Mass Exodus from Church?

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

In fairness to Johnnie Cake, I must point out that he has apologized to me on another thread. 

[Duncan]

Just now, rongo said:

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. 

and that's where the Church has buildings everywhere and imagine places that didn't or dont

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

In another sense of the word path, I think the path that matters is your approach to life. You can get that approach to life within many different institutions, or even with no institution at all. Institutions are a means to an end. Either they support you in the journey down the path or they hinder you. Not every institution works for every person. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Gray

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

When someone says 'perception is reality' what it means is that it's reality to the person who perceives it.  It doesn't mean it's literally reality.  If you have a child, for example, who perceives that you don't like them, then that is their reality and they will function and make choices based on that.  They could be completely wrong, you might like them very much, but because they can't perceive that, it is irrelevant.  If someone perceives that something is true, then it's true to them, regardless.  

So then next time someone says it to you, you'll better understand what they are saying.  

Edited December 2, 2016 by bluebell

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

That's a reasonable assumption but when it comes to business accounting and definitions I don't take anything for granted. I think there are legitimate explanations (as I already mentioned) how an organization can make a claim that is honest but doesn't match our assumption.

But again, we have a statement that 100% of fast offerings and humanitarian donations go to those in need with no explanation of how that is figured or even what it means. Do 100% of fast offering funds go towards fast offering needs and do 100% of humanitarian donations go to humanitarian needs or is the money put into 1 pot where funds are withdrawn unequally between those categories to meet 100% ? Simple financial disclosures would make this very clear.

Donation Income = $100

Donation expense = $100

Balance-   $0

Simple. but it's hard to see how 100% of income is paid out in humanitarian expense if funds are being invested in a perpetual endowment. I believe the church should release the information and remove the need for assumptions and conjecture.

[Bernard Gui]

On 12/2/2016 at 10:28 AM, 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.

It really is this simple. We all look at things and we make our choices. We are invited to the dinner and we choose to go or not. Making it complicated only makes matters worse.

My sister returned to the Church after almost 50 years of inactivity. She left in her mid-teens without having much knowledge of the doctrine. She had no roots other than that early exposure and our mother's continued support through many extraordinary trials. She came back in her 60s. Our family never "dismissed" her. I have two sons who have had their names removed from the records. We certainly have not dismissed them. One lives with us. The other is a homeless vet with severe PTSD and addiction. We welcome him into our home when he passes through the area and enjoyed his presence at our July family reunion to which we had invited him.

One cannot deny that many who leave the Church were not committed to it in the first place. Jesus described them as having no root. Lehi says they just wander off. There's nothing shameful or evil about that. I don't disparage them. It's what happens. Hopefully they find what they need someplace else or maybe they will choose to return.

In addition to the parable of the sower and the Tree of Life vision that explain our responses to membership in the Kingdom, I consider the parables of the lost sheep and the wayward son. 

 I make my own efforts to find and assist lost members. I'm not even concerned that they return to activity, but rather for them to know they are remembered and cared about. As a ward clerk, most of my time (and it was considerable) was spent finding inactive or lost members, getting correct contact information, and making sure they got at least an introductory visit from Priesthood leaders. Some refused any contact. A very few asked to have their names removed. Those who would accept written contact went on our mailing list.

For the past three years my companion and I have been sending monthly letters to to more than 50 "inactive" members, most of whom have not attended our ward for at least 25 years. Some are endowed members who held leadership positions. They do not want visits in their homes. Our letters include a brief scriptural thought, holiday greeting, or message from the General Authorities, and an invitation to call us if they are ill or need help of any kind. I'm sure most of the letters go into the round file; however, that is of no concern to us. We hope some day they will give us a call and we can be of service.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours 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.  

I'm simply reporting what Jesus and the prophets Lehi and Nephi said abou those who take up the yoke. I believe that is what happens in Lehi's vision of those who leave while partaking of the fruit.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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). 

God and the Church are not mutually exclusive. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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.

Wait a minute, please. I did not say anything about you or anyone else "can't wait to sin." We cannot deny that sin may lead to leaving the Church, but it also may result in repentance and a firmer grasp and stronger testimony of the power of the Atonement. We make choices.

[bcuzbcuz]

7 hours 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 numbers are old, the thinking is current.

Longstanding members register, on a somewhat unconscious level, that attendance is low, that the faces they see are the same as they have seen many years before. (and while that's re-assuring, in a manner) the fact that many new people are being baptized, no new people are attending regularly, is disquieting. 

