Leaving the 99 for the 1

[stemelbow]

Ward Conference happened this past week. Our Stake President said (I'll paraphrase), "only about 50 people have left the Church in our stake over the past 10 years (the amount of time he's been SP) over historic or philosophic (his word as I recall) reasons.  That is 3,500 people in our stake and only 50 have left officially by having their names removed through a lawyer or personally because of these reasons that some are saying are leading people out in droves.  It's really no big deal. Its such a small percentage."

I was kind of astounded. Really.  He doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of things. 

Anywho he spoke to the whole ward.  I almost chimed in to suggest that that percentage (1.4%) is 700 percent larger than the percent of LDS versus the rest of the world (.2%), but the setting wasn't set up for us to talk only for him to talk at us.  Anyway, this may indicate the problem in the Church is larger than the Church has influence in the world (something that he seems to think is great).

What should I do?  Is the notion of leaving the 99 for the 1 lost on us these days? 

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ward Conference happened this past week. Our Stake President said (I'll paraphrase), "only about 50 people have left the Church in our stake over the past 10 years (the amount of time he's been SP) over historic or philosophic (his word as I recall) reasons.  That is 3,500 people in our stake and only 50 have left officially by having their names removed through a lawyer or personally because of these reasons that some are saying are leading people out in droves.  It's really no big deal. Its such a small percentage."

I was kind of astounded. Really.  He doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of things. 

Anywho he spoke to the whole ward.  I almost chimed in to suggest that that percentage (1.4%) is 700 percent larger than the percent of LDS versus the rest of the world (.2%), but the setting wasn't set up for us to talk only for him to talk at us.  Anyway, this may indicate the problem in the Church is larger than the Church has influence in the world (something that he seems to think is great).

What should I do?  Is the notion of leaving the 99 for the 1 lost on us these days? 

It doesn't sound like your stake president was saying that your stake doesn't have it's share of problems, just that, from his perspective, people having their names removed from church records was not one of the major ones.  I'm sure that if you and he were to sit down he could spend a great deal of time telling you about the challenges faced by your particular stake. 

[Glenn101]

19 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It doesn't sound like your stake president was saying that your stake doesn't have it's share of problems, just that, from his perspective, people having their names removed from church records was not one of the major ones.  I'm sure that if you and he were to sit down he could spend a great deal of time telling you about the challenges faced by your particular stake. 

I sure, as well, that there are many more people in the stake that would be willing to give the Stake President guidance on how to run the Stake. Who needs a High Council anyway, with all of that counsel available?

stemelbow, I am not trying to mock you. I am just sort of amplifying ksfisher's point (I hope) that the Stake President has a multitude of problems, something like 3500 of them.

By the way, how is the home teaching doing in the stake?

Glenn

[HappyJackWagon]

As you know, there are many people on this board who share the same attitude.

"Nothing to see here. Move along."

I think that having people leave for "legitimate" reasons challenges the worldview of some people and they almost view it as an attack. So if a person loses their testimony because of doctrine, social issues, or history, BUT is also offended by a thoughtless leader or also chooses different lifestyle behaviors because of their change in belief, they no longer have a legitimate reason to leave. They were offended and wanted to sin. It's the same old trope. But in my experience these things don't happen in a vacuum. There is rarely (if ever) just one reason why a person leaves.

I'd be curious to see if your SP thinks the activity rate in the stake is a big deal or not. Or what about the stats showing the percentage of endowed with a current temple recommend? I think people who officially resign are an exception. Most people simply fade into the background over time so it becomes easy for leaders to think they just weren't committed. And it's true. They changed and became uncommitted. The question is why.

Why do people lose faith?

Why do people become less committed?

Why do people decide to change behaviors and lifestyle?

I'm disheartened when there can't even be any agreement about whether or not there is a problem. Until a problem can be recognized there will never be any movement towards fixing the (non)problem and church activity rates will continue to swirl around the toilet bowl and once active members will fade away.

