Why Do Mormons Leave?

[Rivers]

http://whymormonsleave.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/WhyTheyLeave_30Jan2012v4.pdf

[Rivers]

Oh darn. Somebody did beat me to it. You can remove this thread moderator.

[Ares]

Darn. I zapped the wrong thread into oblivion. Sorry boardizens.

Please use this one.

[KevinG]

Oh my gosh! Ares isn't infallible!!!

[Calm]

Whoops!

Thanks for the laugh, Ares.

And now Rivers, you get to pretend everything here is quite original....no one will be able to prove otherwise.

[Mike Reed]

I am glad John did this study, and I look forward to learning more about the process and methodology used. For example, I want to know whether the order of questions changed from person to person; and if not, whether the list of concerns may have become top-heavy in consequence to this.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Mike Reed

[DH]

Oh my gosh! Ares isn't infallible!!!

No, that would be Yahweh.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Interesting. I would not have thought that "historical issues" as being very high. Oh well.

[TAO]

Interesting. I would not have thought that "historical issues" as being very high. Oh well.

Mola, the survey was self-selecting (links were posted on various sites), so it doesn't portray ex-Mormons. It portrays concerned ex-Mormons on the Internet, I believe.

See here:

As the survey sample was not random, the Open Stories Foundation makes no claim of

representativeness or statistical significance in the sample. This survey is representative of the

respondents only, although we feel that many points of this analysis are indicative of the

experiences of many people in the Church who pass through a crisis of faith.

Edited February 8, 2012 by TAO

[Calm]

Interesting. I would not have thought that "historical issues" as being very high. Oh well.

Given the survey sampling technique, I am not surprised:

A link to the survey was posted on several sites associated with the “Bloggernacle”, or LDS- themed blogs, as well as through social media.

Plus answers were self-reported. I have not looked at it closely enough to see if the survey attempted to measure honest reporting or not (there is a technical name for this, but I am too out of it to remember right now, but reporting oneself as better than one actually is on self-reporting tests has been a concern for psychologists and others since they began doing them****).

*****As a side note, different measures for testing reliability of self-reports are needed for LDS on some tests because we actually do pray every day and attend church every week to a high degree, these have typically been questions used to test whether or not the respondent was trying to look good or not.

Edited February 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[selek1]

Interesting. I would not have thought that "historical issues" as being very high. Oh well.

As Reed has pointed out, the we'll need to review the methodology before we can assess how reliable this poll was.

The self-selecting nature of the sample does not bode well.

Edited February 8, 2012 by selek1

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As Reed has pointed out, the we'll need to review the methodology before we can assess how reliable this poll was.

The self-selecting nature of the sample does not bode well.

Oh, I see, yeah that makes sense.

[Calm]

Just to be clear, I am not saying that respondents may have lied when they reported they left for history reasons if they really left for other reasons (and I am not saying that those who reported they left for those reasons, left for other reasons, just that as far as I know the survey does not try to test the accuracy of such statements and so is problematic). They may perceive that this is the case when it is not. That--inaccurate perceptions--is one of the problems with self-reporting tests that have to be dealt with by those constructing tests to measure internal states and beliefs, outright lying of course is another, telling the difference between the two yet another.

Edited February 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

The answer to the question posted is, they leave because they want to.

Edited February 9, 2012 by ERayR

[Mike Reed]

As Reed has pointed out, the we'll need to review the methodology before we can assess how reliable this poll was.

The self-selecting nature of the sample does not bode well.

It certainly wouldn't seem ideal. On the other hand, I suppose the method has advantages: It makes an easy way to gather a lot of information in a short amount of time.

I'm glad John did this research. Even if this the methodology isn't perfect (I am not sure any survey is), at least we have something. These results might even be useful to provide a comparative analysis with another survey, using the same questions but choosing another pool to gather data. Internet vs Chapel Mormon anyone?

In all seriousness... it seems to me that research "on the ground" would be difficult if not impossible to do. How would a bishop react if John got his hands on a ward phone list, and started calling people for interviews? What if he were to try to interview members on temple square, or even BYU's campus? I imagine bishops instructing their wards not to cooperate, and then what could John do? If he persisted (and risked getting in trouble with the Church), the only ones he could reach are those that didn't receive the bishop's instructions (inactives?) or those who heard the instructions but were disobedient. John would again have skewed results.

So I guess my question is this: If the method is flawed because it is self-selecting, what better and realistic option could John Dehlin have taken? Is there a better and realistic way that would not have been self-selecting? I'm trying to think of a way, but I can't at the moment. I hope some folks here can think of some better ways, rather than just point out flaws. It could help scholars do better research in the future.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Mike Reed

[KevinG]

The answer to the question is obviously: "Because after three hours even Mormons are ready to go home."

[jskains]

Doesn't seem like a valuable survey. We don't know if 1000 of the responses were from the same guy who was really bored.

JMS

[why me]

http://whymormonslea...30Jan2012v4.pdf

I think that quite a few mormons leave because of what they read on the internet about church history with all that that entails. However, I don't think that many give it a careful reading or a critical reading. The critics have a way of interpreting lds history that is quite convincing for many members. And this has an effect. And in some way, the lds church has not responded to the critics with their own interpetation of these historical controversies. And this creates a problem for members.

When the lds church comes out with a comprehensive interpretation of their past history and embrace the controversies with their own interpretations, many will not leave the fold over history. And many will not have given what the critics have written some critical thought. It is shock and awe experience and that is what the critics intend.

Edited February 9, 2012 by why me

[Rivers]

Interesting. I would not have thought that "historical issues" as being very high. Oh well.

Its not just the historical issues. It is the feeling of betrayal of not being told about the issues.

[KevinG]

Its not just the historical issues. It is the feeling of betrayal of not being told about the issues.

I'm sure there are a few Mormon families in every ward that refuse to talk about anything controversial, cut off their children from the internet and home school them so their children never find out about "the issues". I know one of them in our Stake. Their oldest children leave the church and home as soon as they turn 18. The Baptists around here have those families too.

This is not the doctrine and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a serious family dysfunction and unrighteous dominion that lies in strict opposition to our doctrines.

[selek1]

Its not just the historical issues. It is the feeling of betrayal of not being told about the issues.

This excuse is used so often on these boards as to descend into parody.

Let me settle it for you, once and for all:

Offical Declaration-3

On behalf of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all faithful Mormons (living and dead), and on behalf of three generations of competent, qualified, Church educators:

I officially and formally apologize for failing to strap you into a chair, open your head like an empty soup can, and pour in the cumulative and speculative knowledge of the last two hundred years despite it nominal use and dubious relevance.

This failing was caused largely by the fact that you were too lazy, indolent, or indifferent to acuire such knowledge yourself.

Respectfully,

Me

Despite how often the "but nobody told me" whinge is brought up, the faithful can invariably point to the fact that each of the "problematic issues" has been discussed publically (and most often, recently), and is readily available to anyone smart enough to use either Google or an old-fashioned card catalog.

"Nobody told me" is an excuse, and a rationalization.

It is an attempt to shift the blame.

It is not a reason.

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

We have prepared the banquet.

We have set a place at the table.

We have made it known that all are welcome.

If somebody is too indifferent, lazy, or indolent to drag himself to the table and lift a fork to his mouth, it's not our fault if he goes hungry.

Edited February 9, 2012 by selek1

[Darth_Bill]

I agree that things are more public, but it is only recently that LDS are facing some of these things. RSR by Bushman was a wonderful book, and deals with some very controvercial things. I can see someone leaving because they just didn't know BEFORE they read certain histories. While some may build excuses, is it not honest if someone finds elements of history that they didn't know BEFORE, and they leave because they just can't agree or whatnot? What about people who leave that don't blame others in not informing them, but once informed, leave? Some might leave because the crush of all the apologetics needed to believe becomes too much (and that is what we do here). Others might not be crushed by it and can't understand why someone would be disturbed.

Heck, I can't justify the atonement so what JS did is kind of immaterial to me, and there is some disagreable stuff out there.

[KevinG]

As a youthful convert in the late 1980s without internet, cell phones or the confines of Utah I managed to learn about polygamy, priesthood restrictions and history from Mormons themselves. The stuff I got from countercult ministries in pamphlets shared by friends and "missionaries" at the Navuoo pageant was even more informative.

It is still hard to fathom how someone who was raised in the Church, in Utah, in the sixth generation from Brigam and Joseph - could possibly be so ignorant about our "historical issues" as to be shocked by them.

If anything the ability of volunteer LDS to find and answer these charges, stories and ministrations of full time preachers and apostates (ala Ed Decker) has gotten better with easy access to information over the internet.

This excuse should fade with time as information gets shared on line. It SHOULD but I'm not holding my breath.

[Senator]

This excuse is used so often on these boards as to descend into parody.

Let me settle it for you, once and for all:

Offical Declaration-3

On behalf of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all faithful Mormons (living and dead), and on behalf of three generations of competent, qualified, Church educators:

I officially and formally apologize for failing to strap you into a chair, open your head like an empty soup can, and pour in the cumulative and speculative knowledge of the last two hundred years despite it nominal use and dubious relevance.

This failing was caused largely by the fact that you were too lazy, indolent, or indifferent to acuire such knowledge yourself.

Respectfully,

Me

Despite how often the "but nobody told me" whinge is brought up, the faithful can invariably point to the fact that each of the "problematic issues" has been discussed publically (and most often, recently), and is readily available to anyone smart enough to use either Google or an old-fashioned card catalog.

"Nobody told me" is an excuse, and a rationalization.

It is an attempt to shift the blame.

It is not a reason.

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

We have prepared the banquet.

We have set a place at the table.

We have made it known that all are welcome.

If somebody is too indifferent, lazy, or indolent to drag himself to the table and lift a fork to his mouth, it's not our fault if he goes hungry.

I find your broad characterization of such individuals to be utter bilge (to borrow another's term).

There are individuals like myself, that were simply following council of the church to not entertain critical (anti) material. In fact I was instructed to treat such material as I would pornography.

You can call me lazy or indolent if it makes you feel better.

I know I was simply being obedient.

[KevinG]

I tell my children not to entertain pornography but they aren't kept so in the dark that they don't know what it is or why it is considered harmful.

The protestations of "I was not aware" still ring hollow.

It is a great shame that your parents failed to discuss the actual issues, critics and motivations with you instead of trying to insulate you from them.

This is exactly what I mean by a family dysfunction and not the way we should be LDS parents.

Edited February 9, 2012 by DaddyG