The church grows in numbers, but only familiar faces are evident. 

I went back to a an old ward recently. I recognized many faces. But now I have a beard, my hair, the hair that I still have, is longer in the neck, and I have ear rings. No one recognized me. I wasn't greeted with any hello's or handshakes. I was only seen as an outsider. 

I left, equally alone as when I had entered. 

Accoring to the baptism statistics, the church is growing. The attendance statistics stay relatively the same, 30%. That means that, although the baptisms increase, the attendance numbers stay the same.

Please prove me wrong.

And if the attendance percentage stays the same, does that mean the church is growing? 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, 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.

Well, that's a choice you will have to make. I know how fast offering funds are used. I can't think of a better charity than that. There's nothing to prevent you from giving that offering and supporting other charities too. I trust our Church to be responsible and upright in how it handles our money. I doubt your $500 would go to pay for President Monson's yacht docked down there on the Great Salt Lake marina or the General Authorities' resort villa on the south coast of France. Brother Marriott has those covered.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

But not what the church portrays.

100% of the total membership is reported. If 33% attend, it fits the parable quite well.

 

[Jeanne]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In fairness to Johnnie Cake, I must point out that he has apologized to me on another thread. 

And???....

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I've never considered the parable of the sower or the Tree of Life visions as comedy routines. Maybe they deserve a second look.

We all have to make our choice sooner or later no matter how smart we are. Jesus made it very simple to understand and Lehi described it with vivid precision.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours 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."

I have personally administered fast offering funds. There is no overhead.

[Bernard Gui]

53 minutes ago, Gray said:

In another sense of the word path, I think the path that matters is your approach to life. You can get that approach to life within many different institutions, or even with no institution at all. Institutions are a means to an end. Either they support you in the journey down the path or they hinder you. Not every institution works for every person. 

Well, in this case we are seeking eternal life. That path is marked well for us. We can follow or not as we wish.

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When someone says 'perception is reality' what it means is that it's reality to the person who perceives it.  It doesn't mean it's literally reality.  If you have a child, for example, who perceives that you don't like them, then that is their reality and they will function and make choices based on that.  They could be completely wrong, you might like them very much, but because they can't perceive that, it is irrelevant.  If someone perceives that something is true, then it's true to them, regardless.  

So then next time someone says it to you, you'll better understand what they are saying.  

But if it's not reality, it's not reality, not even to a person who perceives it as such. 

When I hear or see this expression used, it is virtually always by way of advocating that someone whose perception is false be dealt with as though the perception is true. I don't believe such patronization does anyone any favors. I would be incensed if I learned someone were doing that to me. 

To take your example, if a child perceives falsely that you don't like her or him, the proper thing to do is to persuade him or her through whatever means is appropriate and effective that the perception is erroneous. 

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

The numbers are old, the thinking is current.

Longstanding members register, on a somewhat unconscious level, that attendance is low, that the faces they see are the same as they have seen many years before. (and while that's re-assuring, in a manner) the fact that many new people are being baptized, no new people are attending regularly, is disquieting. 

The church grows in numbers, but only familiar faces are evident. 

I went back to a an old ward recently. I recognized many faces. But now I have a beard, my hair, the hair that I still have, is longer in the neck, and I have ear rings. No one recognized me. I wasn't greeted with any hello's or handshakes. I was only seen as an outsider. 

I left, equally alone as when I had entered. 

Accoring to the baptism statistics, the church is growing. The attendance statistics stay relatively the same, 30%. That means that, although the baptisms increase, the attendance numbers stay the same.

Please prove me wrong.

And if the attendance percentage stays the same, does that mean the church is growing? 

One experience does not a general pattern make. When you visited the old ward did you greet anyone you knew, say "hey there," reintroduce yourself, and ask them how things were going? 

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And???....

I don't know what you're getting at. 

[bcuzbcuz]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

One experience does not a general pattern make. When you visited the old ward did you greet anyone you knew, say "hey there," reintroduce yourself, and ask them how things were going? 

I wasn't looking for patterns. I was looking for a welcoming smile, a friendly face. I found none

And no, I didn't take the first step. I've been inactive for 25 years. I wasn't the one "leading the show".  If it's necesary for me to paint the whole picture, to lay out all my cards before anyone else is expected to put a good hand forward, then the idea of proselytizing has skriveled on the vine. 