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why do people lose faith?

Why do people become less committed?

Why do people decide to change behaviors and lifestyle?

 

According to the OP the stake president wasn't addressing any of these issues (at least in the paraphrase provided).  These very well could be major issues that weigh heavily on the mind of this particular stake president, but they are not addressed in the OP.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Ward Conference happened this past week. Our Stake President said (I'll paraphrase), "only about 50 people have left the Church in our stake over the past 10 years (the amount of time he's been SP) over historic or philosophic (his word as I recall) reasons.  That is 3,500 people in our stake and only 50 have left officially by having their names removed through a lawyer or personally because of these reasons that some are saying are leading people out in droves.  It's really no big deal. Its such a small percentage."

I was kind of astounded. Really.  He doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of things. 

Anywho he spoke to the whole ward.  I almost chimed in to suggest that that percentage (1.4%) is 700 percent larger than the percent of LDS versus the rest of the world (.2%), but the setting wasn't set up for us to talk only for him to talk at us.  Anyway, this may indicate the problem in the Church is larger than the Church has influence in the world (something that he seems to think is great).

What should I do?  Is the notion of leaving the 99 for the 1 lost on us these days? 

If he doesn't see the problem, then your stake is in huge trouble.  I suspect he does see the problem and is just trying to present a brave face to the faithful.

The huge problem being this:

Being a member of the Church takes effort (to attend, pay tithing, fulfill callings and go to the Temple).   There are lots of people on the rolls, but only a percentage of them are actually "effortfull" members.  Many still believe, but don't put in the effort to attend or otherwise help "build the kingdom."  Others stop believing, but still stay on the rolls because they just don't care.

It's like this message board.  There are thousands of people on the "rolls" who signed up at one time or another.  But only a percentage of those actually participated, and a smaller percentage still participate.

Having your name removed from the Church rolls also takes effort.

So when the Church loses someone who actually has their name removed from the rolls (as opposed to just stopping attending), it's losing an effortfull member.  It's losing someone who was more likely to attend and participate.  It's losing the most important (and probably rarest) type of member.

Then again, if the meeting suited it I would have raised my hand and asked him how many convert baptisms the stake has had in the last 10 years and how many are still attending.  I suspect the answer isn't 50 or greater, and that would be another cause for concern.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Ward Conference happened this past week. Our Stake President said (I'll paraphrase), "only about 50 people have left the Church in our stake over the past 10 years (the amount of time he's been SP) over historic or philosophic (his word as I recall) reasons.  That is 3,500 people in our stake and only 50 have left officially by having their names removed through a lawyer or personally because of these reasons that some are saying are leading people out in droves.  It's really no big deal. Its such a small percentage."

I was kind of astounded. Really.  He doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of things. 

Anywho he spoke to the whole ward.  I almost chimed in to suggest that that percentage (1.4%) is 700 percent larger than the percent of LDS versus the rest of the world (.2%), but the setting wasn't set up for us to talk only for him to talk at us.  Anyway, this may indicate the problem in the Church is larger than the Church has influence in the world (something that he seems to think is great).

What should I do?  Is the notion of leaving the 99 for the 1 lost on us these days? 

Gobsmacked!  This kind of public acknowledgment that members are leaving the church is unheard of and evidentially a recent phenominium. But that he crafted the admission as "No Big Deal" is telling...I guess it brings new meaning to the old adage don't let the door hit you in the A** on the way out...

Edited February 28, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

According to the OP the stake president wasn't addressing any of these issues (at least in the paraphrase provided).  These very well could be major issues that weigh heavily on the mind of this particular stake president, but they are not addressed in the OP.

My point is that doctrinal or philosophic reasons often play into these other areas so claiming, like the SP did, that people don't leave for philosophic/doctrinal reasons really shows how he misunderstands the problems and how people relate to their faith and behavior.

