Losing Saints, Keeping Saints

[watermelongirl]

The loss of sisters in the gospel has been on my mind a lot of late. Being a science-minded sort of woman, I started looking for meaningful statistics to analyze our losses and their reasons, which we know are virtually nonexistent.

 

But by examining the general membership numbers (and doing some simple math) in the General Conference Statistics Reports, for 2012 and 2013 we can see the following:

 

The church's actual growth was 299,555 people in 2013.

282,945 of those were converts.

Presumably the rest of the growth is composed of children of record, which is listed at 115,486.

 

The discrepancy between the totals *should* be the number of records that were removed from the church.

 

So New Converts + Children of Record = Gross additions

 

Gross Additions in 2013 - Actual Growth = People Lost

 

According to my math, People lost from the record = 98,876.

 

Edited to add: as someone rightly pointed out, this includes deaths.

 

We don't have any good studies of why people are so upset as to have their names removed from the record, but it is different than simply going inactive. This would also include excommunications, which I'm assuming would comprise a very small percentage of that number.

 

The online survey from a couple of years ago (sponsored by John Dehlin?) cited women's issues as one of the reasons for leaving among 47% of 3000 survey respondents. For women specifically, the number was 63%. Who knows how reflective those percentages are of the 98,876, but it stands to reason that we can extrapolate that at least thousands, if not tens of thousands, of women are leaving the church because of women's issues.

 

As I've read through social media responses over the last week and many of the comments here, it seems like there is among many a readiness to dismiss those hurt by the church and ignore any possible need for self-examination on behalf of the church. I support church leadership in their callings and in their efforts to improve things that can be improved.  I would hate for recent events to give the LDS an excuse to vilify those who "ask questions" (We love that term by now, don't we?) or those who see injustices within the church.

 

If there is anything that I had hoped to hear from the First Presidency when they made their statement Saturday, it was a statement of love and "we hear you" for women that are hurting. It *felt* symbolic of a greater dismissal of the issues at hand. Otterson has said that the GAs care and are aware, but it was absent from that particular statement.

 

How seriously do we take the losses of the church? Do we just label them tares and we let them go?

 

Would it be possible to make the church's introspection a more transparent process? Do we have to keep up the appearance that all is well in Zion?

 

Does anyone know about "The Rescue" effort made by President Monson? I have only heard it vaguely referenced.

 

These things weigh heavy on my heart today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/statistical-report-2012?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/statistical-report-2013?lang=eng

Edited June 30, 2014 by watermelongirl

[eddie]

One thing to keep in mind from those ~98,000 is the number of people that died and are removed for that reason. 98,000 of 15,000,000 about .75% of the people. If 1/3 are people having names removed/excommunication than that is .35%-.40% of members in the church, or about 1 per ward per year on average.

This are obviously just rough estimates, but this is not as widespread as many make it out/want it to be.

[Storm Rider]

Let's change the topic and look at we feel about a response:

 

• Some people in today's world prefer to have a more open sexual life and the Church conflicts with this desire for change and they leave.
• Some leave the church because they no longer are interested in paying tithing.
• Some leave because they find the Word of Wisdom too restrictive and not in line with their social life.
• Some leave because they just don't believe in the big man upstairs; for them he is just a fairy tale.
• Some leave because the whole idea of faith in a God we cannot see today as fantasy.

How do we respond to these people?  People leave for a wide range of reasons, but for some reason we want to attach special concern to two topics:  gender and sexuality.  These have become the golden calves of our society.  Should we be more concerned that some individuals find an exit card with a feminist agenda rather than one of the many others?  

 

IT is possible that throughout time that God has only operated through cultural norms and that there is not really a moral standard.  As culture and society changes God is supposed to follow along and scratch our itch for our new found moral norms.  Of course, those that desire this may just be dead wrong.  That God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; that he expects of us the same things as he has from the beginning.   

[watermelongirl]

One thing to keep in mind from those ~98,000 is the number of people that died and are removed for that reason. 98,000 of 15,000,000 about .75% of the people. If 1/3 are people having names removed/excommunication than that is .35%-.40% of members in the church, or about 1 per ward per year on average.

This are obviously just rough estimates, but this is not as widespread as many make it out/want it to be.

 

One per ward each year is still too many.

[DJBrown]

The loss of sisters in the gospel has been on my mind a lot of late. Being a science-minded sort of woman, I started looking for meaningful statistics to analyze our losses and their reasons, which we know are virtually nonexistent.

