Mass Exodus from Church?

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

I was not implying malfeasance.  How do you get that out of what I said.  But the slip is clear now. You can donate to FO, Missionary, Humanitarian but the church says that there is no promises the funds will be used as designated. This is relatively new over the past few years. The church says they can use the donation for some other purpose if they want to.  So if I want to give $500 to humanitarian aid and I want to be sure it goes to such cause I now think twice about giving it to the church. I may give it to an organization I am sure it will be used for what I intended.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Pretty much the percentages in the parable of the sower.

But not what the church portrays.

[bluebell]

Just now, Teancum said:

I was not implying malfeasance.  How do you get that out of what I said.  But the slip is clear now. You can donate to FO, Missionary, Humanitarian but the church says that there is no promises the funds will be used as designated. This is relatively new over the past few years. The church says they can use the donation for some other purpose if they want to.  So if I want to give $500 to humanitarian aid and I want to be sure it goes to such cause I now think twice about giving it to the church. I may give it to an organization I am sure it will be used for what I intended.

Sincere question, are there any other organizations where 100% of the money donated goes toward actual humanitarian aid and not administrative costs?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

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.

 

President Uchtdorf said, "Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith." When people fail to that, they are not "doing all the right things."

In other words, when they make the choice (and it is a choice) to let their doubts, attitudes, political convictions -- whatever it might be -- take primacy over the confirming witness of the Holy Spirit they have felt in the past, they haven't done all the right things. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

In addition, many people study and pray themselves out of the church. They begin for noble reasons but the more they study, the more they learn. The more they learn, the less they believe. It's not because of sin, or wandering off the path. They run into problems precisely because they were being faithful and studying and praying and trying to serve others. They simply come to the well considered conclusion and/or receive a witness that the church isn't what it claims to be and upon closer inspection of the doctrines and practices, they choose to reject them.

Obviously this isn't true for everyone. Very smart, faithful people study and dig deep into doctrines and practices and don't end up leaving the church. But when someone claims there are 2 reasons people fall away, the simplicity is laughable.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

I don't concede that God would ever tell anyone, after having made baptismal or other sacred covenants, to leave the Church. 

[bluebell]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

President Uchtdorf said, "Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith." When people fail to that, they are not "doing all the right things."

In other words, when they make the choice (and it is a choice) to let their doubts, attitudes, political convictions -- whatever it might be -- take primacy over the confirming witness of the Holy Spirit they have felt in the past, they haven't done all the right things. 

I agree with you, but at the same time, i don't think it's that simple.

What if the pope had said that quote instead of Pres. Uchtdorf for example?  And then later a Catholic priest (or even just an active Catholic member) began doubting their church's doctrinal claims and began to feel they should check out the LDS church.  And what if another member of the Catholic parish told them that by entertaining and pondering their doubts about the Catholic faith, they are giving in to worldly influences and letting them take primacy over the confirming witness that the Catholic church is God's church?

A lot of this is a matter of perspective.

One of the things that I do struggle with is that a lot of times we, as LDS members of the church, castigate members of the church for doing the same things that are celebrated when someone of a different religion does them to their old religion.  It feels like a double standard where we tell members that if they break their covenants, even if they sincerely believe that's what God wants them to do, it's a sin but we celebrate when a Catholic priest breaks his covenants and leaves the priesthood to become mormon.

This doesn't mean that sometimes people aren't right in their decisions to follow what they perceive to be the Holy Ghost and break old covenants to make new ones and sometimes, they aren't just plain wrong (and i do think that most of the people who leave the LDS church are wrong, and i don't believe in the concept of relative truth).  But i know that almost all of the time, from where i'm sitting, I don't have enough information to make any statements of fact on why someone leaves or stays.  My bias is too great.  

 

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But when someone claims there are 2 reasons people fall away, the simplicity is laughable.

I agree.  But i don't think the claimed 2 reasons are laughable so much as they are, for most of us, unknowable.  

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sincere question, are there any other organizations where 100% of the money donated goes toward actual humanitarian aid and not administrative costs?

I don't think there is any place that is 100% unless there is a very generous private benefactor that covers administrative expenses. But the church really isn't 100% either as it has administrative costs. Paper, facilities, equipment, employees etc. I think the point of the previous posts about the tithing slip illustrates that all church funds are fungible. There really aren't any clear lines earmarking funds only for certain purposes. Unlike other charities the church doesn't give financial disclosures about $$$ received and $$$ outgoing to determine the efficiency of the donation.

