such.

I never said the church is greedy not did I. And I never said that the church does not sped $ on worthy causes at all now did I? That does not negate the fact that the church hoars its wealth in spite of the good it does. A few billion a year for an organization with hundreds of billions is a small amount of its resources to relieve suffering even though the $ amount is large. And I do not imagine my $75 per month for MS is a make ore break thing, I support a number of podcasters and independent media sources that I enjoy. I also give a ton to other organizations that do work to relieve human suffering,

This is the case for some charities and for some not so much. But so what. The church still needs about $6 to $7 billion a year just to operate. That is pretty hefty overhead, so yea, you really don't know how much of your donation  goes to all that you are thumping your chest about now do you?  By the way I support a couple of charities where almost 100% of it goes to relieve human suffering. They are out there if you look for them. 

Maybe. Maybe not. You don't know because they keep it a secret from you.

 

Ummm no. Some do and some don't.  My guess is you don't donate much outside your tithe and other church contributions because that is a pretty hefty sum for most members and does not leave much for most to give to other groups. It didn't for me when I was a full tithe payer.

Once again, I never said the church does not do good not did I? I have always said the the FO program is brilliant. I would still give to that if I could be sure that my $ would go to where I want it to. Same for humanitarian aid. But since the church won't be transparent and since it is still increasing its substantial wealth, I decided to give where I know it does the most good. That in a way makes me rather sad. But I have no plans to help make one of the most wealthy organizations in the world richer. 

Bill Gates plans to give all his $ away before he dies. He does far more than the church  to relieve suffering than the church does. And I have not argued that the church should give every damn dime away. In fact I have said on this board many times over that the Church needs a reserve fund and have suggested that maybe three times its annual revenue needs is similar to what other organizations like it does. So this argument is really a straw man.

It is a combinations of cash, securities and property. And I support the church having its own endowment fund. Just not to the extent of about 20 to 25 times its annual operating needs.

This is a common excuse. One would think the The Church of Jesus Christ would have relieving human suffering to be a larger part of its mission. The Jesus I read about seemed pretty concerned about reliving human suffering and it was not just a small part of hi directives. And the EPA fund is not being used to do any of that and I think you know that. It just grows and grows and grows.

 

Yes and so what? This is really rather facetious of you to try to compare MS to a church.  And as I have noted, you don't get to tell people what the feel and what they don't about things LDS so we can simply just chalk this up to your opinion and a rather poor one at that. 

Maybe. Maybe not, There is no doubt the church excels at amassing wealth and that on the back of its members while providing no transparency and that on the backs of many who likely really can't afford that 10%. And they do it based on claims that are clearly false and call it a commandment. I find that far more unethical than anything you want the heap on Dehlin's head. If his salary bothers my me I can quit my $75 per month any time I please with no repercussion. If you stop tithing you lose your ticket the the temple and also have the threat of disobeying a non god that does not exist. 

But like you said, you do you.

 

A very honest, nuanced response. Nothing particularly wrong about not moving on, its just sometimes it seems there are those who seem conflicted on whether they moved on, and when they don't, it just makes one wonder how exactly MS 'helps' to 'transition' exactly, or perhaps I don't know what transition means. You don't have to give personal details, but having not talked to John personally like you have, how does he go about helping somebody? Like, was 'letting go' or 'moving on' never suggested? Either a goal or an option?

"The church has soup kitchens? Where?" Not their own, they supply local existing ones. I know a bit firsthand when the LDS Bishop’s Storehouse distributes the weekly fresh groceries, there is always extra, and all goes to places like food banks, they can't send it back, volunteers can't take any home. I know there is a record in 2024, the Church donated tens of millions of pounds of food to local community food banks. It is the largest private food-relief network in the Western US.

The "fine print" on donation slips is a standard legal requirement for 501(c)(3) organizations to ensure they aren't sued if a specific fund is over-funded (e.g., if a disaster relief fund gets more than it can spend). While the Church doesn't publish a line-item budget, it publishes a "Caring for Those in Need" summary every year.

Yes, Bill Gates is a billionaire spending his own profits and will likely end a generation after he dies whether or not he wishes it. The Church's 'reserves' are to ensure that 100 years from now the Bishop’s Storehouse will still be open for the poor in the Philippines and Brazil.

