Retention - Why Do So Many Latter-day Saints Go Inactive,

[Dale]

PosterMania-I still had many LDS beliefs. I stayed out of loyalty. I still have things in common with LDS. I am a convert to the Community of Christ/RLDS so I retain my Book of Mormon belief. I had hoped maybe the LDS Church would work out for me if I could work myself into adjusting. The big thing is my folks are devout LDS, so I knew by leaving I would risk family oposition.

I did not want to get personal about my sins with my LDS Bishop. I had home teachers, and they had I felt made several unwelcome visits. I am glad they took my no contact request seriously, and stopped the visits. I had one LDS friend, but other than that no friends in the LDS church. My friendship with typical people on the internet was closer than ties to people I had at church. I got handshakes & smiles at church, but nobody I felt close to at any time I can think of, but the one friend. The only exception to persons I felt close to would be family.

I was concerned that if I accepted contact that persons would act as spies for the Bishop. The Home Teachers when I requested no contact threatened me with excommunication. So that bad experience with home teachers caused me to not be to interested in new ones being assigned to me anyway.

The last time I tried to get active I was in the early stages of coming down with Multiple Sclerosis. One of the classes was in a building outside, and it was bothering me to get around. My difficulty in getting around caused me to stay home. I did not know my MS symptoms were starting to get visible. I wasn't diagnosed until a few years later. I have a bad right leg anyway so assumed that was it.

--------------

Uncle Dale & I are two different people. We get confused as being the same person from time to time.

[Irondukesteve]

A missionary prep class I attended taught that there were three 'conversions' important to long-term participation in the Church. Those three were listed as Social, Intellectual, and most importantly, Spiritual conversions.

I have 2 of the 3 there. Who here has an intellectual testimony? Who here rationally believes in the translation out of a hat with seer stones? How have you resolved this intellectually, not spiritually?

3 main reasons for inactivity:

1) Social breakdowns (Social Testimony)

2) Cannot/ or do not want to live the laws (Spiritual Testimony)

3) Problems with Doctrine (Intellectual Testimony)

[cougarfan]

I totally agree. Instead of "raising the bar" for missionaries, they should have raised it for converts. Or both.

Don't you think it is arrogant for you to impose restraints on those who wish to follow Christ. Don't you think that having the gift of the HG might increase the new member's chance of making six months? Would you deny the blessings of HT to those who need the Lords ministers?

[Not quite me]

Don't you think it is arrogant for you to impose restraints on those who wish to follow Christ. Don't you think that having the gift of the HG might increase the new member's chance of making six months? Would you deny the blessings of HT to those who need the Lords ministers?

In my mission, we might have benefited from some restraint. 300+ baptisms a month, and intense pressure to keep up with the others led to some abuse

[mocnarf]

The reasons are analogous to why so many baptists, catholics, lutherans etc are "inactive".

You'd be surprised at the "activity" rate of basically all religions. Basically the world gets in the way. Go to the movie theater on Sunday, or the Golf Course, or the Mall, or anywhere except Church. Guess where you will find the majority of people?

Hint: It ain't church

There are some areas of the world where the religious attendence rates are much higher.

i.e. Saudia Arabia

Of coarse non-attendance can be punishable...

.

I wonder what the attendence rates for muslems are in the USA. And also what their

rates for members leaving the faith. I suspect it is much less than for Christian faiths.

[Hammer]

This would be true of all churches and their members

Yes except the True church gives opportunity for greater finds and more of them.

[Cumorah3]

Since before I was a missionary I've heard members say we shouldn't baptize people so fast, or that someone got baptized for the "wrong reason", or didn't know enough. I don't seem to recall Mormon, Paul or even Joseph Smith ever talking about how we need to slow down the pace at which the gospel needs to be spread though out the world.

David Stewart would disagree with your apparent approval of quick baptisms:

"I have never known of anything good to come of converts being rushed to baptism. Indeed, while rushing baptisms may result in quick, temporary increases in statistics, it also ignites a long-burning fuse that results in serious member problems, or even in the eventual collapse of local branches."