A charity like Samaritan's Purse discloses what they receive and how funds are utilized which provides contributors with information about how efficient the charity is with the funds they receive. Again, the church doesn't do that so we can't know how efficient they are with the funds.

https://www.samaritanspurse.org/our-ministry/financial-accountability/

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think there is any place that is 100% unless there is a very generous private benefactor that covers administrative expenses. But the church really isn't 100% either as it has administrative costs. Paper, facilities, equipment, employees etc. I think the point of the previous posts about the tithing slip illustrates that all church funds are fungible. There really aren't any clear lines earmarking funds only for certain purposes. Unlike other charities the church doesn't give financial disclosures about $$$ received and $$$ outgoing to determine the efficiency of the donation.

A charity like Samaritan's Purse discloses what they receive and how funds are utilized which provides contributors with information about how efficient the charity is with the funds they receive. Again, the church doesn't do that so we can't know how efficient they are with the funds.

https://www.samaritanspurse.org/our-ministry/financial-accountability/

According to the church 100% of humanitarian donations go towards the cause and that the administrative costs are funded by the church.

"While 100 percent of fast offerings and humanitarian donations go directly to those in need, the overhead and administrative costs associated with these programs — in addition to the resources needed to build storage facilities, house and deliver humanitarian aid supplies around the world, train volunteers and so on — are privately fronted by the Church."

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with you, but at the same time, i don't think it's that simple.

What if the pope had said that quote instead of Pres. Uchtdorf for example?  And then later a Catholic priest (or even just an active Catholic member) began doubting their church's doctrinal claims and began to feel they should check out the LDS church.  And what if another member of the Catholic parish told them that by entertaining and pondering their doubts about the Catholic faith, they are giving in to worldly influences and letting them take primacy over the confirming witness that the Catholic church is God's church?

A lot of this is a matter of perspective.

One of the things that I do struggle with is that a lot of times we, as LDS members of the church, castigate members of the church for doing the same things that are celebrated when someone of a different religion does them to their old religion.  It feels like a double standard where we tell members that if they break their covenants, even if they sincerely believe that's what God wants them to do, it's a sin but we celebrate when a Catholic priest breaks his covenants and leaves the priesthood to become mormon.

This doesn't mean that sometimes people aren't right in their decisions to follow what they perceive to be the Holy Ghost and break old covenants to make new ones and sometimes, they aren't just plain wrong (and i do think that most of the people who leave the LDS church are wrong, and i don't believe in the concept of relative truth).  But i know that almost all of the time, from where i'm sitting, I don't have enough information to make any statements of fact on why someone leaves or stays.  My bias is too great.  

 

I'm a strong believer in keeping things in context. 

I accept President Uchtdorf's counsel within the context in which he gave it. 

There are some contexts in which I might endorse an admonition like that from the pope -- for instance, if he were speaking to people who were losing their faith in the existence of God. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

According to the church 100% of humanitarian donations go towards the cause and that the administrative costs are funded by the church.

"While 100 percent of fast offerings and humanitarian donations go directly to those in need, the overhead and administrative costs associated with these programs — in addition to the resources needed to build storage facilities, house and deliver humanitarian aid supplies around the world, train volunteers and so on — are privately fronted by the Church."

But where does the church get the money they are fronting for administrative costs? For the church's statement to be true it would need to show that for every $1 coming in $1 is going out. They don't disclose any numbers that would support that. It also doesn't match the tithing slip where it states that best efforts will be made but there are no guarantees where money will be spent.

It would be amazing if the church is 100% efficient with donations but charities don't get to self-determine. They are required to show financial documents. The church could definitely do that if it chose to. I believe it was only in the 1960's that the church stopped giving a detailed annual financial report. It would be great to get back to that.

[Gray]

52 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

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.

 

Sometimes there is no discernible reason at all. This is an interesting story of a man who lost his faith seemingly for no reason at all. In one second, it was gone. 

http://www.radiolab.org/story/278114-faith-rocks/

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

What utter nonsense. 

He was only banned from the thread after all, I misread the moderator's comment.

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But where does the church get the money they are fronting for administrative costs? For the church's statement to be true it would need to show that for every $1 coming in $1 is going out. They don't disclose any numbers that would support that. It also doesn't match the tithing slip where it states that best efforts will be made but there are no guarantees where money will be spent.

It would be amazing if the church is 100% efficient with donations but charities don't get to self-determine. They are required to show financial documents. The church could definitely do that if it chose to. I believe it was only in the 1960's that the church stopped giving a detailed annual financial report. It would be great to get back to that.

So you believe the church is lying?