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So when the Church loses someone who actually has their name removed from the rolls (as opposed to just stopping attending), it's losing an effortfull member.  It's losing someone who was more likely to attend and participate.  It's losing the most important (and probably rarest) type of member.

 

 

I would disagree with this.  Based on discussion with my stake president, his feeling is that people who have their names removed rarely, if ever, attend church.  He is basing this on the over 500 name removal request that he has seen while serving as stake president.

[Ahab]

Relatively speaking, people leaving the Church with their names removed from the membership rolls is a much bigger deal than members who don't attend meetings very often.  Members who don't attend meetings very often still usually maintain their testimonies of the gospel and do things to build up the kingdom of God, even if they haven't gone to any Church meetings in years. 

I don't know the statistics on that, exactly, but it's been my experience and the experience of many so-called "less" active members I'very known.

(years ago the brethren counseled that we not refer to any member as an "inactive" member, just "less" active than some other members)

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I would disagree with this.  Based on discussion with my stake president, his feeling is that people who have their names removed rarely, if ever, attend church.  He is basing this on the over 500 name removal request that he has seen while serving as stake president.

I find that incredibly hard to believe.

But this Cinepro's comment was about people who had been effortful (past tense). So while maybe they stopped attending at some point and then had their name removed, who knows? But I agree with Cinepro that it takes more effort to resign than to merely fade away like 60% of church members seem to do (basing that on very rough inactivity rates).

Most people who fade away simply don't pay enough attention to the church to keep up on issues like "the policy" to even care to resign later. People who resign were engaged at one point or they wouldn't be motivated to officially resign.

Edited February 28, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Ward Conference happened this past week. Our Stake President said (I'll paraphrase), "only about 50 people have left the Church in our stake over the past 10 years (the amount of time he's been SP) over historic or philosophic (his word as I recall) reasons.  That is 3,500 people in our stake and only 50 have left officially by having their names removed through a lawyer or personally because of these reasons that some are saying are leading people out in droves.  It's really no big deal. Its such a small percentage."

I was kind of astounded. Really.  He doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of things. 

Anywho he spoke to the whole ward.  I almost chimed in to suggest that that percentage (1.4%) is 700 percent larger than the percent of LDS versus the rest of the world (.2%), but the setting wasn't set up for us to talk only for him to talk at us.  Anyway, this may indicate the problem in the Church is larger than the Church has influence in the world (something that he seems to think is great).

What should I do?  Is the notion of leaving the 99 for the 1 lost on us these days? 

Yeah, that seems like a lot, how many other people just go inactive, but don't request to have their names removed from the church.  I would guess that the number of people asking for their names to be removed is much less than the numbers of people who just stop attending actively and keep their names on the roles.

Seems like your SP is trying to justify some kind of guilt for not having any good answers to help people struggling, and this is a post hoc justification of sorts.  

[Johnnie Cake]

29 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I would disagree with this.  Based on discussion with my stake president, his feeling is that people who have their names removed rarely, if ever, attend church.  He is basing this on the over 500 name removal request that he has seen while serving as stake president.

500?  Whoa...Salt Lake we have a problem.  In my old ward...a member of the bishopric (and family) just left, the YW president (and Family) just left, a member of the Tabernacle Choir (his family stayed) has left....not to mention me a former member of the high council, bishopric member and YM President.  This level of formerly talented, active members leaving is a new phenomena.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Jeanne]

"No big deal" is not looking at the whole picture of the 50 who left.  The  50 have extended families..or not yet started a family...who will be influenced or not be raised in the church. 50 people and some big posterity will not be tithed members and that is probably several generations down the line.  Yes sir, that small 50 is a big deal.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ward Conference happened this past week. Our Stake President said (I'll paraphrase), "only about 50 people have left the Church in our stake over the past 10 years (the amount of time he's been SP) over historic or philosophic (his word as I recall) reasons.  That is 3,500 people in our stake and only 50 have left officially by having their names removed through a lawyer or personally because of these reasons that some are saying are leading people out in droves.  It's really no big deal. Its such a small percentage."

I was kind of astounded. Really.  He doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of things. 

Anywho he spoke to the whole ward.  I almost chimed in to suggest that that percentage (1.4%) is 700 percent larger than the percent of LDS versus the rest of the world (.2%), but the setting wasn't set up for us to talk only for him to talk at us.  Anyway, this may indicate the problem in the Church is larger than the Church has influence in the world (something that he seems to think is great).

What should I do?  Is the notion of leaving the 99 for the 1 lost on us these days? 

He really said, "it's no big deal"? 

I think one is a big deal.  That one could be my son,  my sister,  my uncle,  my best friend. One IS a big deal. Fifty in a stake is 6 in my ward. This is a big deal even more.

[Jeanne]

Just now, Rain said:

He really said, "it's no big deal"? 

I think one is a big deal.  That one could be my son,  my sister,  my uncle,  my best friend. One IS a big deal. Fifty in a stake is 6 in my ward. This is a big deal even more.

I love it that you care about the one.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ward Conference happened this past week. Our Stake President said (I'll paraphrase), "only about 50 people have left the Church in our stake over the past 10 years (the amount of time he's been SP) over historic or philosophic (his word as I recall) reasons.  That is 3,500 people in our stake and only 50 have left officially by having their names removed through a lawyer or personally because of these reasons that some are saying are leading people out in droves.  It's really no big deal. Its such a small percentage."

I was kind of astounded. Really.  He doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of things. 

Anywho he spoke to the whole ward.  I almost chimed in to suggest that that percentage (1.4%) is 700 percent larger than the percent of LDS versus the rest of the world (.2%), but the setting wasn't set up for us to talk only for him to talk at us.  Anyway, this may indicate the problem in the Church is larger than the Church has influence in the world (something that he seems to think is great).

What should I do?  Is the notion of leaving the 99 for the 1 lost on us these days? 

I do not want to seem combative, I do not want to offend...so I will tread softly. I often hear terms like leaving in droves...what does that mean? What % does that represent? Why would members need to hire a lawyer to have their name removed? Why was the Stake President talking "at you" and not "to you"? Do you think the Stake President lying, or just uninformed about his own Stake? Can you CFR, your own numbers, and why does your tone seem to negative, or am I reading you wrong? 

I am am asking sincerely. 

Papa

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I do not want to seem combative, I do not want to offend...so I will tread softly. I often hear terms like leaving in droves...what does that mean? What % does that represent? Why would members need to hire a lawyer to have their name removed? Why was the Stake President talking "at you" and not "to you"? Do you think the Stake President lying, or just uninformed about his own Stake? Can you CFR, your own numbers, and why does your tone seem to negative, or am I reading you wrong? 

I am am asking sincerely. 

Papa

It doesn't sound negative to me.  More sorrowful.  If the my SP said it was "no big deal" then I would be very surprised at that.  I can't imagine any of the SPs I have had expressing that.  I have seen their sorrow over people leaving.  I would be really surprised if my SP said that.  

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

500?  Whoa...Salt Lake we have a problem.  In my old ward...a member of the bishopric (and family) just left, the YW president (and Family) just left, a member of the Tabernacle Choir (his family stayed) has left....not to mention me a former member of the high council, bishopric member and YM President.  This level of formerly talented, active members leaving is a new phenomena.

I imagine each area has its own challenges.  

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Rain said:

It doesn't sound negative to me.  More sorrowful.  If the my SP said it was "no big deal" then I would be very surprised at that.  I can't imagine any of the SPs I have had expressing that.  I have seen their sorrow over people leaving.  I would be really surprised if my SP said that.  

I was in this case asking Stem, I missed the comment of "no big deal", every member counts. Unless he was lying about 50 people in 10 years, or he is was implying that the Stake President was being dishonest. 50 people in 10 years does not a drove make. 

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

500?  Whoa...Salt Lake we have a problem.  In my old ward...a member of the bishopric (and family) just left, the YW president (and Family) just left, a member of the Tabernacle Choir (his family stayed) has left....not to mention me a former member of the high council, bishopric member and YM President.  This level of formerly talented, active members leaving is a new phenomena.

One interesting thing about that 500 leaving; in my ward, during that time, we've had none.

[CMZ]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ward Conference happened this past week. Our Stake President said (I'll paraphrase), "only about 50 people have left the Church in our stake over the past 10 years (the amount of time he's been SP) over historic or philosophic (his word as I recall) reasons.  That is 3,500 people in our stake and only 50 have left officially by having their names removed through a lawyer or personally because of these reasons that some are saying are leading people out in droves.  It's really no big deal. Its such a small percentage."

I was kind of astounded. Really.  He doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of things. 

Anywho he spoke to the whole ward.  I almost chimed in to suggest that that percentage (1.4%) is 700 percent larger than the percent of LDS versus the rest of the world (.2%), but the setting wasn't set up for us to talk only for him to talk at us.  Anyway, this may indicate the problem in the Church is larger than the Church has influence in the world (something that he seems to think is great).

What should I do?  Is the notion of leaving the 99 for the 1 lost on us these days? 

I wasn't there but I'm not getting from what you said that he thought that any of those people were not worth going after. I'm guessing he really was just talking about percentages when there's this talk going around of "people leaving the Church in droves." I think some people hear that and think, "Omigosh, what do these 'droves' know that I don't know." I think sometimes leaders such as stake presidents get put in these impossible positions where they are made out by some member or members to not be trying to hard enough to keep people in the Church, but then any effort they do put forth is perceived as an attempt to take away someone's agency. I do know of some very recalcitrant people who just insisted quite dramatically that their name get removed from the records of the Church. What's the bishop supposed to do? Whatever they do in response to that will be seen by someone as somehow wrong.

[Rain]

By the way stemmelbow, I thought of you as I spoke in SS this week. We were doing the teacher's council.  Someone mentioned not knowing what to do with people who talk about controversial things. He expressed his frustration over it.

When I was teaching Gospel Principles there was a man in the class that sometimes would say some odd, to me and my husband, things. Other times he said some profound things. We were never sure where he would go with them. He wasn't new to the church, just liked being in the class.

He spoke in the council about how he sometimes said strange things to test if the teacher was listening. (I hope I passed!)

I later spoke and thinking of both you and him said that I really didn't think it was a bad thing to ask questions of those who say controversial things so we can at least understand the student better. It didn't matter that we got through all the material. What mattered was how the student felt and how he would apply the things learned in the lesson.

Now, I do think that disruptions can get out of hand, but the more I have been learning, the more I have considered how teachers react to students in class, the more I have listened to you and others, the more I think we are really missing the mark when our lessons take priority over our students.

No one need jump in and say we can't have a free for all or that the lesson is important. I agree with that. I just wonder how many of the one we are missing when we don't listen to our students. 

[CMZ]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

No one need jump in and say we can't have a free for all or that the lesson is important. I agree with that. I just wonder how many of the one we are missing when we don't listen to our students. 

Teachers are supposed to try to reach out to each individual student. It's not so much a matter of making sure you cover a certain amount of material.

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What should I do?  Is the notion of leaving the 99 for the 1 lost on us these days? 

Should a person who purposely and willing leaves the Church be considered one of the "lost".  The word by Jesus to me seems to be of an individual who was trying to follow but got distracted or whatever and got lost.  They want to be found but they can't find their way.  Should the shepherd go after sheep that have purposely left and perhaps even attack the shepherd if he comes around to them?  A lost person is a totally inactive person but has no anger or bitterness at the Church.  An apostate is not a lost person but is a wild sheep who does not want to be a part of flock.

Edited March 1, 2017 by carbon dioxide