I think Moroni might disagree with you:

"Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it. Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins. And none were received unto baptism save they took upon them the name of Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end." Moroni 6:1-3

Some other churches that have a much higher retention rate than does the LDS Church would disagree with you:

Jehovah's Witnesses would never consider rushing an individual to baptism in two weeks or less: individuals must first prove their dedication to Jehovah and worthiness to serve as his spokesman. As a result, they achieve 80+% long-term retention, compared to an average 25-30% worldwide LDS retention rate. Isn't that what Moroni 6:1-3 is all about? Missionaries have nothing to fear and a great deal to gain by being fully frank with potential converts about expectations and challenges and insisting that fundamental gospel habits, including daily reading in the Book of Mormon, weekly church attendance, and Sabbath Day observance, be firmly established well prior to baptism.

Here's a link to one of David Stewart's comprehensive surveys, this one titled: "The World's Best Non-LDS Missionary Programs":

http://www.cumorah.com/bestprograms.htm

Note the last item about success using the internet instead of building more and more physical structures. Could we learn from this?

David Yonggi Cho, pastor of the largest church in the world -- the 750,000-member Pentecostal Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, South Korea -- uses the internet extensively in outreach. Cho states:

"We couldn't handle the situation without computers. We computerized everything in the church - every facet! We also make use of the Internet. Right now we are offering an Internet church where people participate in services through the Internet. I want to take people to the Internet. Korea is very small - not like in America with a lot of space, so we can't enlarge our church buildings. Besides, every year we have 20,000 new converts in our churches, and we can't put them all in our church building or even our branch churches. So now we have an Internet church and many of the young generation participate in the services at home...Without the Internet we will fall far behind the wall. Many (in the) young generation won't come to church because of traffic and a lack of spaces in church. But now we have an Internet broadcasting system with a fantastic program to attract them, and they can stay home. I say to the young people - don't come to church - just stay home and get your teaching through the Internet. And they also give us feedback about sermons and services...It is silly to build larger and larger church buildings. It is silly to spend more money on (branch church) buildings! You'll never have enough. I really believe this, and I have already announced to my people and ministers that the next step is to go into total cyberspace ministry because it is a real waste of money to build a larger buildings...We need both ministries together - a strong young church and a very powerful Internet service. I can make contact with you from Korea via the Internet, reaching you anywhere in the world. There are many American-Koreans participating through our church's ministry on the Internet. Through the Internet we can have worldwide fellowship and worldwide services!"

Cho reports that over 3000 individuals recently attended a ministry outreach in one Middle Eastern nation that they had learned about on the internet!

[hagoth7]

I have 2 of the 3 there. Who here has an intellectual testimony? Who here rationally believes in the translation out of a hat with seer stones? How have you resolved this intellectually, not spiritually?

3 main reasons for inactivity:

1) Social breakdowns (Social Testimony)

2) Cannot/ or do not want to live the laws (Spiritual Testimony)

3) Problems with Doctrine (Intellectual Testimony)

Iron,

I know (spiritually) that the Book of Mormon is from God. That is confirmed almost every day I read it. Because of that, I accept (both intellectually and spiritually) that its translation was through means beyond our understanding. Intellectually, I appreciate that a thumbprint signature can unlock all the information in a laptop PC or a PDA, even though I don't understand all the workings behind that. Same goes for translation methods. So intellectually, the minute details of how that translation took place doesn't cause any serious cognitive dissonance. Whether a top hat or a Canadian touk (or no hat at all) was involved is of less import. Am I mildly interested about such details? Sure in an antiquarian/passive way. Deeply concerned about it? No.

However, that's from my current perspective. I can *fully* appreciate how translation methods form a question of entire different sort for those who are rowing with only an intellectual testimony, and/or who are struggling with social breakdowns. I've been there.

[Not quite me]

Iron,

I know (spiritually) that the Book of Mormon is from God. That is confirmed almost every day I read it. Because of that, I accept (both intellectually and spiritually) that its translation was through means beyond our understanding. Intellectually, I appreciate that a thumbprint signature can unlock all the information in a laptop PC or a PDA, even though I don't understand all the workings behind that. Same goes for translation methods. So intellectually, the minute details of how that translation took place doesn't cause any serious cognitive dissonance. Whether a top hat or a Canadian touk (or no hat at all) was involved is of less import. Am I mildly interested about such details? Sure in an antiquarian/passive way. Deeply concerned about it? No.

However, that's from my current perspective. I can *fully* appreciate how translation methods form a question of entire different sort for those who are rowing with only an intellectual testimony, and/or who are struggling with social breakdowns. I've been there.

