Are we really in a new era of doubt as Stack claims?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Growing up in Boston in my ward 80% of my YM/YW group left the church. The only ones who stayed were those who went to BYU and me.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, canard78 said:

Yes, you're right. I'd considered it but was aware some people find the word quite inflammatory so wanted to try to be a bit more neutral to open the conversation. 

"Seems" and "appears" followed by several anecdotes and no quantitative data means her article  could be characterised as weasel words. Some might argue that she is simply sharing her impressions but if that was her intent then her article ought to have made that a lot clearer when, instead, people are sharing and discussing it online as if she had presented conclusive proof that doubt was "vast."

Moreover, Peggy is not just another garden-variety amateur with a computer and an Internet connection. She is a professional who is publishing a blog under the nameplate of a long-established, general-circulation, metropolitan newspaper with a good deal of stature.* She ought to be held to a higher-than-average standard.

*I'm no fan of the Salt Lake Tribune, but it is what it is, and there is a great deal to respect.

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Growing up in Boston in my ward 80% of my YM/YW group left the church. The only ones who stayed were those who went to BYU and me.

I wonder why that is. Have you been able to identify a common reason, or is it a matter of unique circumstances in each case? Does the locale (Boston) have anything to do with it?

[Damien the Leper]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are being generous in characterizing the terms she uses as "columnists' words." A more apt label for them, in my opinion, is weasel words.

 

It sounds like passive voice but a little worse.

[Damien the Leper]

http://www.withoutend.org/passing-fires-doubt-emerging-living-church

Brian Whitney has the best response thus far.

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by Valentinus

[Saint Sinner]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Depends on what you are looking at.  A faith crisis may end up in someone with a stronger testimony (I know many like this).  Usually those who no longer believe without some kind of crisis never put much effort into either believing or disbelieving or figuring out which is best in my experience, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that there were many who studied and then just one day looked at things in a new way and shortly there after were no longer believing with no crisis attached.  With no drama they would probably have little reason to speak out which may be one reason why I haven't ever run into someone like that or at least knew this of them.

Thanks for responding and this makes sense.

[Nevo]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are being generous in characterizing the terms she uses as "columnists' words." A more apt label for them, in my opinion, is weasel words.

Using qualifiers to indicate uncertainty about a claim is the mark of a careful writer (http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/qualifiers/). Fletcher Stack's use of "appears" and "seems" in her article is entirely appropriate (would you prefer her to make absolute claims?). I'm surprised that a Church News feature writer of your long experience thinks qualifiers are a bad thing.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Using qualifiers to indicate uncertainty about a claim is the mark of a careful writer (http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/qualifiers/). Fletcher Stack's use of "appears" and "seems" in her article is entirely appropriate (would you prefer her to make absolute claims?). I'm surprised that a Church News feature writer of your long experience thinks qualifiers are a bad thing.

I reject the premise that the judicial use of qualifiers necessarily equates to the use of weasel words.

If the intent and effect of using a qualifier is to honestly communicate the message that one is less than certain about an idea that nevertheless has clear merit, that's one thing.

It's quite another to misleadingly convey "an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged" (see the Wikipedia entry I linked to).

In a sense, use of weasel words is lazy writing, the attempt to float a proposition and make it sound viable without putting in the necessary time, energy, investigation and articulation to give it any substance beyond one's own navel-gazing rumination.

I hope you can discern the difference. If not, I really don't have time today to go into a protracted back-and-forth about it.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

We don't really have any reliable numbers about resignations, but even if we did, that wouldn't tell us much about incidence of doubt/faith crisis.

It might be interesting to track how many times faith crisis and doubt have been brought up in GCs and Ensign articles over the years, and see if there has been an increase.

My perception is that the number of such talks and articles has increased dramatically. It would be interesting to see if that's actually true.

[canard78]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Using qualifiers to indicate uncertainty about a claim is the mark of a careful writer (http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/qualifiers/). Fletcher Stack's use of "appears" and "seems" in her article is entirely appropriate (would you prefer her to make absolute claims?). I'm surprised that a Church News feature writer of your long experience thinks qualifiers are a bad thing.

My problem with it though, Nevo, is that she makes some big claims. To run a front page (??) story based on what seems/appears to be a vast change should have some substantiation. 