If tithing were a "ticket," the Church could be selling it for the highest price possible. Instead, it’s capped at 10% as anciently decreed of gains, whether you are a billionaire or a janitor. A flat tax is the fairest tax, by my Libertarian reckoning. If you don't consider yourself blessed with any profits that very specifically came from God from which you feel obligated to give Him tribute, 10% of 0 = $0 = full tithe payer.

You say you can quit your $75/month to MS anytime with no repercussion. Because nothing really is at stake. When a member stops tithing, they are choosing to step away from their covenant sacrifice, which has a purpose that is independent of the by-products that it supports, like a $1.45 billion aid engine that will be here in 200 years, still feeding every member and other people, because it manages its reserves. I'm only supposing MS could implode the moment the internet finds a more entertaining critic, and I'll find that a bit ironic if he didn't have his own reserves when that time comes. 

Can't you see what the Church is doing? Sovereignty. We’d rather own the entire means of production, so we never have to depend on anyone. Never at the mercy of inflation and supply chain breaks. We are the supply chain. When food prices spiked in 2024–2025, the Church didn't have to raise more money to buy food; they just kept farming and kept on rocking it. If the Church didn't own the farms, we'd be spending twice as much to do half as much good. If we are hoarding money, we either have big plans for it or trying to micromanage every dime.

Edited January 3 by Pyreaux

[Malc]

On 1/1/2026 at 2:10 PM, Teancum said:

A close friend of mine who served as a mission president in one of the Santiago Chile missions focused much of his missionaries time on finding and activating the inactive. Stakes in his mission had many wards that had 1000 members on the list with around 100 members attending. The strength of the wards and stakes were decimated by this and activation seemed a higher purpose than new converts.

My little branch in Scotland had 300-350 members on the records, a weekly attendance of about 20-25 (mostly the same people each week) and more than 100 inactive "Prospective Elders" - males over 18 and not ordained. Because people in Scotland in the 60s & 70s often lived their lives close to where they were born, it was fairly easy to locate many of the inactive members. However, a lot of them were not happy to be "found", and a good number of the found ones denied ever having been members of the church.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Why is it that those opposed to the Restored Church believe the Church is in freefall because numbers are lagging in white Western countries? Do the record converts and increased retention rates in, um, not so white areas of the world not count? Why are only the numbers of white members important? What does that say about those critics?

🤷🏻‍♂️

[The Nehor]

On 1/2/2026 at 9:25 PM, Pyreaux said:

A very honest, nuanced response. Nothing particularly wrong about not moving on, its just sometimes it seems there are those who seem conflicted on whether they moved on, and when they don't, it just makes one wonder how exactly MS 'helps' to 'transition' exactly, or perhaps I don't know what transition means. You don't have to give personal details, but having not talked to John personally like you have, how does he go about helping somebody? Like, was 'letting go' or 'moving on' never suggested? Either a goal or an option?

When talking about leaving a faith that you have believed since you were young or that you believed for an extended period of time the process of separation often involves a process of figuring out who you are without that faith. This is sometimes called “deconstruction”. The process is probably never fully complete but most reach a point where it is not something that involves much time or attention.

I don’t see how Dehlin is particularly good at helping in this process but perhaps for some he does.

It is my mostly unsubstantiated opinion that some who leave the faith become the equivalent of a ‘sober alcoholic’ where they have made the separation but still resent the loss of community or sense of belonging. I think finding a community/tribe is one of the main means of moving on but being in a community where the main element is having previously been LDS might stymie the process. If that community is the only community you are involved in the effect is probably worse.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Why is it that those opposed to the Restored Church believe the Church is in freefall because numbers are lagging in white Western countries?

Because that is where the Church was established and that, in general, increased religiousity is found in less politically and socially stable and more impoverished countries. Relying on less developed countries as a source for new members is seen as a kind of last-ditch effort.

