Mass Exodus from Church?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

The beginning of the explanation made it seem like it was very US centric:

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).

There have been some interesting pieces of information from South America on this. 

Quote

The 2010 Brazilian census found that 225,695 people identified as Latter-day Saints whereas the LDS Church reported 1,138,740 members in Brazil in 2010. "These findings indicate that self-identified Latter-day Saints on the census account for only 20 percent of total membership officially reported by the church in Brazil," writes Matt Martinich, an independent LDS researcher. "Furthermore, the percent of official LDS membership self-affiliating as Latter-day Saint on the census has declined over the past decade."In 2000, the census reported 199,645 Latter-day Saints, or 26 percent of Mormon membership reported for that year (775,822) by the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.To Martinich, who lives in Colorado Springs, the "most concerning finding" was about the LDS Church's growth rate.The church reported that Brazilian "membership increased by 362,918 members between 2000 and 2010 yet the censuses for these two years indicate a mere 26,050 increase in self-identified Latter-day Saints," Martinich wrote on his blog. "In other words, the increase in census-reported Latter-day Saints was only 7 percent of the membership increase reported by the church."The numbers were "surprising," Martinich said in a phone interview. "The church has experienced such steady congregational and stake growth over the last decade, especially the past five years."

There were similar findings in Mexico and Chile.  Not sure it's credible to claim "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" at least not anymore.

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The beginning of the explanation made it seem like it was very US centric:

There have been some interesting pieces of information from South America on this. 

There were similar findings in Mexico and Chile.  Not sure it's credible to claim "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" at least not anymore.

Yes, when we talk about activity rates we have to discuss congregations outside the US. There seems to be a much, much lower activity rate outside of the US and Canada. Census data is probably the best way to determine real activity rates. And even that might be overstating things, as it counts people who are willing to call themselves Mormon, not people who are willing to show up on Sundays. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Gray

[Bernard Gui]

 “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

 “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
    though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

 “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
    though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.

I find it a stretch to use these parables to talk about Church activity.  I find it reasonable that anyone who leaves the Church could have had good soil, from which was produced a great crop.  The Church is not God. our faith should be placed in God and not in the Church.

Edited December 2, 2016 by stemelbow

[Bernard Gui]

Here is the easiest way to understand fluctuations in Church membership numbers. Both the parable of the sower and the vision of the Tree of Life describe what happens when people hear the gospel. A large group do not accept outright. Three things happen to those who do accept it.

 1. Some thoughtlessly wander off the path and become lost because they were not truly converted.

2. Some leave the path because of of embarrassment and worldly influences.

3. Some remain on the path to the end where they bear and enjoy the fruit.

Quote

19 And I beheld a rod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood.

 20 And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world.

 21 And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were pressing forward, that they might obtain the path which led unto the tree by which I stood.

 22 And it came to pass that they did come forth, and commence in the path which led to the tree.

 23 And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceedingly great mist of darkness, insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were lost.

 24 And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.

 25 And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed.

 26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.

 27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mockingand pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.

 28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.

 30 But, to be short in writing, behold, he saw other multitudes pressing forward; and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rrod of iron, until they came forth and fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree.

 31 And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building.

 32 And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads.

 33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I find it a stretch to use these parables to talk about Church activity.  I find it reasonable that anyone who leaves the Church could have had good soil, from which was produced a great crop.  The Church is not God. our faith should be placed in God and not in the Church.

Not everyone sees or hears.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not everyone sees or hears.

Especially when one mistakes a particular path for the destination. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Gray

[HappyJackWagon]

51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Here is the easiest way to understand fluctuations in Church membership numbers. Both the parable of the sower and the vision of the Tree of Life describe what happens when people hear the gospel. A large group do not accept outright. Three things happen to those who do accept it.

 1. Some thoughtlessly wander off the path and become lost because they were not truly converted.

2. Some leave the path because of of embarrassment and worldly influences.

3. Some remain on the path to the end where they bear and enjoy the fruit.

 

This is a great illustration of the overly simplistic way this topic is usually treated in the church. It fails to recognize that many members who leave were truly converted to the church. They loved the church. They weren't embarrassed. Many even felt pride in being a "peculiar people" so they were not succumbing to "worldly influences" however that is defined.

It's time for people to come to grips that many who leave the church were among the most faithful. They were diligent in their prayers and scripture reading. They attended the temple regularly and served faithfully in callings (including many leadership callings). They paid their tithing and were fully committed in every way because of the strength of their testimonies. Yet at some point many people decide to leave.

Why? Dismissing them as having never been truly converted is offensive. Saying they leave because of embarrassment is ridiculous.

The reasons people leave are varied and cannot be easily understood by listing 3 possibilities that happen to all people.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a great illustration of the overly simplistic way this topic is usually treated in the church. It fails to recognize that many members who leave were truly converted to the church. They loved the church. They weren't embarrassed. Many even felt pride in being a "peculiar people" so they were not succumbing to "worldly influences" however that is defined.

It's time for people to come to grips that many who leave the church were among the most faithful. They were diligent in their prayers and scripture reading. They attended the temple regularly and served faithfully in callings (including many leadership callings). They paid their tithing and were fully committed in every way because of the strength of their testimonies. Yet at some point many people decide to leave.

Why? Dismissing them as having never been truly converted is offensive. Saying they leave because of embarrassment is ridiculous.

The reasons people leave are varied and cannot be easily understood by listing 3 possibilities that happen to all people.

I think Bernard missed a 4th reason that people leave.  They lose their testimony; they stop believing after previously being converted. The scriptures are clear that that happens even with the most faithful of people.  

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think Bernard missed a 4th reason that people leave.  They lose their testimony; they stop believing after previously being converted. The scriptures are clear that that happens even with the most faithful of people.  

Actually, Bernard only listed two reasons they leave. He gave three things that happen to them, and the third thing is that they remain on the path and enjoy the fruit. 

As for reasons they leave, I think what you give here, loss of testimony, is a function of one or the other of the reasons Bernard gave: They wander off or they succumb to embarrassment and/or worldly influence. 

Ceasing to believe denotes what happens but it doesn't explain why it happens. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a great illustration of the overly simplistic way this topic is usually treated in the church. It fails to recognize that many members who leave were truly converted to the church. They loved the church. They weren't embarrassed. Many even felt pride in being a "peculiar people" so they were not succumbing to "worldly influences" however that is defined.

It's time for people to come to grips that many who leave the church were among the most faithful. They were diligent in their prayers and scripture reading. They attended the temple regularly and served faithfully in callings (including many leadership callings). They paid their tithing and were fully committed in every way because of the strength of their testimonies. Yet at some point many people decide to leave.

Why? Dismissing them as having never been truly converted is offensive. Saying they leave because of embarrassment is ridiculous.

The reasons people leave are varied and cannot be easily understood by listing 3 possibilities that happen to all people.

I see people losing their testimony because of the Church's stance on gay marriage. I'd call that embarrassment and worldly influence both. And if their disaffection causes them to neglect the nurturing of their testimonies, that's a matter of wandering off. So all three conditions do or could apply here. 

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ceasing to believe denotes what happens but it doesn't explain why it happens. 

But I don't believe that there are only two reasons that previously converted people cease to believe:  embarrassment or worldly influences.

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I see people losing their testimony because of the Church's stance on gay marriage. I'd call that embarrassment and worldly influence both. And if their disaffection causes them to neglect the nurturing of their testimonies, that's a matter of wandering off. So all three conditions do or could apply here. 

It's a mistake to put our trust in the Church.  It is a combination of people.  It will fail at some point.  We ought to be quick to look to God, rather than the Church.  I think that's a big part of the problem--people treating the Church as if it's God.  Testimonies will be shattered at some point if that's what's happening (and I think it's clear it is). 

[stemelbow]

Just now, bluebell said:

But I don't believe that there are only two reasons that previously converted people cease to believe:  embarrassment or worldly influences.

Mostly their belief in the Church ends because the Church is not what they previously thought.  We have to move away from the notion that the Church is our source of knowledge, truth, and salvation. 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Mostly their belief in the Church ends because the Church is not what they previously thought.  We have to move away from the notion that the Church is our source of knowledge, truth, and salvation. 

I don't want to move away from the notion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has God's authority and teaches the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

If we moved away from that, there would no reason for the church to exist.

 

[rongo]

Just now, bluebell said:

I don't want to move away from the notion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has God's authority and teaches the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

If we moved away from that, there would no reason for the church to exist.

 

Exactly. I find that what progressive/liberal Mormons who want the Church to change really want is for the Church to give up all claim to inspiration or special knowledge apart from what any other person/church can access. As you said, there is then really no reason for the Church at all --- apart from its social/friendshipping aspects (which other churches/organizations provide as well). Which is why, I think, liberal/progressive members treat the Church as a social club, and act as though doctrines and policies should behave as if the Church is a social club. That's what they actually think the Church should be.

[Gray]

38 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Mostly their belief in the Church ends because the Church is not what they previously thought.  We have to move away from the notion that the Church is our source of knowledge, truth, and salvation. 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865667399/Richard-L-Bushman-poses-question-to-BYU-Hawaii-students-What-can-we-learn-from-the-First-Vision.html?pg=all

 

Quote

“[Joseph] did not organize a Church of Joseph Smith,” he said. “The articles of Faith do not mention his name. They begin with the statement, ‘We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.’ That is the foundation. …

“His revelations pointed beyond himself to Christ and the Father. I believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and likely most of you here today do too. But we must place our faith first in Christ, and believe in Him apart from our faith and in His messenger. Christ should be the anchor when we struggle and question.”

Joseph also did not organize the Church of Churchus Church. When the focus becomes on a church or on a particular prophet, we veer off into idolatry. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually, Bernard only listed two reasons they leave. He gave three things that happen to them, and the third thing is that they remain on the path and enjoy the fruit. 

As for reasons they leave, I think what you give here, loss of testimony, is a function of one or the other of the reasons Bernard gave: They wander off or they succumb to embarrassment and/or worldly influence. 

Ceasing to believe denotes what happens but it doesn't explain why it happens. 

And this is exactly what I'm arguing against. It is too simplistic and just plain incorrect for most/many. The problem is Bernard's claim is that those two reason apply to all people who leave.

Quote

I see people losing their testimony because of the Church's stance on gay marriage. I'd call that embarrassment and worldly influence both. And if their disaffection causes them to neglect the nurturing of their testimonies, that's a matter of wandering off. So all three conditions do or could apply here. 

Some probably leave because of embarrassment or because they never had a strong testimony, but the problem arises when it is claimed that those are the only reasons people leave. If you were to interview 100 people and ask them why they left the church, you might find a few who were embarrassed by the church's stance on LGBT issues. Others will have doctrinal disagreements about the church's position while others will have doctrinal disagreements about the nature of authority, prophets, revelation, etc that inform their conclusion that the policy/doctrines on the subject are wrong. So even IF someone leaves because of the church position on SSM it is a fallacy to assume they leave out of embarrassment.

People lose their testimonies even when they are doing all the right things. So again, the question is why? Bernards 2 answers fail to describe the vast majority of people I know.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But I don't believe that there are only two reasons that previously converted people cease to believe:  embarrassment or worldly influences.

On a detailed level the reasons are many and varied. But at their heart  they all fit into the broader classifications taught about in the Savior's parable of the sower and in Lehi's vision of the tree of life. 

I don't accept that anyone suddenly stops believing for no reason in particular. There is always a reason or combination of reasons, though it might not be readily apparent or candidly identified. 

[Teancum]

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 1:52 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I have chosen to forego further interaction with you.

 

Pouting a bit then?  Clearly your choice above is because to be honest about the issue causes problems for your specious argument. But really I have done nothing offensive on this thread.  I guess a tough challenge hurts your tender feelings a bit to much.

Ah well I certainly won't lose sleep over it. And I will certainly continue to challenge your positions when they are specious as well as disingenuous.

 

[Teancum]

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 1:53 PM, Calm said:

So has the board apparently.

What utter nonsense. 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

Exactly. I find that what progressive/liberal Mormons who want the Church to change really want is for the Church to give up all claim to inspiration or special knowledge apart from what any other person/church can access. As you said, there is then really no reason for the Church at all --- apart from its social/friendshipping aspects (which other churches/organizations provide as well). Which is why, I think, liberal/progressive members treat the Church as a social club, and act as though doctrines and policies should behave as if the Church is a social club. That's what they actually think the Church should be.

This social club mentality is at the heart of advocacy for the Church to forsake important principles and positions in order to be more attractive to new converts. Such a thing would eviscerate the Church -- it would no longer be acceptable to Christ. And it wouldn't work in the long run. 

[Teancum]

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 1:54 PM, 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.

I will try to find the talk or talks I have heard. I will try to do this over the weekend. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a great illustration of the overly simplistic way this topic is usually treated in the church. It fails to recognize that many members who leave were truly converted to the church. They loved the church. They weren't embarrassed. Many even felt pride in being a "peculiar people" so they were not succumbing to "worldly influences" however that is defined.

It's time for people to come to grips that many who leave the church were among the most faithful. They were diligent in their prayers and scripture reading. They attended the temple regularly and served faithfully in callings (including many leadership callings). They paid their tithing and were fully committed in every way because of the strength of their testimonies. Yet at some point many people decide to leave.

Why? Dismissing them as having never been truly converted is offensive. Saying they leave because of embarrassment is ridiculous.

The reasons people leave are varied and cannot be easily understood by listing 3 possibilities that happen to all people.

From one who has left, of course,,,I was embarrassed...offended..and couldn't wait to sin.  This is so way off the mark.. I appreciate your better understanding HJW.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Jeanne

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On a detailed level the reasons are many and varied. But at their heart  they all fit into the broader classifications taught about in the Savior's parable of the sower and in Lehi's vision of the tree of life. 

I don't accept that anyone suddenly stops believing for no reason in particular. There is always a reason or combination of reasons, though it might not be readily apparent or candidly identified. 

So what about someone who leaves the church because they have prayed and sincerely believe that God wants them to go to a different church (i know someone that this happened to)?  Is it embarrassment or worldly influences that did them in, because from my perspective, neither explanations are a great fit.

Unless you are defining 'worldly influences' to mean 'satan's influences' or something like that, but that wouldn't be how most people would define that term.