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't concede that God would ever tell anyone, after having made baptismal or other sacred covenants, to leave the Church. 

I agree with the above. I also take David Whitmer at his word that the voice of God told him to separate himself from the Mormon people. This isn't the same as what we mean by "leaving the Church" (formal name removal, etc.). He was a very powerful witness precisely because of his age (he outlived everyone else, and was sought after for quotes as the last living witness), community prominence, and because he lived in Richmond, Missouri. Given the climate in the Church at the time in Far West, with emotions running high, I can conceive of God really telling him to leave the body of the Saints. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't concede that God would ever tell anyone, after having made baptismal or other sacred covenants, to leave the Church. 

I don't believe that either, but i also know some people who don't believe that God would ever tell anyone to join the LDS church.  The list of things that we personally don't concede really doesn't have any useful relevance to people who believe differently.

Perception is reality.  If someone sincerely and honestly believes that God is telling them to leave the LDS church, what should they do?

[Duncan]

I can think of God maybe saying take a break from Church, not necessarily telling a member that it's true then 20 years down the road that it isn't true, you'd be getting mixed signals for sure. I think that Elder Christofferson said that we don't need to be converted to the Church but to Christ, it's SO easy to get caught up in Church stuff and miss the Gospel and think that Church activity is the end goal. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Gray said:Especially when one mistakes a particular path for the destination. 

True. The question becomes which path is the right one. Lehi describes it as straight and narrow. Jesus said few would find it.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[rongo]

On 12/1/2016 at 11:36 AM, 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. 

It would be very interesting what the numbers actually are. In my experience (especially the last three years), it is very common for inactive members to become active again --- in many cases, after decades of inactivity. I think that internal Church research shows that 4/5 of people have at least one year of inactivity during their lifetime, which sounds really high until you become surprised by people you thought you knew well. A counselor in our stake presidency, when I shared this, replied that he was inactive while at college at George Washington. The fact is that we are a demanding church that most people, at different periods of time, don't feel up to the task of full activity. That same internal Church research, though, showed that 3/4 of the 4/5 eventually do make it back into activity (and some oscillate back and forth. That has also always been the case). 

I can't supply a CFR citation for the above, so your mileage may vary.

Also in my experience, retention is tough no matter what anyone does (I think many of Christ's parables point to the fact that this has always been the case. It's not just a 2016 problem). Especially in our era. Despite guilt-tripping and general authorities getting after stake presidents (who then get after their subordinates), the biggest problem with retention is simply the caliber of people generally who decide to be baptized. There is a big difference between conversion and deciding, for whatever reason, to be baptized, and the fact is that most people who decide to be baptized today are not doing so because they are converted to the restored gospel. I really think it's a matter of the collective group of people who are on the earth today. It's a dilemma, because "who can forbid water, that these should be baptized?" We can't really not baptize people who say they accept the requirements and say they want to be, but overwhelmingly, this group is not committed to what full activity requires. 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So you believe the church is lying?

I didn't say that.

But without verification I believe the church could be wrong. Charities are required to report for a reason but as a private religious organization organized as a corporation sole, the church is not required to disclose. As I always say, a little sunlight never hurt anyone. It would be great if the church would return to the days of releasing financial statements.

Also, it is my understanding that the church invests each dollar received into an endowment fund where they yield a return on that fund each year. Lets say they invest $100 every year for 10 years taking the endowment to $1000 and they earn 9% return or $90. If they then donate that $90 they could honestly say that they have donated 100% of the available funds to that charity even though it is actually only 90% of that year's donation. It is my understanding that they do it this way so that the endowment continually grows. so in 20 years they still maintain the full principle investment and are now earning 9% on $2000 which would be $180 paid out even if the donations coming in that year was still only $100. Does that make sense.

So there is a lot of wisdom in this process, especially once the endowment grows large enough that the interest yield surpasses the incoming donations each year. But until the endowment grows to that size, the outgoing would not necessarily be 100% of the donations but could be 100% of the yield.

In anticipation of a CFR, I can't provide one. Like I say, this is my understanding based on sources like The Book of Mammon: https://www.amazon.com/Book-Mammon-About-Corporation-Mormons/dp/1451553706/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480715851&sr=8-1&keywords=daymon+smith

https://bycommonconsent.com/2010/10/12/review-the-book-of-mammon-a-monograph-of-the-church-as-owned-corporation/

[Duncan]

Just now, rongo said:

It would be very interesting what the numbers actually are. In my experience (especially the last three years), it is very common for inactive members to become active again --- in many cases, after decades of inactivity. I think that internal Church research shows that 4/5 of people have at least one year of inactivity during their lifetime, which sounds really high until you become surprised by people you thought you knew well. A counselor in our stake presidency, when I shared this, replied that he was inactive while at college at George Washington. The fact is that we are a demanding church that most people, at different periods of time, don't feel up to the task of full activity. That same internal Church research, though, showed that 3/4 of the 4/5 eventually do make it back into activity (and some oscillate back and forth. That has also always been the case). 