 

But by examining the general membership numbers (and doing some simple math) in the General Conference Statistics Reports, for 2012 and 2013 we can see the following:

 

The church's actual growth was 299,555 people in 2013.

282,945 of those were converts.

Presumably the rest of the growth is composed of children of record, which is listed at 115,486.

 

The discrepancy between the totals *should* be the number of records that were removed from the church.

 

So New Converts + Children of Record = Gross additions

 

Gross Additions in 2013 - Actual Growth = People Lost

 

According to my math, People lost from the record = 98,876.

 

Edited to add: as someone rightly pointed out, this includes deaths.

 

We don't have any good studies of why people are so upset as to have their names removed from the record, but it is different than simply going inactive. This would also include excommunications, which I'm assuming would comprise a very small percentage of that number.

 

The online survey from a couple of years ago (sponsored by John Dehlin?) cited women's issues as one of the reasons for leaving among 47% of 3000 survey respondents. For women specifically, the number was 63%. Who knows how reflective those percentages are of the 98,876, but it stands to reason that we can extrapolate that at least thousands, if not tens of thousands, of women are leaving the church because of women's issues.

 

As I've read through social media responses over the last week and many of the comments here, it seems like there is among many a readiness to dismiss those hurt by the church and ignore any possible need for self-examination on behalf of the church. I support church leadership in their callings and in their efforts to improve things that can be improved.  I would hate for recent events to give the LDS an excuse to vilify those who "ask questions" (We love that term by now, don't we?) or those who see injustices within the church.

 

If there is anything that I had hoped to hear from the First Presidency when they made their statement Saturday, it was a statement of love and "we hear you" for women that are hurting. It *felt* symbolic of a greater dismissal of the issues at hand. Otterson has said that the GAs care and are aware, but it was absent from that particular statement.

 

How seriously do we take the losses of the church? Do we just label them tares and we let them go?

 

Would it be possible to make the church's introspection a more transparent process? Do we have to keep up the appearance that all is well in Zion?

 

Does anyone know about "The Rescue" effort made by President Monson? I have only heard it vaguely referenced.

 

These things weigh heavy on my heart today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/statistical-report-2012?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/statistical-report-2013?lang=eng

 

Two thoughts:

 

1.  I think it is significant and interesting that some people who have served missions and have grown up in the church are now leaving or threatening to leave the church as a result of the church's position on either same sex marriage or gender issues (or both).  My question is- what has changed?  Has the church become more conservative over time?  No- I don't think their position has changed on these issues.  So it must be the individuals who have changed.  President Monson has said that the church and society once had standards that were largely compatible but that there is a large chasm between the two and that gulf in getting wider.  I think it is important to recognize this reality as well as the importance of evaluating where we individually sit on that chasm.

 

2.  Issues are conflated in the minds of many who are thinking of leaving, I believe.  How the church treats individuals who struggle with certain challenges- like same sex attraction or gender frustrations- is one thing.  The doctrine of the church and policies are another thing altogether.  It is a no-brainer that we are to be understanding, loving, and empathetic with all people, including those who struggle with these issues.  It is altogether another issue of changing church doctrine and policy.  I think many people who are leaving want to claim that the church is discriminatory in how it treats people while in reality, it is simply the fact that the church does not change its doctrine to follow society mores.  

[stemelbow]

If one per ward per year is at all accurate in terms of people officially getting their names off the roles, this is pretty bad. There are most likely far more people leaving without bothering to take their names off the roles as well--a figure we simply don't have.

Interesting OP. I agree women's issues will remain a problem for the Church. The Church is not really budging much on OW, for instance. It seems to be missing the opportunity to stop and ask "are we at a place where we're happy with the role and positioning of women" instead ready to put up a defense. This is difficult because there remains women in the Church who feel misused and unappreciated (not to mention some men, but that's beside the point) and perhaps rightfully so, and many to most of them aren't agitating or supporting OW group.

I think there's plenty of room for improvement.

[DJBrown]

If one per ward per year is at all accurate in terms of people officially getting their names off the roles, this is pretty bad. There are most likely far more people leaving without bothering to take their names off the roles as well--a figure we simply don't have.

Interesting OP. I agree women's issues will remain a problem for the Church. The Church is not really budging much on OW, for instance. It seems to be missing the opportunity to stop and ask "are we at a place where we're happy with the role and positioning of women" instead ready to put up a defense. This is difficult because there remains women in the Church who feel misused and unappreciated (not to mention some men, but that's beside the point) and perhaps rightfully so, and many to most of them aren't agitating or supporting OW group.