Maybe I was working on both a spiritual and an intellectual testimony. Once the intellectual testimony, I was free to question the validity of the spiritual testimony. Just thinking out loud.

[hagoth7]

Maybe I was working on both a spiritual and an intellectual testimony. Once the intellectual testimony, I was free to question the validity of the spiritual testimony. Just thinking out loud.

Not,

I'm not fully following. Can you explain a bit further?

[Not quite me]

Not,

I'm not fully following. Can you explain a bit further?

Well, it would help if I was speaking in complete sentences. I just mean that once I couldn't make Mormonism work intellectually, then I was free to question the validity of the spiritual testimony.

[hagoth7]

Well, it would help if I was speaking in complete sentences. I just mean that once I couldn't make Mormonism work intellectually, then I was free to question the validity of the spiritual testimony.

Understood. Been there. If I may ask, what brought you to the edge with the intellectual gap? A social disconnect? Cognitive dissonance on a specific intellectual issue? Other?

[Not quite me]

Understood. Been there. If I may ask, what brought you to the edge with the intellectual gap? A social disconnect? Cognitive dissonance on a specific intellectual issue? Other?

It was just the accumulated volume of stuff I had to put on the shelf to make it all work. I just couldn't do it anymore.

[hagoth7]

It was just the accumulated volume of stuff I had to put on the shelf to make it all work. I just couldn't do it anymore.

Understood.

Do you suspect there may come a time when you might want or wish that it could work?

BTW, thank you for being so frank.

[simply_disappear]

I think we ought to concentrate on retention, not as a matter of keeping numbers off the rolls, as delayng baptism would do, but as supporting those who do join, and trying to keep them. The Savior didn't say not to sow the seed, except it you knew it was good ground.

[Church Mouse]

Don't get me wrong. I certainly think we all need to do what we truly can do to magnify our callings...all the while not forgetting to extend our hand of brother/sisterhood to our newest brethren and sisters.

Here are some common failings which, as a Ward Mission Leader, I often observed. These comments are directed toward retaining new converts, not so much retaining children of record or adult inactives:

* Full-time missionaries failing to involve bishops and auxiliaries.

* Stake and ward leadership which did not make new member retention a priority.

* Unfriendly wards. Oh, they're friendly enough after they've seen you a few times, but people are naturally reluctant to invest time in someone they think they won't ever see again.

Often, a new ward would only make retention a priority after there was a problem where a new member didn't come to church for several months.

As far as I can tell from talking to some of the teenagers in my neighborhood, the church is going the opposite direction from a good chance for retention of member families, as well. By reducing auxiliary activities to boring snooze-fests, enforcing Sunday dress standards at dances, telling kids to stay off the Internet rather than leveraging it for their benefit, and enforcing fund-raising standards which preclude raising funds for anything fun, they're kind of shooting themselves in the foot and disenfranchising the young.

The local ward is shooting 5 for 30 on kids staying active after they graduate. I don't care if they're Mormon or not, but I do care that kids in my neighborhood are happy and productively occupied, and a lot of them are neither.

[why me]

Don't get me wrong. I certainly think we all need to do what we truly can do to magnify our callings...all the while not forgetting to extend our hand of brother/sisterhood to our newest brethren and sisters. I'm just trying to put a few ideas out there.

This whole concept of 'magnifying callings' should be dropped from the lds mindset. It brings nothing but hardship to some people who can not separate church from life. Once this concept is dropped, people will begin to put people before the program into their daily lives. We live in a different world today...filled with stress and anxiety...and the best way to combat this is to concentrate on fellowship and to demagnify callings. Then, we will be on the road to retention.

It is all about people and not about the program. We need to magnify people into our consciousness and into our church life.

As far as I can tell from talking to some of the teenagers in my neighborhood, the church is going the opposite direction from a good chance for retention of member families, as well. By reducing auxiliary activities to boring snooze-fests, enforcing Sunday dress standards at dances, telling kids to stay off the Internet rather than leveraging it for their benefit, and enforcing fund-raising standards which preclude raising funds for anything fun, they're kind of shooting themselves in the foot and disenfranchising the young.

The lds need to concentrate on magnifying people and not the callings. Church fellowship needs to be people centered and not program centered. And yes, the gospel should be about fun...fun as a family, fun as a single person and fun as a human being. I agree with Church mouse on this one. The wards or branches should be engaged in people enfranchment and not people disenfranchment.

I say here, here for church mouse, even though mouse is a fan of the exmo foundation.

[Not quite me]

Understood.

Do you suspect there may come a time when you might want or wish that it could work?

BTW, thank you for being so frank.

For the longest time I really wanted it to work, but it doesn't, and I'm not going to reconstruct that big shelf just to make it so again.

[Not quite me]

This whole concept of 'magnifying callings' should be dropped from the lds mindset. It brings nothing but hardship to some people who can not separate church from life. Once this concept is dropped, people will begin to put people before the program into their daily lives. We live in a different world today...filled with stress and anxiety...and the best way to combat this is to concentrate on fellowship and to demagnify callings. Then, we will be on the road to retention.

It is all about people and not about the program. We need to magnify people into our consciousness and into our church life.

The lds need to concentrate on magnifying people and not the callings. Church fellowship needs to be people centered and not program centered. And yes, the gospel should be about fun...fun as a family, fun as a single person and fun as a human being. I agree with Church mouse on this one. The wards or branches should be engaged in people enfranchment and not people disenfranchment.

I say here, here for church mouse, even though mouse is a fan of the exmo foundation.

I wish that were possible, but is engrained in the culture and espoused in the scriptures, so it will never go away. The church has always focused on programs, on growth and income if you will, rather than people, in my opinion. I know that sounds harsh, but in every calling I've ever had, every ward council or PEC I've been in, the focus has been on numbers, and people come into it when they are affecting numbers.

[Cumorah3]

"I have never known of anything good to come of converts being rushed to baptism. Indeed, while rushing baptisms may result in quick, temporary increases in statistics, it also ignites a long-burning fuse that results in serious member problems, or even in the eventual collapse of local branches."

Good discussions all, thank-you for being so open.

I provided a bit of extra meat in post #57.

Are there no comments at all on it?

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?s=&amp...mp;p=1208052646

[Not quite me]

Missionaries have nothing to fear and a great deal to gain by being fully frank with potential converts about expectations and challenges and insisting that fundamental gospel habits, including daily reading in the Book of Mormon, weekly church attendance, and Sabbath Day observance, be firmly established well prior to baptism.

I thought this was an interesting quote. I can't speak for all missions, but in my mission this was simply not the case. Missionaries were focused on getting numbers, as the monthly newsletter singled out the top baptizers and shamed the "zeros." Most missionaries figured that retention was the members' responsibility, as long as they were bringing in the numbers. They were baptizing people who couldn't answer the question, "Who was Joseph Smith?" let alone make decisions about commitments and callings.

[Cumorah3]

I thought this was an interesting quote. I can't speak for all missions, but in my mission this was simply not the case. Missionaries were focused on getting numbers, as the monthly newsletter singled out the top baptizers and shamed the "zeros." Most missionaries figured that retention was the members' responsibility, as long as they were bringing in the numbers. They were baptizing people who couldn't answer the question, "Who was Joseph Smith?" let alone make decisions about commitments and callings.

I think all too often that is or was the case.

Prior to leaving on my senior mission I visited with a couple who had previously served as mission president in the same mission I was going to. One of the first things he told me was the number of baptisms that had taken place while he was heading the mission, which was impressive.

That seems to be the measure of a successful mission, we ask our own returned sons and daughters how many people they baptized. (Though one of my sons never did tell me. He had served in a high baptizing mission and said he was cautioned just before he went home not to flaunt numbers.)

But, as Stewart says, quick baptisms can cause enormous problems when the missionaries drop them into the care and responsibility of overworked members. Sometimes for as long as decades local quorum presidents etc. agonize over the long list of inactives that they are powerless to do anything much about but feel they are a failure if they don't.

As a new senior missionary it took me a while to understand the experienced branch president's attitude about a large number of new baptisms just being "more mouths to feed."

Not very charitable, and he is a good man, but I did come to understand when I started trying to find and work with the inactives still on the records from previous year's abundant but apparently all to quick harvests...

Discussion?

[DanielMElliott]

Sorry I didn't read your other posts until this morning. Last night was FHE and my daughter's eighth birthday.

I served my mission in South America and I purposely didn't count how many I baptized because it didn't matter. What mattered is how I served. Some Elders get that some don't. Remember we are talking 19-21 year old young men. They aren't perfect but isn't it amazing what they're able to do. It would be even more amazing if we "all" helped some. Yes we're busy with our callings but I've noticed that in any given ward there are usually a core group that are involved in practically every activity, service project, missionary exchange, etc. If the whole ward was involved the results would be quite interesting.

On to post #57...

As far as retention rates I'll go with Rodney Starks quote from that SLT article "'They may be right,' he says. 'But again, if [Mormon growth] has slowed a little, it can always speed up again'"

Actually I'm in agreement with Moroni and, as I suggested, it's just as wrong to delay someoneâ??s baptism as it is to rush it. Putting arbitrary time limits (like six months) is wrong. Moroni spelt out the requirements for baptism in the verse you mentioned. (I paraphrased that verse in my earlier comment). Those requirements are simply "a broken heart", "contrite spirit", "repented of all their sins", "took upon them the name of Christ", and "having a determination to serve him to the end". Now least you think I forgot the very important phrase "they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it" The fruits will often vary dependent upon the individual. For instance someone who has a smoking addiction needs to show he can kick that addiction. More serious issues may need to go to a higher authority but those are all handled on an individual basis. Moroni also let us know what the first fruit was a little later in Moroni 8:25.

"And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins".

I take from that that the steps are faith, baptism, fulfilling the commandments, remission of sins. Time constraints, whether they be short or long don't appear to be part of the equation.

I know people like that 19 year old who were baptized in a few days and remain strong. I also know a woman who studied for over a year, compared the scriptures, talked to many people who were for and against, theologians as well as lay people. She was baptized and had a tremendous support structure. After about ten years she left the church, went anti and tried to drag her family down with her. She certainly seemed to fit the description of a perfect convert by the standard of many here.

Honestly it sure would be easier for "us members" if everyone who got baptized had studied for six months, showed complete obedience to every principle and were married, with 3 young kids, were very social, etc, etc. That way they would integrate seamlessly into our existing ward culture. But then there wouldn't be the opportunities for us and the miracles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ wouldn't be as obvious either.

Daniel

Now I have to get some work done. :-)

[cougarfan]

In my mission, we might have benefited from some restraint. 300+ baptisms a month, and intense pressure to keep up with the others led to some abuse

I think that if the guidelines are followed and the prospective member is properly interviewed, that it is always the right decision to baptize.

Unfortunately, I am aware that these guidelines are often short circuited, and that missionaries are often to inexperienced to properly interview. I think it is very important for Ward Mission Leaders and Bishops to give relevant feedback in these areas to the Mission President.

[dude]

This whole concept of 'magnifying callings' should be dropped from the lds mindset. It brings nothing but hardship to some people who can not separate church from life. Once this concept is dropped, people will begin to put people before the program into their daily lives. We live in a different world today...filled with stress and anxiety...and the best way to combat this is to concentrate on fellowship and to demagnify callings. Then, we will be on the road to retention.

I agree.

The pressue needs to be taken off people, then they will thrive because they want to, not because it's expected culturally and socially.

Our LDS culture tends to be all-or-nothing, and we need to drop that mentality.

Sacrament meeting needs to be emphasized as a place for everyone, both sick and healthy. Bishops need to spend 10-15 minutes EACH sacrament meeting with a sermonette before the sacrament, emphasizing it's purpose and why we ALL need it. Sacrament meeting HAS to become the place where the spiritually sick are FED. Where they will WANT to come without being judged (because they smell like smoke, or they are not dressed right, or who knows what else), and be fed by someone who can feed them. Turning every sacrament meeting over to the crapshoot of members speaking every week is a just that: a crapshoot. Bishops need to feed their congregation for 10-15 minutes EVERY week. The other two hours of meetings needs to be de-emphasized as necessary, reserved only for those who are flourishing. Gradually people will keep coming and change, and choose to stay for the remaing 2 hours and eventually want a calling.

The other two hours of meetings needs to be de-emphasized as necessary

More specifically this would be done by scheduling a 20 minute break immediately after sacrament meeting for fellowship and conversation. Shorten Sunday School. Please shorten the entire 3-hours to 2-hours. You wouldn't lose a thing. I think you'd gain attendance.