I can't supply a CFR citation for the above, so your mileage may vary.

Also in my experience, retention is tough no matter what anyone does (I think many of Christ's parables point to the fact that this has always been the case. It's not just a 2016 problem). Especially in our era. Despite guilt-tripping and general authorities getting after stake presidents (who then get after their subordinates), the biggest problem with retention is simply the caliber of people generally who decide to be baptized. There is a big difference between conversion and deciding, for whatever reason, to be baptized, and the fact is that most people who decide to be baptized today are not doing so because they are converted to the restored gospel. I really think it's a matter of the collective group of people who are on the earth today. It's a dilemma, because "who can forbid water, that these should be baptized?" We can't really not baptize people who say they accept the requirements and say they want to be, but overwhelmingly, this group is not committed to what full activity requires. 

I remember reading that Church activity decades ago was 20 percent or even worse in some areas, course they had that different days had different classes and stuff. I know My parents talk about the 1970's and always coming or going to Church with the different activities, easier to do with a car but if you don't then it's hard-especially in winter and kids and stuff. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I didn't say that.

But without verification I believe the church could be wrong. Charities are required to report for a reason but as a private religious organization organized as a corporation sole, the church is not required to disclose. As I always say, a little sunlight never hurt anyone. It would be great if the church would return to the days of releasing financial statements.

Also, it is my understanding that the church invests each dollar received into an endowment fund where they yield a return on that fund each year. Lets say they invest $100 every year for 10 years taking the endowment to $1000 and they earn 9% return or $90. If they then donate that $90 they could honestly say that they have donated 100% of the available funds to that charity even though it is actually only 90% of that year's donation. It is my understanding that they do it this way so that the endowment continually grows. so in 20 years they still maintain the full principle investment and are now earning 9% on $2000 which would be $180 paid out even if the donations coming in that year was still only $100. Does that make sense.

So there is a lot of wisdom in this process, especially once the endowment grows large enough that the interest yield surpasses the incoming donations each year. But until the endowment grows to that size, the outgoing would not necessarily be 100% of the donations but could be 100% of the yield.

In anticipation of a CFR, I can't provide one. Like I say, this is my understanding based on sources like The Book of Mammon: https://www.amazon.com/Book-Mammon-About-Corporation-Mormons/dp/1451553706/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480715851&sr=8-1&keywords=daymon+smith

https://bycommonconsent.com/2010/10/12/review-the-book-of-mammon-a-monograph-of-the-church-as-owned-corporation/

The church didn't say that they donated 100% of available funds though.  It said that "100% of the fast offerings and humanitarian donations go to those in need."

So if $1000 is donated, $1000 has to go towards the need or the church is lying, right?

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I remember reading that Church activity decades ago was 20 percent or even worse in some areas, course they had that different days had different classes and stuff. I know My parents talk about the 1970's and always coming or going to Church with the different activities, easier to do with a car but if you don't then it's hard-especially in winter and kids and stuff. 

Hugh Nibley talked about the fact that modern-day Church members who wring their hands about attendance percentages did not grow up several decades ago. According to him and his sources, Church attendance in the "golden era" (late 1800s through the 1940s) in the Wasatch Front was only 15% or so. Sacrament meeting attendance did not denote true comitment and activity, and this concept has shifted to where, in our day, it is the basic definition of what makes an active member. 

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't believe that either, but i also know some people who don't believe that God would ever tell anyone to join the LDS church.  The list of things that we personally don't concede really doesn't have any useful relevance to people who believe differently.

Perception is reality.  If someone sincerely and honestly believes that God is telling them to leave the LDS church, what should they do?

Perhaps it's not meant to be taken literally, but that expression "perception is reality" (I believe it was popularized by the advertising profession) has always made me bristle. 

The analogy I always use to counter it is a set of railroad tracks that stretch on toward the skyline. Perception is that the rails converge in the distance. Reality is that they do not; they run parallel to each other for the entire distance. 

Perception very often is decidedly not reality, and people very often err in their perception. 

Don't take this personally. I hear this expression a lot, and I will always respond negatively to it as I have done in the past. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd