Mass Exodus from Church?

[Jeanne]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was reflecting on this during lunch.

I love the beauty of Lehi's dream for the truths that it teaches. It is one of my favorite parts of holy writ. And I do like well-crafted imagery.

The iron rod is an especially good metaphor because of the characteristics it has. It is tangible, solid, substantial, durable, supportive, protective. The word of God is all of those things. Contrast it with the ethereal, temporary nature of the great and spacious building, symbolizing the pride of the world. It is hovering in mid air, symbolizing that it is without foundation. It eventually collapses "and the fall thereof was exceedingly great." It has no substance. Ultimately it will not support or protect its inhabitants or those who are attracted to it.

No, the word of God does not change. It remains within reach on the path toward the love of God, although we might change ourselves in relationship to it.

 

Do not mock my feelings Scott.  They are real and true to me.  I respect your belief. The word and the world changed for me. 

[Bernard Gui]

55 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm confused by your response. Are you backing away from your claim that everyone who leaves the church does so because of the two reasons you proposed, based on your reading of the parables? Did I misunderstand you or are you conceding that your position is untenable?

Well, I have noticed that confusion throughout our discussion. Don't misunderstand this, though.

No, I'm not backing away from anything. I fully understand and accept the four responses to the gospel as described by Jesus in the parable of the sower and the two visions of the Tree of Life. We can add the parable of the wheat and tares to the list. I am also guided by the parables of the lost sheep and the Prodigal Son. These things are a sure guide as we express concern about the "great exodus from the Church," the "misleading" way the Church reports its membership records, the "real" number of Church members, etc., etc. This is how Jesus and his prophets chose to characterize the preaching of the gospel and its reception. I don't see a need to expand on their teachings. 

The great majority of our brothers and sisters do not respond to the beckoning of the Savior. Those of us who respond follow three paths as described in the parables and visions: We endure to the end and eat the fruit of the tree (understanding this to be the path of repentance and covenant keeping); we are confused by the mists of darkness, the worries and deceitfulness of this life, wither in the heat, and wander off into strange paths, or we fear the persecution, get embarrassed and offended, heed the scoffers and finger-pointers, and join those of our brothers and sisters who reside in the Great and Spacious Building. Every one of us will pass along this path, face these doubts and persecutions, and make our choice to stay or leave. It is our choice. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Do not mock my feelings Scott.  They are real and true to me.  I respect your belief. The word and the world changed for me. 

There is no intent on my part to mock. I am referring to the human condition. We are, each of us, changable, erratic, unstable, subject to error, learning as we go. The word of God is there as a constant in our lives, available for us to reach out and grasp it as an instrument of steadiness and support.

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is no intent on my part to mock. I am referring to the human condition. We are, each of us, changable, erratic, unstable, subject to error, learning as we go. The word of God is there as a constant in our lives, available for us to reach out and grasp it as an instrument of steadiness and support.

What, so that we aren't tossed to and fro like a small boat in a tumultuous sea or a leaf subject to the whims and vagaries of the wind?

(https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/eph/4.14#13)

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 12/2/2016 at 10:45 PM, bcuzbcuz said:

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%.

This analysis is extremely flawed. You can't take what is a lifelong outcome and reduce it down to an annual summation.

I've mentioned before that we have a sister in our ward who went inactive in the late 1960s but who came back to church four or five years ago. She is certainly one of the 60% who return to activity, and yet for nearly 50 years that eventual outcome was not reflected in the activity rate of the church. To the contrary, her absence would have driven down that number despite the fact that she would come back.

Your analysis assumes that, for the figures to be accurate, all 60% of lifelong members who experience a period of inactivity but return to activity must have come back already. You make no accounting for future behaviour ... or the playing out of the statistics over time. You are similarly confused when it comes to analysing the data from converts who return.

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 12/3/2016 at 3:34 AM, Gray said:

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. 

And then it depends on the census. In our nation, the top 10 most popular choices for religious affiliation from the last census appear on the next one as choices one can just tick. Everyone else has to write in the name of the faith group, and it has to be exact. Anyone who writes, 'Mormon', 'LDS', 'Latter-day Saint', 'LDS Church' or even 'Church of Jesus Christ of LDS' is not counted -- as verified with the bureau of statistics. And then we have a number of ward members who have stated that they never get that far in the census form since it takes too long.

[california boy]

On 12/4/2016 at 6:33 PM, smac97 said:

It is my understanding that there are zero administrative costs pertaining to fast offerings, and that 100% of fast offerings go to charitable efforts. Am I incorrect?

Zero?  So the accounting department of the church that keep track of millions of dollars work for free?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Zero?  So the accounting department of the church that keep track of millions of dollars work for free?

Spoken like someone who hasn't bothered to read through the thread. 

Once again: Overhead is paid from tithing. Money donated as fast offering is used to care for the needy. All of it. None of it pays for administration. 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bcuzbcuz]

On 3 December 2016 at 1:26 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Gregarious, no, that is not necessary. Maybe not even convivial.  

I was looking for a handshake.

But I was also looking at the numbers. A ward chapel with mostly vacant pews is still a ward sparsely visited. Statistics in Sweden say membership has doubled since I was a missionary. The number of wards has increased, roughly double. but the number of empty seats seems equal.....to say otherwise would need verifiable statistics. 

 

[bcuzbcuz]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This analysis is extremely flawed. You can't take what is a lifelong outcome and reduce it down to an annual summation.

I've mentioned before that we have a sister in our ward who went inactive in the late 1960s but who came back to church four or five years ago. She is certainly one of the 60% who return to activity, and yet for nearly 50 years that eventual outcome was not reflected in the activity rate of the church. To the contrary, her absence would have driven down that number despite the fact that she would come back.

Your analysis assumes that, for the figures to be accurate, all 60% of lifelong members who experience a period of inactivity but return to activity must have come back already. You make no accounting for future behaviour ... or the playing out of the statistics over time. You are similarly confused when it comes to analysing the data from converts who return.

Current church attendance, worldwide, runs at approximately 30%. To verify that, merely attend any ward or branch of your choice, count attendance, then compare to number registered members in the same. One sample will, of course, not be sufficient. But the idea is simple. 

The stats I quoted say there is a core of attending members of 25% of those of lifelong membership and 30% of those converted. It doesn't matter how long a individual member takes in their personal journey, of activity to inactivity and back to activity again. When that person starts attending again, the attendance numbers will go up. But from 25% attending initially, those 60% who eventually return, where are the numbers?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Gregarious, no, that is not necessary. Maybe not even convivial.  

I was looking for a handshake.

But I was also looking at the numbers. A ward chapel with mostly vacant pews is still a ward sparsely visited. Statistics in Sweden say membership has doubled since I was a missionary. The number of wards has increased, roughly double. but the number of empty seats seems equal.....to say otherwise would need verifiable statistics. 

 

It might have to do with better and more spacious facilities. 

As you know, I served in Sweden, a bit later than you did. And I have a son who is serving there now. It seems to me there are substantially more Church-constructed meeting houses for the members to meet in as opposed to converted villas, which was the case when I was there except for the larger cities. 

And from what I remember about the reserved temperament of Swedes, it hardly surprises me that they are not immediately forthcoming with greetings when you first encounter them. They are good people. It just takes some time for them to warm up to you. I'm a bit like that, so I understand it. 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Spoken like someone who hasn't bothered to read through the thread. 

Once again: Overhead is paid from tithing. Money donated as fast offering is used to care for the needy. All of it. None of it pays for administration. 

It is still overhead.  Now you are just talking about how that overhead is paid.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

It is still overhead.  Now you are just talking about how that overhead is paid.

The way that the overhead is paid makes it so that 100% of donations to FO and humanitarian aid go to the cause.  The point isn't that overhead doesn't exist, just that donations don't pay any of it.

 

[Tacenda]

http://www.mormonstories.org/vance-allred/

The man in this podcast was a former LDS Fundamentalist and the son of Rulon Allred. He had to get clearance to get baptized in the LDS church through James E. Faust. This took place in 1994, he and his family were all sealed in the temple too. Then in 2015 and the revision of the Handbook concerning children of gay parents not allowed to be baptised, he decided to quit going to church. He has a gay son too. He hasn't resigned he just doesn't think the leadership is led by God anymore. He still maintains belief in many things, and still thinks the BoM could be true. 

I think this has led many out of the church who otherwise would never think of leaving. I wonder if the church is going to rethink this in the future. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.mormonstories.org/vance-allred/

The man in this podcast was a former LDS Fundamentalist and the son of Rulon Allred. He had to get clearance to get baptized in the LDS church through James E. Faust. This took place in 1994, he and his family were all sealed in the temple too. Then in 2015 and the revision of the Handbook concerning children of gay parents not allowed to be baptised, he decided to quit going to church. He has a gay son too. He hasn't resigned he just doesn't think the leadership is led by God anymore. He still maintains belief in many things, and still thinks the BoM could be true. 

I think this has led many out of the church who otherwise would never think of leaving. I wonder if the church is going to rethink this in the future. 

If the policy is condoned by God, it doesn't matter how many leave because of it.  The people are important, of course, but if something is from God, then people not agreeing with it can't trump that.

The scriptures say that in the last days even the very elect will be deceived.  While both sides claim that that scripture is referring to the other side, it does show that the existence of people falling away is not a sign in and of itself that the church has gone off the rails.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

It is still overhead.  Now you are just talking about how that overhead is paid.

 

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The way that the overhead is paid makes it so that 100% of donations to FO and humanitarian aid go to the cause.  The point isn't that overhead doesn't exist, just that donations don't pay any of it.

 

Bluebell answered this very well.

I don't think anyone here has claimed that there is no overhead, just that the money donated specifically for fast offerings or humanitarian services does not fund the overhead. This has been said repeatedly here, yet it seems to be falling on deaf ears.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.mormonstories.org/vance-allred/

The man in this podcast was a former LDS Fundamentalist and the son of Rulon Allred. He had to get clearance to get baptized in the LDS church through James E. Faust. This took place in 1994, he and his family were all sealed in the temple too. Then in 2015 and the revision of the Handbook concerning children of gay parents not allowed to be baptised, he decided to quit going to church. He has a gay son too. He hasn't resigned he just doesn't think the leadership is led by God anymore. He still maintains belief in many things, and still thinks the BoM could be true. 

I think this has led many out of the church who otherwise would never think of leaving. I wonder if the church is going to rethink this in the future. 

Unquestionably, there has been and still is very vocal opposition, but the poll reported in the Salt Lake Tribune (I linked to it earlier) indicates that, if anything, support for the policy is strong already and/or increasing, especially among the most faithful and active members of the Church, the group you allude to as those who ordinarily "would never think of leaving."

In evaluating opposition, it is good to bear in mind that loud does not necessarily equate to broad.

[Oliblish]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The way that the overhead is paid makes it so that 100% of donations to FO and humanitarian aid go to the cause.  The point isn't that overhead doesn't exist, just that donations don't pay any of it.

 

As a payer of both tithing and FO what you are saying is pretty much meaningless to me.  I am paying for the overhead and for the aid. 

You can say this about any charity:  "If you exclude the amount that goes to overhead, 100% of the funds go to those in need."  It is true, but the reasoning is circular and does not inform us of what the overhead costs are.  

 

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

As a payer of both tithing and FO what you are saying is pretty much meaningless to me.  I am paying for the overhead and for the aid. 

You can say this about any charity:  "If you exclude the amount that goes to overhead, 100% of the funds go to those in need."  It is true, but the reasoning is circular and does not inform us of what the overhead costs are.  

 

As a payer of both tithing and FO it's very meaningful to me.

Tithing is a spiritual obligation.  It is not a donation.  I am happy to have an obligation to pay for the overhead for the aid.  I am then happy to know that 100% of what i choose to donate goes towards that cause.  I'm also happy that when non-members donate, they know that 100% of their donation is going towards the cause.  

You are right that we don't know what the overhead costs are, but that's a different topic than what i've been discussing.  I'm personally fine not knowing because i trust the church and their accounting practices.  I understand that other members do not find them trustworthy though and therefore have sincere issues with not knowing.

Edited December 6, 2016 by bluebell

[pogi]

23 hours ago, Nofear said:

I hold a very similar position to Dr. Peterson's as recently outlined in a blog post (posted without permission, but here is the source):

 

 

Quote

 

God, the Father of us all, uses the men of the earth, especially good men, to accomplish his purposes. It has been true in the past, it is true today, it will be true in the future.

“Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along,” said the late Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve. “They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted … the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. … We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.” (Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59.)

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1972/04/civic-standards-for-the-faithful-saints?lang=eng&_r=1

 

If there are good reasons for men to remain unconverted, even directed, or "placed" by the Lord to remain unconverted, isn't it also possible that some who are born into this church may remain unconverted, leave the church, and even be directed by the Lord to do so, in order to accomplish his purposes outside the church?  It doesn't seem to me to be entirely implausible.  It seems like a man can do more good if he is not constrained by unbelief.   It may be his path as directed by the Lord to ultimate conversion.  The Lord's ways are not always our ways.  His purposes and methods may not make sense to us now, so I don't think it wise to assume that there are "never" good reasons to leave Mormonism.  I personally will leave that judgment up to the Lord.

[ksfisher]

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

 

If there are good reasons for men to remain unconverted, even directed, or "placed" by the Lord to remain unconverted, isn't it also possible that some who are born into this church may remain unconverted, leave the church, and even be directed by the Lord to do so, in order to accomplish his purposes outside the church?  It doesn't seem to me to be entirely implausible.  It seems like a man can do more good if he is not constrained by unbelief.   It may be his path as directed by the Lord to ultimate conversion.  The Lord's ways are not always our ways.  His purposes and methods may not make sense to us now, so I don't think it wise to assume that there are "never" good reasons to leave Mormonism.  I personally will leave that judgment up to the Lord.

It doesn't sound plausible to me.  Being part of the church means making eternal covenants with God.  God will never break his promises to us and he desires that we keep our promises to him.  Directing someone to leave the church would mean abandoning the path of discipleship that was entered upon baptism.  Why would God want someone to do that? 

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It doesn't sound plausible to me.  Being part of the church means making eternal covenants with God.  God will never break his promises to us and he desires that we keep our promises to him.  Directing someone to leave the church would mean abandoning the path of discipleship that was entered upon baptism.  Why would God want someone to do that? 

True, covenants are important.  But you don't have to leave the church to break covenants, so what is the good of staying in the church if you are not going to keep your covenants anyway?   What if an individual's ultimate conversion can only be found through leaving the church and seeing things from the outside?  Is it not better to have someone leave the church, if ultimately that path leads to a true conversion in the end?  What good is a luke-warm, unbelieving, unconverted, life-long member?  Perhaps he needs to be spewed out for his own good, before he can appreciate what he had.

Edited December 6, 2016 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Bluebell answered this very well.

I don't think anyone here has claimed that there is no overhead, just that the money donated specifically for fast offerings or humanitarian services does not fund the overhead. This has been said repeatedly here, yet it seems to be falling on deaf ears.

This is a dead horse but I'll make one final statement. When you're dealing with fungible donations, it doesn't matter much if the overhead comes from the FO donation or the tithing donation.

I make a $100 donation; $50 to FO and $50 to tithing. All $50 of my FO donation goes to FO. Great. What about my $50 tithing donation? How much of that goes to pay the overhead for the FO? Does 10%, 20%, 50% of that go towards overhead? Lets just pretend (because we don't have any actual data to work with) that 20% of my tithing donation ($10) goes towards operational overhead. That means 90% of my donation goes towards charitable causes. Not bad, right?

But what if it's higher, like 50% of my tithing goes towards overhead. That would mean only 75% of my $100 donation went toward charitable contributions. Still not bad, but not as great as 90% or 100%. Regardless, my full donation of $100 is reduced and has less impact on charitable causes than if I had donated to a charity like Samaritan's Purse which has 90% efficiency where $90 of my $100 goes to charitable purposes as opposed to only $75.

When funds are fungible, as the fine print on the tithing slip states, then it doesn't matter much if the overhead comes from the FO charitable contribution or the Tithing charitable contribution.

[bcuzbcuz]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It might have to do with better and more spacious facilities. 

As you know, I served in Sweden, a bit later than you did. And I have a son who is serving there now. It seems to me there are substantially more Church-constructed meeting houses for the members to meet in as opposed to converted villas, which was the case when I was there except for the larger cities. 

And from what I remember about the reserved temperament of Swedes, it hardly surprises me that they are not immediately forthcoming with greetings when you first encounter them. They are good people. It just takes some time for them to warm up to you. I'm a bit like that, so I understand it. 

Your points are well taken.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a dead horse but I'll make one final statement. When you're dealing with fungible donations, it doesn't matter much if the overhead comes from the FO donation or the tithing donation.

I make a $100 donation; $50 to FO and $50 to tithing. All $50 of my FO donation goes to FO. Great. What about my $50 tithing donation? How much of that goes to pay the overhead for the FO? Does 10%, 20%, 50% of that go towards overhead? Lets just pretend (because we don't have any actual data to work with) that 20% of my tithing donation ($10) goes towards operational overhead. That means 90% of my donation goes towards charitable causes. Not bad, right?

But what if it's higher, like 50% of my tithing goes towards overhead. That would mean only 75% of my $100 donation went toward charitable contributions. Still not bad, but not as great as 90% or 100%. Regardless, my full donation of $100 is reduced and has less impact on charitable causes than if I had donated to a charity like Samaritan's Purse which has 90% efficiency where $90 of my $100 goes to charitable purposes as opposed to only $75.

When funds are fungible, as the fine print on the tithing slip states, then it doesn't matter much if the overhead comes from the FO charitable contribution or the Tithing charitable contribution.

It makes a great deal of difference from the standpoint of the donor who is contributing money to the fast offering or humanitarian funds and is concerned about whether all or only a portion of her donation is going directly to support the poor and needy.

And notwithstanding the fine print on the tithing slip, I think we have heard from enough people here who are in the know to conclude that fast offering or humanitarian donations in the Church don't go to "overhead."