Mass Exodus from Church?

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Seriously? You are really demanding references that many people who drift into inactivity later return to full activity?

If there is such a thing as a frivolous CFR, I think this would qualify.

No not many who go inactive ever come back.  I have heard this from GC talks about how much better it is to retain rather than reactivate because reactivation is rarely successful. 

[Johnnie Cake]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Treading softly here, I will only reject the accusation that the term I used (same-sex attraction) is pajorative.

With all due respect Scott... who gets to determine what terms are offences to a minority population?  The majority or the minority.  Member's of the gay community have been quite clear that the term you continue to use is a pejorative and an offensive term to that community...and yet you continue to use it in spite of knowing that it is an offensive term.   Do you use the N word? Or other racial slurs?  I'm guessing that you do not...because society frowns on their use and extracts a high price on those that continue to use those offensive terms.   However, you fall into the same camp by continuing to use a descriptor that is offensive to a minority group...and yet you persist.  Why?  Stubbornness? Insensitivity? Thick headedness? What's your point?  Its offensives, you've been told this on several occasions and yet you persist.  It shows a deep disregard for minorities that you feel the need to disregard and you continue to use the N word...even though you know how offensive it is...that is a complete disregard and disrespect of the gay community.

For the record...I am not a gay man...but I am certainly a friend and an ally of the gay community 

Johnnie Cake has been banned from the thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

With all due respect Scott... who gets to determine what terms are offences to a minority population?  The majority or the minority.  Member's of the gay community have been quite clear that the term you continue to use is a pejorative and an offensive term to that community...and yet you continue to use it in spite of knowing that it is an offensive term.   Do you use the N word? Or other racial slurs?  I'm guessing that you do not...because society frowns on their use and extracts a high price on those that continue to use those offensive terms.   However, you fall into the same camp by continuing to use a descriptor that is offensive to a minority group...and yet you persist.  Why?  Stubbornness? Insensitivity? Thick headedness? What's your point?  Its offensives, you've been told this on several occasions and yet you persist.  It shows a deep disregard for minorities that you feel the need to disregard and you continue to use the N word...even though you know how offensive it is...that is a complete disregard and disrespect of the gay community.

For the record...I am not a gay man...but I am certainly a friend and an ally of the gay community 

Based upon your past behavior, I have chosen to forego further interaction with you.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Define apostasy Scott.  This is a CFR for your definition.

I have chosen to forego further interaction with you.

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Based upon your past behavior, I have chosen to forego further interaction with you.

So has the board apparently.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No not many who go inactive ever come back.  I have heard this from GC talks about how much better it is to retain rather than reactivate because reactivation is rarely successful. 

Can you share the reference where it says that reactivation is rarely successful (or something similar)?  Not trying to be snarky, i'd just like to read the talk you are referring to.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you share the reference where it says that reactivation is rarely successful (or something similar)?  Not trying to be snarky, i'd just like to read the talk you are referring to.

Don't know if this is what you're looking for, but this blogger on cumorah.com asserts that, internationally, reactivation programs rarely activate more than a small fraction.

This is not an official Church source, and I don't endorse or vouch for it. I merely point it out for your consideration.

[stemelbow]

In my years in the Church, to reactivate is a hard and rare occurrence.  Keeping people going seems a little more successful. 

But again, this is just anecdotal.  I couldn't say for sure worldwide. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I took it as such, yes.

If you don't, we'll just have to chalk it up to disagreement.

But nothing from the previous claim changed. Ah well.  I guess if someone wants to use the term modified in a wrong way...(-;

[Gray]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

In my years in the Church, to reactivate is a hard and rare occurrence.  Keeping people going seems a little more successful. 

But again, this is just anecdotal.  I couldn't say for sure worldwide. 

I think we can get something of an idea of how many inactive people are likely to come back when we look at the number of people willing to self-identify as Mormon in national surveys. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Gray

[Jeanne]

36 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think we can get something of an idea of how many inactive people are likely to come back when we look at the number of people willing to self-identify as Mormon in national surveys. 

When I have talked to inactive people, they usually say..well, I was baptized or born into the church..but I am not really mormon  anymore.

[Bernard Gui]

On November 30, 2016 at 9:34 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Actually, according to three dictionary definitions I looked up the two were listed as synonyms in each case. I was surprised, but I still disagree. After all, what does Websters know?

 

 

Synonyms do not necessarily have exactly the same meanings, which is what I meant of course. So, which best describes your view of Elder Cook's words? Maybe palter? Or none of them? 

 

Synonym Discussion of equivocate

lie,  prevaricate,  equivocate,  palter,  fib mean to tell an untruth. lie is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. prevaricate softens the bluntness of lie by implying quibbling or confusing the issue <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. equivocate implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>. palterimplies making unreliable statements of fact or intention or insincere promises <a swindler paltering with his investors>. fibapplies to a telling of a trivial untruth <fibbed about the price of the material.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, JulieM said:

Many leave but don't resign.  I'd say only a small fraction of those who leave the church actually go through the resignation process.  

Three of our ward members who had "left" but not resigned the church are now back again. My sister came back almost 50 years after "leaving."

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am all for FO and Humanitarian aid offerings.  But there is that little disclaimer on tithing slips that causes me concern.

 On what basis? Do you just have suspicions or do you actually have evidence of malfeasance with either of those funds?

Edited December 1, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

22 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yea Scott just doesn't get this. Most never resign. .They just fade away.  The LDS Church worldwide has an activity rate of at best 35% to 40%.  All is not really well in Zion.

 

Pretty much the percentages in the parable of the sower.

[Bernard Gui]

22 hours ago, Teancum said:

Honesty and transparency.  What a novel concept.

So more honesty and transparency and you will.......... .

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, sam said:

Here is a neat quote from Neal A Maxwell given in 1988

 

True, the enemies and the critics of the Lord’s work will not relent; they only regroup. Even among the flock, here and there and from time to time, are a few wolves, wearing various styles of sheep’s clothing—ironically, just before the shearing season! A few defectors and “highminded” traitors (2 Tim. 3:4) even go directly to the “great and spacious building” to hire on (1 Ne. 8:26). There recruits are celebrated and feted until—like their predecessors—they have faded into the dark swamps of history...

Thus, there is no need to be surprised, nor to fear, when certain conditions come upon mankind. Furthermore, the Lord has given to us some remarkable assurances about the Restoration’s lead Prophet and the restored Church:

Love that Elder Maxwell. He also mentioned that the  time was fast approaching when members will have to choose either to stand with or against the First Presidency.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Are you familiar with how many churches report membership?  A number drop members off if they don't attend for say a year.

Total honest would be to say "We have 15 million members,  X% are active. y% hold temple recommends. Z% are on the lost member records rolls (I hear Elder Marlin Jensen once state that 10% of the membership is on the lost members rolls meaning we cannot find them) and so on/"

Rather they simple give total membership, annual converts, annual children of record. They say nothing about the other information, resignation, etc.

I find that less than honest.

We are not most churches. Once baptized, always and forever a member and always to be accounted for. As a ward clerk I ceaselessly searched for lost members and when found, they were contacted and given home/visiting teachers if they would accept them. There are only two ways to get out of it. Total members at the end of a year would correctly report all baptized individuals minus any deaths and resignations. 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

No not many who go inactive ever come back.  I have heard this from GC talks about how much better it is to retain rather than reactivate because reactivation is rarely successful. 

Which is irrelevant of course. The Tree of Life vision, parables of the sower, lost sheep, and prodigal son are our standards for measurement.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Avatar4321]

I've seen a number of less actives return. The hardest part in my opinion is that many inactivesnon ward lists don't love at the last address we have for them and thus we can't really reach out to them

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

No not many who go inactive ever come back.  I have heard this from GC talks about how much better it is to retain rather than reactivate because reactivation is rarely successful. 

I'm happy to answer Scott's CFR for you if you like. I'm unsure why we're arguing from anecdote when we have actual social science data (though perhaps a bit dated). From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Macmillan 1992, emphasis added):

Quote

Disengaged Mormons are usually referred to as "inactive" or "less active" members. While they do not regularly attend church or participate in other public religious practices, inactive Latter-day Saints usually retain a strong identification with the Church and value that identity (Albrecht, Cornwall, and Cunningham).

...

About 75 percent of lifelong Latter-day Saints experience a period of inactivity lasting a year or more. The process of disengagement most commonly begins sometime between the ages of fourteen and twenty. Of those who leave, 60 percent return to active participation between their mid-twenties and late thirties, when they marry and begin a family. Some Latter-day Saints who had stopped attending church were asked to list the reasons why they had left. Lifestyle issues and problems of social integration were mentioned most frequently. More than half said they had found other interests that led them to spend less and less time in Church-related activities; 42 percent reported that they felt their lifestyle was no longer compatible with participation in the Church; 40 percent said they did not feel as if they belonged or fit in; and 25 percent said they felt it did not matter to anyone whether they attended or not. Less frequently mentioned reasons included moving to a new community, work-schedule conflicts, poor health, marriage to an inactive member or marriage outside the Church, and conflicts with Church members, programs, or doctrines.

For those who convert to the Church as teenagers or adults, the period of greatest risk for inactivity is the first year or two after joining the Church (see Conversion). About 70 percent of the new Latter-day Saint converts in the United States who do become inactive stop attending within three to five years after joining the Church. Of those who drop out, 45 percent return to active participation in five to ten years. Activity among these converts is influenced by (1) the personal characteristics of the convert, such as religious background, age, and marital status; (2) how personally involved the convert was in the investigation process, such as experiencing the Spirit of God and attending Church worship services; and (3) the extent to which the convert developed social relationships with other Latter-day Saints both before and after baptism.

 

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is not an ad hom to highlight when someone distorts a man's position by quoting his words out of context.

It is not an ad hom to identify when someone has been blatantly inaccurate (there has never been a "ban" on Church members consuming soda with caffeine).

It is not an ad hom to ask probing questions to test whether one is willing to apply to himself lofty requirements of "openness" and "transparency" that he applies to others.

It might be regarded as an ad hom, however, to call someone "the poster child of the ad hominem attack."

 

Go back and re-read GBH interviews.  It is very clear what he was saying.   

[Scott Lloyd]

On December 1, 2016 at 10:33 PM, sunstoned said:

Go back and re-read GBH interviews.  It is very clear what he was saying.   

I'm already acquainted with the content as well as the context of those interviews. I would suggest you re-read it, paying attention to context this time. 

That President Hinckley would be disavowing or disparaging the principle of plurality of wives as taught and practiced by Joseph Smith and other early Church leaders would be outlandish to any knowledgable Latter-day Saint. President Hinckley never did that. No Church leader before or after him has done that.

I'm puzzled that one with a higher academic degree would have such a problem with this. Viewing and presenting quoted material out of context is neither academically rigorous nor intellectually honest. 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bcuzbcuz]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm happy to answer Scott's CFR for you if you like. I'm unsure why we're arguing from anecdote when we have actual social science data (though perhaps a bit dated). From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Macmillan 1992, emphasis added):

 

Nice to have some numbers....although they seem somewhat...arbitrary.

It lists the numbers in two groups, those of "lifelong experience" , presumably meaning born and raised in the church and those who classify as "converts".

Of those raised in the church, 25% appear to remain active, while 75% become inactive for varying reasons. But of those 75%, 60 % return to activity. 60% of 75% = 45%

The original 25 + 45 = 70% activity for those born in the church.

For those who convert, 70% drop out. But 45% of them return. 45% of 70% = 31.5%. Add that to the 30% who do not drop out we get 30 + 31.5 = 61.5%

Either way you cut it, the church activity rates should be between 60 to 70%.

When church activity actually reaches any numbers approaching such percentages I'm assuming it will be a red letter day in church history.

So as I said, it's nice to have numbers,.......but, it would be more satisfying if those numbers reflected reality. 

Of course, now we can a discussion on what the word "active" actually means or how it can be interpretted. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Nice to have some numbers....although they seem somewhat...arbitrary.

It lists the numbers in two groups, those of "lifelong experience" , presumably meaning born and raised in the church and those who classify as "converts".

Of those raised in the church, 25% appear to remain active, while 75% become inactive for varying reasons. But of those 75%, 60 % return to activity. 60% of 75% = 45%

The original 25 + 45 = 70% activity for those born in the church.

For those who convert, 70% drop out. But 45% of them return. 45% of 70% = 31.5%. Add that to the 30% who do not drop out we get 30 + 31.5 = 61.5%

Either way you cut it, the church activity rates should be between 60 to 70%.

When church activity actually reaches any numbers approaching such percentages I'm assuming it will be a red letter day in church history.

So as I said, it's nice to have numbers,.......but, it would be more satisfying if those numbers reflected reality. 

Of course, now we can a discussion on what the word "active" actually means or how it can be interpretted. 

Great analysis.

I think it's also important to recognize that these numbers are 25 years old. I agree with Humba- that is definitely dated data.

Also, I'm not sure where the "social science" comes in. Is this published somewhere other than the Encyclopedia of Mormonism? Is there a methodology we can review? What scientific method was used to come up with these numbers in the first place?