This shouldn’t be a surprise. The Book of Mormon supports this kind of thinking. Whenever God wants to gin up some conversions and get people religious again God breaks out the wars, famines, and natural disasters to scare the people back to needing God. The Bible suggests the same in places where God punishes his people with everything from unjust divine laws to defeat in battle to other myriad disasters. The Book of Mormon is just much more explicit in describing it.

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Do the record converts and increased retention rates in, um, not so white areas of the world not count? Why are only the numbers of white members important? What does that say about those critics?

🤷🏻‍♂️

There is enough racism and explicit racist dogwhistling that it is probably a waste of time to spend time imagining critics of the Church are secretly racists. It is more likely to be wishful thinking that the Church is stagnating or is doomed. The prognosis doesn’t look great at the moment but things can always change. We appear to be in an incredibly stupid timeline where the stupidest possible things happen so something stupid could easily hurt or help the Church in some way and change trends.

[Rain]

12 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Why is it that those opposed to the Restored Church believe the Church is in freefall because numbers are lagging in white Western countries? Do the record converts and increased retention rates in, um, not so white areas of the world not count? Why are only the numbers of white members important? What does that say about those critics?

🤷🏻‍♂️

I haven't paid much attention to this thread and believe it or not I'm not opposed to the church (plus I don't pay attention to the numbers), but usually people bring up the activity rates of Central and South America, which while West, do have a lot of brown people.  Have they not been mentioned on this thread? 

I think while sometimes it may seem a race thing, it is probably more likely a stronghold and time thing.  Meaning, they are talking about numbers in places the church has often seen as strong. As far as I am aware, the church has never been strong in most of Asia or the Middle East. Then we have Polynesia countries and Africa with people of color. I rarely hear much of Polynesian countries growing anymore, but not about them losing members either. So that pretty much leaves Africa, and while the church sent missionaries in the 1850s, blacks were not supposed to be officially taught till 1978. The major growth there is fairly new. 

Maybe you are seeing correlation rather than cause. I'm not saying you are because I really haven't studied the stats, but given I saw other possible reasons, it might be good to look into it.

Edited January 5 by Rain

[Rain]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

When talking about leaving a faith that you have believed since you were young or that you believed for an extended period of time the process of separation often involves a process of figuring out who you are without that faith. This is sometimes called “deconstruction”. The process is probably never fully complete but most reach a point where it is not something that involves much time or attention.

I don’t see how Dehlin is particularly good at helping in this process but perhaps for some he does.

It is my mostly unsubstantiated opinion that some who leave the faith become the equivalent of a ‘sober alcoholic’ where they have made the separation but still resent the loss of community or sense of belonging. I think finding a community/tribe is one of the main means of moving on but being in a community where the main element is having previously been LDS might stymie the process. If that community is the only community you are involved in the effect is probably worse.

I know for me community is a huge thing.  While I no longer feel like I belong, I don't belong to groups of ex members either.  Not because I haven't officially left, but because I'm not against the church and I'm not feeling lost and trying to replace the church or deal with things of leaving the church.

I would love to do social things with church members, but I have long felt frustrated of not finding church members who prioritized anything social that was just social.  

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I haven't paid much attention to this thread and believe it or not I'm not opposed to the church (plus I don't pay attention to the numbers), but usually people bring up the activity rates of Central and South America, which while West, do have a lot of brown people.  Have they not been mentioned on this thread? 

I think while sometimes it may seem a race thing, it is probably more likely a stronghold and time thing.  Meaning, they are talking about numbers in places the church has often seen as strong. As far as I am aware the church has never been strong in most of Asia or the Middle East. So they we have Polynesia countries and Africa with people of color. I rarely hear much of Polynesia countries growing anymore, but not about them losing members either. So that pretty much leaves Africa and while the church sent missionaries in the 1850s, blacks were not supposed to be officially taught till 1978. The major growth there is fairly new. 

Maybe you are seeing correlation rather than cause. I'm not saying you are because I really haven't studied the stats, but given I saw other possible reasons it might be good to look into it.

To me it feels as though they are scoffing at the record setting baptismal and retention numbers because they are just 3rd world Africans and Latinos.

[teddyaware]

58 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

To me it feels as though they are scoffing at the record setting baptismal and retention numbers because they are just 3rd world Africans and Latinos.

It smacks of the haughty derision and dismissiveness that the prideful, self righteous Zoramites heaped upon their poor, meanly dressed neighbors.

Edited January 5 by teddyaware

[Rain]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

To me it feels as though they are scoffing at the record setting baptismal and retention numbers because they are just 3rd world Africans and Latinos.

I can see why you might feel this way because some who leave the church do a lot of scoffing, but I think it would be a good thing to really look into whether it is just a correlation before deciding a feeling about people being racist is correct.   

[ZealouslyStriving]

43 minutes ago, Rain said:

I can see why you might feel this way because some who leave the church do a lot of scoffing, but I think it would be a good thing to really look into whether it is just a correlation before deciding a feeling about people being racist is correct.   

What other things would account for the fact that when you bring up the record baptism, and retention rates that, they default back to, "BUT LOOK HOW BAD THINGS ARE IN AMERICA AND EUROPE!!!" ??

[Rain]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

What other things would account for the fact that when you bring up the record baptism, and retention rates that, they default back to, "BUT LOOK HOW BAD THINGS ARE IN AMERICA AND EUROPE!!!" ??

South America is almost always mentioned.  Was it not mentioned in this thread? 

But like I said originally, another thing that would account for Europe (at least the UK and Denmark) and America another thing for that is the strength of the church there for long time or strong ties to the beginning of the church. In other words, they are mentioning the 2 areas where much of the church's roots come from. 

 

Edited January 6 by Rain

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It smacks of the haughty derision and dismissiveness that the prideful, self righteous Zoramites heaped upon their poor, meanly dressed neighbors.

That analogy only works if it is well to do church members looking down on the impoverished ones.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

What other things would account for the fact that when you bring up the record baptism, and retention rates that, they default back to, "BUT LOOK HOW BAD THINGS ARE IN AMERICA AND EUROPE!!!" ??

Wanting to believe the church is doomed.

Also I wouldn’t throw out the racism card. I mean if they ask why it took the Church so long to get started in Africa it becomes kind of silly to gloat over the Church’s supposed relative lack of racism.

[bluebell]

19 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

What other things would account for the fact that when you bring up the record baptism, and retention rates that, they default back to, "BUT LOOK HOW BAD THINGS ARE IN AMERICA AND EUROPE!!!" ??

I think it's way more likely to be a result of people focusing on the data that supports their beliefs rather than a sign of racism.  We all do it, where we ignore the stuff that says we are wrong and really latch on to the stuff that says we are right. 

White European activity can sometimes support the idea that the church is in a free fall so that is what the people who want the church to be in a free fall are going to march out in discussions on the subject.  They are going to pretend the other data doesn't exist if they can get away with it because it doesn't match the narrative they are presenting.

(Members do the same thing, it's not an ex or anti-mormon problem.  It's a human problem.)

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think it's way more likely to be a result of people focusing on the data that supports their beliefs rather than a sign of racism.  We all do it, where we ignore the stuff that says we are wrong and really latch on to the stuff that says we are right. 

White European activity can sometimes support the idea that the church is in a free fall so that is what the people who want the church to be in a free fall are going to march out in discussions on the subject.  They are going to pretend the other data doesn't exist if they can get away with it because it doesn't match the narrative they are presenting.

(Members do the same thing, it's not an ex or anti-mormon problem.  It's a human problem.)

I don't think most people do this purposely.  I think your first paragraph works with that. The second sounds like it is more done on purpose.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

I don't think most people do this purposely.  I think your first paragraph works with that. The second sounds like it is more done on purpose.

After they have been corrected and they ignore the correction- does it then become on purpose?

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

After they have been corrected and they ignore the correction- does it then become on purpose?

The mind is an odd, twisty thing.  Gut reaction wise, I would say definitely yes everytime and probably be rather indignant about it, but unfortunately I have seen evidence that people can unintentionally block out or misunderstand or most likely misremember what seems clear to me and that includes corrections.  I assume being human I am doing the same kind of misinterpretations, etc.

I base my judgment about intentional ignoring on behaviour (do they disappear as soon as a correction is made, is there any recognition of a correction at all, if they can explain their reasoning of why they didn’t include the correction without downvaluing it, etc), but generally the more opportunities to encounter corrected info and the simpler the correction, the more likely I judge it as intentional.

Edited January 6 by Calm

[california boy]

On 1/5/2026 at 2:00 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

What other things would account for the fact that when you bring up the record baptism, and retention rates that, they default back to, "BUT LOOK HOW BAD THINGS ARE IN AMERICA AND EUROPE!!!" ??

The difference between Africa and America/Europe is not just skin color, it is also about wealth.  The Church has always done better in the more poor parts of the world.  In my own mission, there were zones that were in wealth areas of the country and zones that were in the more poor areas of the same country.  The poor areas ALWAYS outperformed the richer areas. It had nothing to do with race. It was not even close.  Richer areas would get one or two baptisms in a month and the more impoverished area would get 50 or 60.

This really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.  The Church has kind burned its way through the more impoverished areas of much of the world,  converts are a fraction of what they once were and retention is in the toilet.  Africa is the new South America if you will, along with any other more impoverished areas of every mission.  Hitting new impoverished areas for the first time is much liike South America was a generation ago.  It would be no surprise to find a similar result in Africa a generation from now.  People who are impoverished have always been grasping for hope when someone paints a picture of a more stable life.  Often the Church HAS provided more stability.  But that stability comes with a price like tithing demands and excessive amount of time doing Church service.  It seems it works for a while until it doesn't for a lot of converts no matter where in the world they are at.

What is ironic about your racism card, is the reason Africa has not had missionary success a generation ago WAS racist policies of the Church.

[ZealouslyStriving]

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

The difference between Africa and America/Europe is not just skin color, it is also about wealth.  The Church has always done better in the more poor parts of the world.  In my own mission, there were zones that were in wealth areas of the country and zones that were in the more poor areas of the same country.  The poor areas ALWAYS outperformed the richer areas. It had nothing to do with race. It was not even close.  Richer areas would get one or two baptisms in a month and the more impoverished area would get 50 or 60.

This really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.  The Church has kind burned its way through the more impoverished areas of much of the world,  converts are a fraction of what they once were and retention is in the toilet.  Africa is the new South America if you will, along with any other more impoverished areas of every mission.  Hitting new impoverished areas for the first time is much liike South America was a generation ago.  It would be no surprise to find a similar result in Africa a generation from now.  People who are impoverished have always been grasping for hope when someone paints a picture of a more stable life.  Often the Church HAS provided more stability.  But that stability comes with a price like tithing demands and excessive amount of time doing Church service.  It seems it works for a while until it doesn't for a lot of converts no matter where in the world they are at.

What is ironic about your racism card, is the reason Africa has not had missionary success a generation ago WAS racist policies of the Church.

You honestly have no idea how condescending your second paragraph is- do you?

🤦🏻‍♂️

[california boy]

49 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You honestly have no idea how condescending your second paragraph is- do you?

🤦🏻‍♂️

Oh really?  You don't think the church has always had more missionary success amongst the more impoverished?  How many on this board saw a similar success/failure rate regardless of skin color between the more well off and the impoverished that I did?

you want to make it about racism, it is not. There are other factors that can’t be easily dismissed 

Edited January 7 by california boy

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

I don't think most people do this purposely.  I think your first paragraph works with that. The second sounds like it is more done on purpose.

If you mean people who ignore the arguments that they don't agree with and so don't actually know the evidence contrary to their interpretation, then I agree.  While it could still be seen as deliberate to choose to be ignorant of the reasons people disagree with you, most of the time I think people do it without giving it much thought, just assuming they are right so the other evidence has to be suspect and not worth bringing up. 

But I do think there are many people who know the different interpretations or contrary evidence but because they don't want to deal with it (for whatever reason) purposefully choose not to bring it up.

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh really?  You don't think the church has always had more missionary success amongst the more impoverished?  How many on this board saw a similar success/failure rate regardless of skin color between the more well off and the impoverished that I did?

you want to make it about racism, it is not. There are other factors that can’t be easily dismissed 

Of course they have, but the reasons you presume for that success are condescending.

I know you will fail to see why, even if I explain- so I will just back away now and let you do you.