Stack offers little evidence of this change. Is her personal opinion or subjective impression enough to carry a front page story?

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the intent and effect of using a qualifier is to honestly communicate the message that one is less than certain about an idea that nevertheless has clear merit, that's one thing.

It's quite another to misleadingly convey "an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged" (see the Wikipedia entry I linked to).

In a sense, use of weasel words is lazy writing, the attempt to float a proposition and make it sound viable without putting in the necessary time, energy and investigation to give it any substance beyond one's own navel-gazing rumination.

I guess where we disagree is whether Stack's "idea" has "clear merit" or whether it's just idle speculation.

She reports that "[doubt] is affecting Latter-day Saints of all types, young and old, lifers and converts, women and men, scholars, students and scientists, stay-at-home parents and careerists. Their numbers appear staggering as many wrestle with questions of prophetic fallibility, historic revisionism, polygamy, the origins of the faith's signature scripture, the Book of Mormon, past racism and violence, women's roles in a male-led hierarchy and where gays fit in the culture and the creed."

What is the basis for this claim? She seems to be extrapolating from a recent Tribune poll that received over 1,700 responses. (The Church doesn't keep statistics on doubters—or least doesn't publicize them—so there are no hard numbers available.) Was that a scientific poll? No, but there are numerous other indications that the Church may be in "a new era of doubt," several of which were mentioned in the article:

• the publication of Gospel Topics essays outlining "more forthright and nuanced views of Mormon history and doctrine"
• the renovation of the LDS History Museum, whose main exhibit now includes "context and controversies in its description of the faith's founding events"
• the Church's official publishing arm putting out "high-profile books addressed to questioning Mormons"
• recent conference talks addressing doubt and acknowledging the fallibility of church leaders

The Church's response suggests that something is going on—or at least is seen to be going on by the leadership.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Nevo

[VideoGameJunkie]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder why that is. Have you been able to identify a common reason, or is it a matter of unique circumstances in each case? Does the locale (Boston) have anything to do with it?

What I most identified as the reason was everyone had mainly non member friends as their only friends and they cared more about their social situation than the church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I guess where we disagree is whether Stack's "idea" has "clear merit" or whether it's just idle speculation.

She reports that "[doubt] is affecting Latter-day Saints of all types, young and old, lifers and converts, women and men, scholars, students and scientists, stay-at-home parents and careerists. Their numbers appear staggering as many wrestle with questions of prophetic fallibility, historic revisionism, polygamy, the origins of the faith's signature scripture, the Book of Mormon, past racism and violence, women's roles in a male-led hierarchy and where gays fit in the culture and the creed."

What is the basis for this claim? She seems to be extrapolating from a recent Tribune poll that received over 1,700 responses. (The Church doesn't keep statistics on doubters—or least doesn't publicize them—so there are no hard numbers available.) Was that a scientific poll? No, but there are numerous other indications that the Church may be in "a new era of doubt," several of which were mentioned in the article:

• the new Gospel Topics essays outlining "more forthright and nuanced views of Mormon history and doctrine"
• the renovation of the LDS History Museum, whose main exhibit now includes "context and controversies in its description of the faith's founding events"
• the Church's official publishing arm putting out "high-profile books addressed to questioning Mormons"
• recent conference talks addressing doubt and acknowledging the fallibility of church leaders

The Church's response suggests that something is going on—or at least is seen to be going on by the leadership.

I think you err in interpreting good-faith efforts on the part of the Church to address valid concerns as some sort of show of panic.

And sorry to have to point this out, but 1,700 is not a huge response to hot-button polls such as this one, given the Tribune's traditional market niche of appealing to resentful anti-Mormons, apostates and disaffected Church members in Utah, not enough to lend legitimacy to a weasel-worded claim that the numbers "appear staggering." It is, in the final analysis, like Dehlin's famous poll: self-selected, skewed, unscientific and, at the end of the day, generally underwhelming.

Probably, if you took the sum total of all the contributors to the mindless "reader comments" drivel that typically follow the online pulblication of Tribune stories it would just about equal the 1,700.

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you err in interpreting good-faith efforts on the part of the Church to address valid concerns as some sort of show of panic.

Yesterday, at the regional conference that many on this board watched, Elder Hamula urged members to "fear not," invoked Daniel 2:44–45 to reassure everyone that the Church would eventually triumph, allowed that Joseph Smith ("as good as he was") had his faults, and urged members who might doubt to look to the fruits of the Restored Gospel and remember the spiritual feelings they have had in the Church, etc. It was similar in many ways to the talk that Elder Holland delivered to S&I personnel and their spouses a year ago called "Be Not Afraid, Only Believe." Elder Bednar, when he visited our stake a year or so ago, also encouraged those with doubts and questions to focus on the fruits of the Gospel. Speaking before the broadcast yesterday, my stake president made reference to so-called facts on the Internet that seem convincing but in reality are just Satan trying to deceive us—a recurring theme in his talks.

As of 2015, the S&I website has a section called "Seek Truth" provides "links and reference material intended to increase the ability of seminary and institute teachers to respond appropriately to students’ doctrinal, social, or historical questions and to help students maintain faith."

And I would note that in addition to Deseret Book's current offerings that explicitly address doubt and sticky doctrinal/historical issues (e.g., No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, The Crucible of Doubt, Planted), a new one, A Reason for Faith: Navigating Church Doctrine and Church History, edited by Laura Hales, is due out in May. I expect there are others in the pipeline too.

Maybe I'm just imagining things, but this seems to be a new thing under the sun. I can't recall any outreach to doubters happening on this scale in the past.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Nevo

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Yesterday, at the regional conference that many on this board watched, Elder Hamula urged members to "fear not," invoked Daniel 2:44–45 to reassure everyone that the Church would eventually triumph, allowed that Joseph Smith ("as good as he was") had his faults, and urged members who might doubt to look to the fruits of the Restored Gospel and remember the spiritual feelings they have had in the Church, etc. It was similar in many ways to the talk that Elder Holland delivered to S&I personnel and their spouses a year ago called "Be Not Afraid, Only Believe." Elder Bednar, when he visited our stake a year or so ago, also encouraged those with doubts and questions to focus on the fruits of the Gospel. Speaking before the broadcast yesterday, my stake president made reference to so-called facts on the Internet that seem convincing but in reality are just Satan trying to deceive us—a recurring theme in his talks.

I find this interesting. I've been in meetings in my area with at least three general authorities in the course of the past 12 months, including Elder Bednar, and not one of these has addressed these issues or others of their kind. My guess is that Church leaders just don't see any kind of need in these parts.

[rockpond]

On February 14, 2016 at 11:10 AM, canard78 said:

Peggy Fletcher Stack claims that "today's crisis of faith among Information Age believers somehow seems new... (and) vast... Their numbers appear staggering."

Stack uses the useful columnists' words: "seems" and "appears." She offers no solid evidence that I can find other than anecdotal. Are we really in an era of doubt, or does the advent of the internet simply mean that those who doubt have more situations to discuss that doubt, making it feel more prevalent? I'm sure that Stack spends plenty of time in the non-representative "bloggernacle."

When I was actively involved in both "chapel Mormonism*" (the day to day life of meetings, activities, home teaching etc) and "bloggernacle Mormonism" (groups like bycommonconsent, this forum, Mormon stories etc) it was like two different churches. The "chapel mormons" had generally never heard of John Dehlin, CESLetter, puremormonism etc. They enjoyed their church experience, got on with life and while certainly having personal challenges, weaknesses and, yes of course, doubts, they didn't get drawn into the navel gazing and angst of the bloggernacle.

So are we really in a new era of doubt? If we are, will Mormonism (or the faith of Mormons) become stronger in this new era of doubt?
http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3527240-155/in-this-new-era-of-doubt?fullpage=1

*I don't use the term in a derogatory way, I was just looking for a term to describe the day-to-day Mormon experience.

I don't believe there is any empirical method to resolve PFS' hypothesis as past data doesn't exist.  We might be able to triangulate around some more useful information if the church made available the entirety of its database but I don't see that happening. 

One can, however, study recent addresses from the GA's and surmise that the Information Age is creating challenges in faith/testimony among members. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you err in interpreting good-faith efforts on the part of the Church to address valid concerns as some sort of show of panic.

And sorry to have to point this out, but 1,700 is not a huge response to hot-button polls such as this one, given the Tribune's traditional market niche of appealing to resentful anti-Mormons, apostates and disaffected Church members in Utah, not enough to lend legitimacy to a weasel-worded claim that the numbers "appear staggering." It is, in the final analysis, like Dehlin's famous poll: self-selected, skewed, unscientific and, at the end of the day, generally underwhelming.

Probably, if you took the sum total of all the contributors to the mindless "reader comments" drivel that typically follow the online pulblication of Tribune stories it would just about equal the 1,700.

 

Perhaps someone who is a religion editor at the DN could produce a scientific study to counter such claims rather than just hurling insults. 

[Nevo]

32 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I find this interesting. I've been in meetings in my area with at least three general authorities in the course of the past 12 months, including Elder Bednar, and not one of these has addressed these issues or others of their kind. My guess is that Church leaders just don't see any kind of need in these parts.

You may be right. Maybe it's just a North America, UK, and Sweden thing. From your reports, I'm expecting to hear any day now that the Antipodean Saints have all been translated .

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't believe there is any empirical method to resolve PFS' hypothesis as past data doesn't exist.  We might be able to triangulate around some more useful information if the church made available the entirety of its database but I don't see that happening. 

One can, however, study recent addresses from the GA's and surmise that the Information Age is creating challenges in faith/testimony among members. 

 

The challenges are no doubt real, and the Church is taking useful steps to meet them.

But the same information-age availability that you say is "creating challenges in faith/testimony among members" might be contributing to an overblown perception of a problem.

It had almost become the conventional wisdom not too long ago that people were apostatizing from the Church "in droves" until Elder Quentin L. Cook gave us the reality check a couple of  conferences ago, pointing out that, by standard indicators of faithfulness, the Church has never been stronger and that the requests for name removals, never a very high percentage in the first place, have actually decreased over time, even as the Church has doubled in size.

(And I know we went the rounds here with some people insisting Elder Cook can't be taken seriously without the Church releasing "the numbers." But the fact is, we now have a definitive word from a high-ranking Church leader in a position to know, whereas before, we were at the mercy of ill-informed naysayers based on nothing more than their own suppositions and anecdotal evidence.)

And the Church will soon dedicate its 150th operating temple. The first temple dedication I ever covered was the St. Louis Missouri Temple back in 1997. That was temple number 50, and it hasn't been that long ago -- not even two decades.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Nevo said:

You may be right. Maybe it's just a North America, UK, and Sweden thing. From your reports, I'm expecting to hear any day now that the Antipodean Saints have all been translated .

Our eldest son has been serving as a missionary in Sweden since early December.

I keep waiting for him to mention something in his letters about how the Church there is hemorrhaging with members leaving "in droves" because they can't manage their doubts.

So far, nothing like that in any of his correspondence.

[Maestrophil]

Yesterday was our stake conference.  Elder Keetch was there and fielded open questions.  We discussed gay marriage, the worries of the brethren, the exodus of members, and other topics.  

 

Regarding the exodus of members, Elder Keetch said that there is not a higher number of members resigning proportionately than at other times.  He said that the number as a percentage of total membership, has not changed in the past decade.   Of course there were no data presented given the nature of the impromptu questions and church meeting, but it was what he claimed.  I really enjoyed his presentation/personality and the discussions were thought-provoking.

[ALarson]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It had almost become the conventional wisdom not too long ago that people were apostatizing from the Church "in droves" until Elder Quentin L. Cook gave us the reality check a couple of  conferences ago, pointing out that, by standard indicators of faithfulness, the Church has never been stronger and that the requests for name removals, never a very high percentage in the first place, have actually decreased over time, even as the Church has doubled in size.

(And I know we went the rounds here with some people insisting Elder Cook can't be taken seriously without the Church releasing "the numbers." But the fact is, we now have a definitive word from a high-ranking Church leader in a position to know, whereas before, we were at the mercy of ill-informed naysayers based on nothing more than their own suppositions and anecdotal evidence.

Ill-informed naysayers?  It was Elder Marvin K. Jensen who made the statements (in response to a question asked of him):

Quote

 

Question:

“Has the church seen the effects of Google on membership? It seems like the people who I talk to about church history are people who find out and leave quickly. Is the church aware of that problem? What about the people who are already leaving in droves?”

Elder Jensen's Answer:

“The fifteen men really do know, and they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I'll call it apostasy, like we're having right now; largely over these issues. 

 

Or do you believe Elder Jensen wasn't being truthful here?

.
 

Edited February 15, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ill-informed naysayers?  It was Elder Marvin K. Jensen who made the statements (in response to questions asked of him):

Or do you believe Elder Jensen wasn't being truthful here?

.
 

FairMormon's Stephen Smoot puts this much overblown incident in perspective here.

A quote:

Quote

 

From this we see that Elder Jensen was clearly concerned with the many individuals leaving the Church after encountering negative information about the Church, but nowhere does he say members are leaving “in droves”. In fact, as reported by Peggy Fletcher Stack with the Washington Post, Elder Jensen himself was careful to later clarify his off-the-cuff remarks at the fireside.

Jensen insists critics overstate the LDS exodus over the church’s history. “To say we are experiencing some Titanic-like wave of apostasy is inaccurate,” he said.

So while it is true that Elder Jensen, as well as other Church leaders, including the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, are concerned with the level of members leaving the Church over anti-Mormon material on the Internet, and are currently enacting measures to combat this material, to insist, as some anti-Mormons do, that the Church is on some sort of crash-course with oblivion seems to be a great exaggeration. As reported by the Washington Post:

Church officials say the growth of [certain Internet sites] does not point to a corresponding growth in the number of Mormons leaving the church, whose membership has burgeoned to more than 6 million in America. “Those leaving the church are a fraction of 1 percent each year and it is a trend that is decreasing rather than increasing,” said Michael Purdy, a church spokesman.

In fact, while loss and inactivity of Church membership is a pressing concern, recent reports actually show that the 2012 was a very productive year in Church growth. Onewebsite that tracks Church growth reported the following.

2012 was a significant year for stake growth. The Church organized more new stakes in 2012 than in any year since 1998. . . . No other year in Church history has had as many countries have a new stake created in a single year as in 2012. . . . The Church also created its first stake in more countries in 2012 than any year since 1977 as the first stakes were organized in Botswana, Cape Verde, India, New Caledonia, and Sierra Leone

The current statistical report of the Church is impressive, with high expectations in the near future for further Church growth on account of President Thomas S. Monson’s announcement of the change of the minimum age of prospective missionaries.

And so we are left with a choice. We can believe the words of Elders Jensen and Purdy, two individuals who are directly involved in dealing with this issue, that, while indeed a significant challenge and very unfortunate, the loss of Church members over anti-Mormon material on the Internet is not so great that the Church is teetering on collapse. Or we can believe (mostly) anonymous critics who are relying primarily on hearsay, anecdotal, or other flimsy evidence to support their assertions that the Church is suffering irreparable membership loss. (Bear in mind that many of these critics seem to relish any sign of the Church losing membership, and are, I believe, more prone to exaggerate the situation facing the Church.)

 

By the way, it has been nearly a year since Elder Cook gave that conference sermon. In that time, has Elder Jensen come forward to set Elder Cook straight? I don't recall seeing anything of that nature if he has.

Presumably, Elder Cook is one of "the 15 men" Elder Jensen had reference to who "really know and really care."

Edited February 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It had almost become the conventional wisdom not too long ago that people were apostatizing from the Church "in droves" until Elder Quentin L. Cook gave us the reality check a couple of  conferences ago, pointing out that, by standard indicators of faithfulness, the Church has never been stronger and that the requests for name removals, never a very high percentage in the first place, have actually decreased over time, even as the Church has doubled in size.

Also, name removals are not the most accurate number to use when trying to figure out how many members have gone inactive (which is also referred to as "leaving the church").  Regarding all those I am personally aware of, who are now "out of the church", none of them have actually resigned from the church.  Many have left and taken their entire families with them, though.

That would be an interesting number to actually have.  How many members who stop attending, actually follow through with asking to have their names officially removed?  But, as far as I know, that stat is not released from the church leaders.

They (resignations) are not an accurate indicator for whether or not "droves" are leaving (going inactive), but it would be of interest (at least to me).

.

Edited February 15, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way, it has been nearly a year since Elder Cook gave that conference sermon. In that time, has Elder Jensen come forward to set Elder Cook straight?

LOL.  Now, that is funny