I think there's plenty of room for improvement.

 

This may be offensive to some.  But I think our generation will look back at some point with embarrassment at our complacency and cries of victimhood when we compare our experiences with those who gave their lives or crossed the plains for the kingdom.  

[stemelbow]

Two thoughts:

 

1.  I think it is significant and interesting that some people who have served missions and have grown up in the church are now leaving or threatening to leave the church as a result of the church's position on either same sex marriage or gender issues (or both).  My question is- what has changed?  Has the church become more conservative over time?  No- I don't think their position has changed on these issues.  So it must be the individuals who have changed.  President Monson has said that the church and society once had standards that were largely compatible but that there is a large chasm between the two and that gulf in getting wider.  I think it is important to recognize this reality as well as the importance of evaluating where we individually sit on that chasm.

Depending on the ages of those who are leaving plenty has changed on both issues you mention. At one point women were not heard at GC. Now there are few. Untill just over a year ago women were not asked to pray in GC. But that has changed. Years and years ago the Church promoted many things about why same gender attraction and it seemed, tried to suggest that there was a cure. But that idea has changed in the Church. Things have changed, but for the better. What has changed for people who leave is in the people's leaving opinion, they have had their eyes opened. They understand better what's happening. They aren't kids anymore. They've read and learned. Questions have come and answers have either been lacking or non-existent.

 

2.  Issues are conflated in the minds of many who are thinking of leaving, I believe.  How the church treats individuals who struggle with certain challenges- like same sex attraction or gender frustrations- is one thing.  The doctrine of the church and policies are another thing altogether.  It is a no-brainer that we are to be understanding, loving, and empathetic with all people, including those who struggle with these issues.  It is altogether another issue of changing church doctrine and policy.  I think many people who are leaving want to claim that the church is discriminatory in how it treats people while in reality, it is simply the fact that the church does not change its doctrine to follow society mores.

But it appears the Church does change on such grounds. There was pressure on the Church against polygamy. The Church changed. There was pressure on the Church regarding the priesthood ban. It changed. It's happened.

[Senator]

 The Church is not really budging much on OW, for instance.

 

No the church has not budged in regards to OW in particular, which I feel it has a right not to.

 

However, the church has budged in relation to women's issues at large.

[watermelongirl]

How do we respond to these people?  People leave for a wide range of reasons, but for some reason we want to attach special concern to two topics:  gender and sexuality.  These have become the golden calves of our society.  Should we be more concerned that some individuals find an exit card with a feminist agenda rather than one of the many others?  

 

It is very troubling when anyone leaves, but I do have a special concern for those with women's issues, because my father and stepmother who have unofficially left the church cite those issues. I find women's roles in the church troubling. I have questions that remain unanswered. I love the church and love Christ. I find that we've acknowledged the problem by making a handful of small improvements, but it isn't much.

[stemelbow]

This may be offensive to some.  But I think our generation will look back at some point with embarrassment at our complacency and cries of victimhood when we compare our experiences with those who gave their lives or crossed the plains for the kingdom.

And some may look back in a way some LDS look back on polygamy or how the Church treated black people--embarrassed. Some may look at our day and realize how backwards we were regarding how we treat women. hard to imagine, I guess, when we think we're so right about something. But it's possible.

[Senator]

This may be offensive to some.  But I think our generation will look back at some point with embarrassment at our complacency and cries of victimhood when we compare our experiences with those who gave their lives or crossed the plains for the kingdom.  

 

Perhaps

 

Then again there may be some of our pioneer female ancestors looking down and saying, "You go girl!"

Edited June 30, 2014 by Senator

[Storm Rider]

It is very troubling when anyone leaves, but I do have a special concern for those with women's issues, because my father and stepmother who have unofficially left the church cite those issues. I find women's roles in the church troubling. I have questions that remain unanswered. I love the church and love Christ. I find that we've acknowledged the problem by making a handful of small improvements, but it isn't much.

 

It is troubling when anyone walks away, but walking away does not mean the the church should change for everyone in order to keep them.  Did you know that Community of Christ has changed in ways that you may prefer.  Women are ordained to the priesthood and they even have female apostles.  In fact, they have changed a great deal.  There are also a host of other churches that have adopted to the new moral standards of the day.  They have women priests, gay priests, practicing gay priests; it is far more liberal understanding of scripture and God.  There is no real need for humility, subservience to God's will, and any of these other strict, disciplined demands of narrow-minded churches like the Church of Jesus Christ.  