But you're right. I'll visit the ward again. To give then a new chance. I'll smile and nod towards those who seem to be sending out a message of greeting. If I see a face I recognize, I'll move towards them. If they recognize me, I will expect a response.

I'll get abck to you with my results.

 

 

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know what you're getting at. 

Never mind.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But if it's not reality, it's not reality, not even to a person who perceives it as such. 

I still don't think you're understanding.  What people perceive is what they believe and what they believe is their reality.  If a husband believes that his wife loves him, then that is his reality.  That is the world he lives in-a world where his wife loves him.  In truth, she might not.  She might be having affairs on the side and planning to kill him for the insurance money, but that doesn't change the reality of the husband.  

Quote

When I hear or see this expression used, it is virtually always by way of advocating that someone whose perception is false be dealt with as though the perception is true. I don't believe such patronization does anyone any favors. I would be incensed if I learned someone were doing that to me. 

I've never heard it used that way.  When i hear it used, it's to help people understand that you won't be able to change how someone feels and behaves until you first change their perception, and to help change their perception you have to know what it actually is.

Back to the husband and wife-you won't be able to convince the husband that he needs to divorce his wife until you first change his reality by challenging his perceptions, helping him to see that she doesn't love him and actually wants to hurt him.  But until that perception changes, there is nothing you will be able to say to cause him to leave her.  

Quote

To take your example, if a child perceives falsely that you don't like her or him, the proper thing to do is to persuade him or her through whatever means is appropriate and effective that the perception is erroneous. 

Very true!  But that's besides the point.  Until you persuade him or her, their reality will remain that you don't like them.

If someone perceives that God wants them to leave the LDS church, then that is their reality.  It might be wrong, but it's still their reality, and they will behave accordingly.

So, if someone sincerely and honestly believes that God wants them to leave the LDS church, what should they do?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I still don't think you're understanding.  What people perceive is what they believe and what they believe is their reality.  If a husband believes that his wife loves him, then that is his reality.  That is the world he lives in-a world where his wife loves him.  In truth, she might not.  She might be having affairs on the side and planning to kill him for the insurance money, but that doesn't change the reality of the husband.  

I've never heard it used that way.  When i hear it used, it's to help people understand that you won't be able to change how someone feels and behaves until you first change their perception, and to help change their perception you have to know what it actually is.

Back to the husband and wife-you won't be able to convince the husband that he needs to divorce his wife until you first change his reality by challenging his perceptions, helping him to see that she doesn't love him and actually wants to hurt him.  But until that perception changes, there is nothing you will be able to say to cause him to leave her.  

Very true!  But that's besides the point.  Until you persuade him or her, their reality will remain that you don't like them.

If someone perceives that God wants them to leave the LDS church, then that is their reality.  It might be wrong, but it's still their reality, and they will behave accordingly.

So, if someone sincerely and honestly believes that God wants them to leave the LDS church, what should they do?

 

Maybe "reality" is not a good word to use for something that indeed is not reality. Why not just stick to calling it a perception, if that's all it is? 

Perhaps we're talking past each other and it's time to chalk it up to disagreement. I just don't like the expression, and undoubtedly it will continue to rankle me me in the future. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe "reality" is not a good word to use for something that indeed is not reality. Why not just stick to calling it a perception, if that's all it is? 

Perhaps we're talking past each other and it's time to chalk it up to disagreement. I just don't like the expression, and undoubtedly it will continue to rankle me me in the future. 

I'm good with that.  Can you answer my last question though?  If someone sincerely and honestly believes that God wants them to leave the LDS church, what are they supposed to do?

Edited December 3, 2016 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I wasn't looking for patterns. I was looking for a welcoming smile, a friendly face. I found none

And no, I didn't take the first step. I've been inactive for 25 years. I wasn't the one "leading the show".  If it's necesary for me to paint the whole picture, to lay out all my cards before anyone else is expected to put a good hand forward, then the idea of proselytizing has skriveled on the vine. 

But you're right. I'll visit the ward again. To give then a new chance. I'll smile and nod towards those who seem to be sending out a message of greeting. If I see a face I recognize, I'll move towards them. If they recognize me, I will expect a response.

I'll get abck to you with my results.

 

 

It may help you to realize that probably most people in the Church -- and the world, for that matter -- are a good deal like you. Being gregarious does not come easily or naturally to most of us. To some of us the very idea of it is right down frightening. Many of those who are have made a studied effort and persistent practice to become that way.