 

I wonder how often God has changed in order to keep his children close and or obedient to his laws?  Can you think of an example?  

[Carebear0411]

 

IT is possible that throughout time that God has only operated through cultural norms and that there is not really a moral standard.  As culture and society changes God is supposed to follow along and scratch our itch for our new found moral norms.  Of course, those that desire this may just be dead wrong.  That God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; that he expects of us the same things as he has from the beginning.   

Well said Storm. Change has always been a part of the Church throughout history. Sometimes it will be because of the lin-upon-line thing, sometimes because of readiness, and sometimes because the right person has to be put in place by the Lord. But as you say, change in the Church does not mean God is changable.  

[stemelbow]

It is troubling when anyone walks away, but walking away does not mean the the church should change for everyone in order to keep them.  Did you know that Community of Christ has changed in ways that you may prefer.  Women are ordained to the priesthood and they even have female apostles.  In fact, they have changed a great deal.  There are also a host of other churches that have adopted to the new moral standards of the day.  They have women priests, gay priests, practicing gay priests; it is far more liberal understanding of scripture and God.  There is no real need for humility, subservience to God's will, and any of these other strict, disciplined demands of narrow-minded churches like the Church of Jesus Christ.  

 

I wonder how often God has changed in order to keep his children close and or obedient to his laws?  Can you think of an example?

Well we're now letting black ladies go through the temple and allowing their husbands to hold the priesthood. Without that allowance we'd probably have chased away a few hundred thousand more. We also don't practice polygamy any longer. If polygamy was rampant in the Church we'd probably hovering around the 10,000 church members or something. Yes, the Church has changed and evolved in some cases, and thankfully so, due to outside pressure.

[Storm Rider]

Well we're now letting black ladies go through the temple and allowing their husbands to hold the priesthood. Without that allowance we'd probably have chased away a few hundred thousand more. We also don't practice polygamy any longer. If polygamy was rampant in the Church we'd probably hovering around the 10,000 church members or something. Yes, the Church has changed and evolved in some cases, and thankfully so, due to outside pressure.

 

I sort of thought you would go there, It is that knee-jerk response and catch all for all that conflicts with the desires of the carnal heart of man.  For me, I thought of the Jews wandering in the desert before being worthy to enter a holy land; the fact that God would rather destroy his children rather than allow them to continue to wallow in wantonness and disobedience.  

 

I was not discussing policies, but focusing on moral standards.  When did not say, "Heck no, kids.  Have sex with anyone or anything until your eyes fall out and forget about that old moral law."  Of course, maybe those ten commandments were only policies for a much more backward people within a culturally restrictive society.  

 

Nope, not going to get into the policies change argument.  Those who want to play that card for everything that now want that conflicts with the laws and teachings of God are not really serious about discipleship.  They are interested in the dictates of their own heart.  That is not what the Church of Jesus Christ; if someone wants one of those churches there are number of them to choose from. However, in going to them there is a cost, which may be acceptable for some. 

[eddie]

One per ward each year is still too many.

I am much more concerned about the 60-70% inactivity level churchwide than one person that through their own free will decides to leave.

The plan of agency was the one accepted in the very beginning and we should not seek to take that away from those who makes their own conscious choice to leave. They will always be welcome back if they are worthy.

[Senator]

 

 

 Those who want to play that card for everything that now want that conflicts with the laws and teachings of God are not really serious about discipleship. . 

 

....and there goes the no true Scotsman card.

[stemelbow]

I sort of thought you would go there, It is that knee-jerk response and catch all for all that conflicts with the desires of the carnal heart of man.  For me, I thought of the Jews wandering in the desert before being worthy to enter a holy land; the fact that God would rather destroy his children rather than allow them to continue to wallow in wantonness and disobedience.  

 

I was not discussing policies, but focusing on moral standards.  When did not say, "Heck no, kids.  Have sex with anyone or anything until your eyes fall out and forget about that old moral law."  Of course, maybe those ten commandments were only policies for a much more backward people within a culturally restrictive society.  

 

Nope, not going to get into the policies change argument.  Those who want to play that card for everything that now want that conflicts with the laws and teachings of God are not really serious about discipleship.  They are interested in the dictates of their own heart.  That is not what the Church of Jesus Christ; if someone wants one of those churches there are number of them to choose from. However, in going to them there is a cost, which may be acceptable for some.

Wow now you know what's in my heart too?

I am not talking about policy change. For instance, black not getting the priesthood was supposedly based on the doctrinal teaching that blacks were less valiant in heaven and have come to earth cursed. That has since been repudiated by the Church officially. Thus, at one point and time a leader of the Church claimed it was revelation from God that blacks were less valiant in heaven and were cursed. Here you complain God cannot change. Well duh. He didn't. We did. Thus, we no longer run around claiming we know by revelation that blacks are cursed and were less valiant. If we do, then we'd be sent packing from the Church as fast as Kate Kelly was.

I think you've overlooked the obvious. Why? I can't say.

Edited June 30, 2014 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

I am much more concerned about the 60-70% inactivity level churchwide than one person that through their own free will decides to leave.

Uh...it might be wise to consider that of the 60-70% inactivity many through their own free will have decided to not go back because of things like women's issues. If you're concerned about that big number, keep in mind, they are composed of, at least in part, people who have decided to leave.

[DJBrown]

Depending on the ages of those who are leaving plenty has changed on both issues you mention. At one point women were not heard at GC. Now there are few. Untill just over a year ago women were not asked to pray in GC. But that has changed. Years and years ago the Church promoted many things about why same gender attraction and it seemed, tried to suggest that there was a cure. But that idea has changed in the Church. Things have changed, but for the better. What has changed for people who leave is in the people's leaving opinion, they have had their eyes opened. They understand better what's happening. They aren't kids anymore. They've read and learned. Questions have come and answers have either been lacking or non-existent.

 

But it appears the Church does change on such grounds. There was pressure on the Church against polygamy. The Church changed. There was pressure on the Church regarding the priesthood ban. It changed. It's happened.

 

Can you think of any examples of people who were justified by God in going against the prophets?  Ever?

 

Nothing changes.  Every generation includes people who are convinced that they know more than the Lord's anointed.  

 

I disagree that the church's changes in policy that you mention were a result of public pressure.  Circumstances?  Sure.  But both changes came as a result of revelation to God's prophets.  

[stemelbow]

Can you think of any examples of people who were justified by God in going against the prophets?  Ever?

I don't know that anyone knows all whom God has justified. This seems like a ridiculous request.

 

Nothing changes.  Every generation includes people who are convinced that they know more than the Lord's anointed.

I don't think that about myself at all. I think I know less than the least among us, or somewhere down there.

 

I disagree that the church's changes in policy that you mention were a result of public pressure.  Circumstances?  Sure.  But both changes came as a result of revelation to God's prophets.

What you call circumstances I call outside pressure. I'm not saying public pressure so much. But that perhaps had some play in there too. Afterall, by 1978 to think a church could remain so racist and exist was probably becoming less and less possible.

[Carebear0411]

 It seems to be missing the opportunity to stop and ask "are we at a place where we're happy with the role and positioning of women" instead ready to put up a defense. This is difficult because there remains women in the Church who feel misused and unappreciated (not to mention some men, but that's beside the point) and perhaps rightfully so, and many to most of them aren't agitating or supporting OW group.

I think there's plenty of room for improvement.

See, this is where logic is not brought to bear. If, as OW claims, Mother-in-Heaven has authority, and if women should have had the PH all along and if women were supposed to play a larger part in the leadership of the church, then why in heaven's name has Heavenly Mother waited till now, the very last hours of man's time on Earth, to use her authority and make the changes women "deserve" looooong before now? And if the leaders are purposefully ignoring and rebelling against the will of God or an authoritative Heavenly Mother, doesn't it make sense that either or both would have gotten rid of the rebelling element and put people in there who would follow His or her will?

[The Nehor]

I warned them letting women pray in General Conference would cause problems but no one ever listens to me.

[stemelbow]

See, this is where logic is not brought to bear. If, as OW claims, Mother-in-Heaven has authority, and if women should have had the PH all along and if women were supposed to play a larger part in the leadership of the church, then why in heaven's name has Heavenly Mother waited till now, the very last hours of man's time on Earth, to use her authority and make the changes women "deserve" looooong before now? And if the leaders are purposefully ignoring and rebelling against the will of God or an authoritative Heavenly Mother, doesn't it make sense that either or both would have gotten rid of the rebelling element and put people in there who would follow His or her will?

Your question is appropriate in terms of the priesthood ban too. Why did it take so long?

I'm not sure but I think people will have everything made up to them in eternity. Perhaps looking back, we'll see our pettiness as laughable.

I don't think any leader is willfully ignoring and rebelling against God. But I also don't think any leader knows or fully understands the will of God. Mostly because humans are fallible ones. We simply don't know all He knows.