Leaving the 99 for the 1

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

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. 

I think that depends on what it's being compared to. If there is an average of 50 people resigning every 10 years, then it's not a drove. However, if there had been 2 people within the past 20 years resign and then within the past 10 that has bumped up to 50, then yeah, it would seem like a significant issue. But to the point of the OP, every ONE should be a big deal. The thoughtlessness and dismissiveness of the SP's statement is disturbing.

In my ward area (boundaries have shifted 4-5 times in the past 10 years so I can't simply call it my ward), but I can immediately think of 5 families that have left in the past 5 years. Those 5 families represent 32 individuals, many of whom were obviously children who will never raise their families in the church. There were also a few individuals so I think saying 35 members in my ward area in 5 years is a drove. And that's not even counting the once actives who have faded away and become inactive. Each of these families were once very active and engaged.

[rongo]

My stake's personal experience dovetails with this stake president's *numerical* "rate" (i.e., < 5 name removals per year). Other areas might (and certainly do) have different anecdotal trends (i.e., they might have a blip in the rate in either direction), but my sense is that the number of actual name removals is actually quite low.

As has been pointed out in this thread, the much bigger problem for the Church is the number of members who simple go inactive ("effort-free"). Sometimes this is because of personal doubts or testimony concerns; often it is not. 

The stake president's assessment that almost all name removals are from people who are already very "frozen" (Elder Jay E. Jensen's term --- meaning very inactive, non-participating, and non-connected) is spot on, in my experience. I have experienced three name removals in 12 years, and they were all on the extreme end of inactivity. I think where fully-active members suddenly remove their name, that would almost always indicate that doctrine or policy are at the epicenter of the reason. But I think overall this is a minute fraction of the cases.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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...

It really makes me wonder the stories of those 50.  Perhaps part of their concern was coldness, indifference from the leadership as they struggled with their decisions. 

[stemelbow]

17 hours 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'm sure he could tell me many things...and yes, he's indicated a number of other problems.  But that's not really the point. 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

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

huh?  I'm not sure right now.  I used to be in the EQP in our ward, some years ago and we did alright.  But our wards have all been realigned so I'm not sure how it's going now.  They took nearly a year before they got me a home teaching assignment with the change.  And yes, I realize the SP is a busy man dealing with many people. 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

He thinks its a pretty big deal as he's mentioned it too us in the past.  the Stake has a 40% activity rate, he has told us, "but it's better than the national and world average".  I'm curious if he thinks the success in the stake is all dependent on him so he has to offer explanations, excuses and the like.  I don't know. 

16 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Or what about the stats showing the percentage of endowed with a current temple recommend?

They were concerned enough over this and the ration of active MP holders versus active member that they solicited for years to change the boundaries of the stake and finally did last year.  So I'm guessing it remains a concern. 

16 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I agree.  That's perhaps the biggest reason for my disappointment over his comments.  It seems he misunderstands that though there were relatively few who had their names removed there are likely tons more who are just kind of fading away.  He, for instance, has no clue who I am.  My wife and I went in for a temple recommend interview with him, at our last expiration, and my wife was in the Stake Primary for 3 or 4 years and was just released at that time.  he had no clue who she was.  We were pretty amazed that after all that time he didn't know her name or didn't seem to recognize her. 

16 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Agreed.  Disapointment continued because the 1st counselor chimed in to say, and again I'll paraphrase, "I don't see a problem.  Here's an example.  I have a long time friend, a friend of maybe 20 years.  He and I are pretty close.  But for whatever reason he has left the Church.  He hadn't said anything to me about it until one day he came into my office and said, "it's kind of weird to have adult men interview young boys and girls over sexual stuff, sin't it?"  He responded, "look, I've heard where you are with the Church.  I'm all in.  I have no problem with the Church.  You simply can't tear me down.  It won't happen.  So, it's best if you just not bring this up to me." "  He acted like that was the way to handle situations wherein our friends and family are leaving the Church.  The question being addressed was how do we talk to or deal with our friends and family who leave. 

Don't get me or my wife started on the issue dealing with women's issues.  It was horribly handled.

 

[stemelbow]

16 hours 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.

It's probably true that most who have their names removed aren't, at that time attending.  usually steps are taken.  Often, I'd wager people move into areas with the intent of not attending anymore and gradually fall even more away until names are removed.  The stake leaders have no clues about this person though.  I know a number of friends who've gone that route.  Perhaps their stake presidents felt like they weren't worth the effort either because they weren't attending at that time. 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I think you've nailed it.  I think this makes me feel more of a reason to go and have a chat with him about all of this. 

[stemelbow]

14 hours 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?

Not sure exactly.  It's a pretty ambiguous term.  I don't really care for it.  But, as I recall, it was what the SP said.

14 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

What % does that represent?

I guess somewhere around 1.4%

14 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Why would members need to hire a lawyer to have their name removed?

They don't.  A lawyer has offered his services for free in SL area.  He has, as I recall, helped people all around the world with the name removal process though. 

14 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Why was the Stake President talking "at you" and not "to you"?

I'm sure he felt like it was to you.  But it felt at me to me.  I didn't have a voice, nor did anyone else. 

14 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Do you think the Stake President lying, or just uninformed about his own Stake?

No and no.

14 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

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

I'm sure there's negativity in there.  It was disappointing to me, added upon tons of other experiences of disappointment.  I think that's the cause of my negativity. 

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Rain said:

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. 

I hear you.  It is one of the hardest things for me when teaching and something brings up something difficult, controversial, off-topic, overly personal, or whatever.  But I too think it's far more important to actually listen and engage then shut down and subvert.  But it's a tough balance to find. 

 

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Should a person who purposely and willing leaves the Church be considered one of the "lost". 

Uh...Yes! 

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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.

I'm not sure, but you don't happen to be my Stake President, are you? 

[Johnnie Cake]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The question being addressed was how do we talk to or deal with our friends and family who leave. 

Unbelievable that an address at a stake conference (or special meeting)  would be focused on this subject.  This was unheard of only a few years ago.  They must have a bigger problem on their hands then they are admitting...on the one hand they are admitting that only 50 resigned..."No big Deal" and on the other hand they are dedicating 2 addresses from members of the stake presidency on how to deal with friends and family members who leave the church.  They are not being honest in addressing the real severity of the problem or so it seems. They have a bigger problem on their hands and are running scared, don't know what to do to fix the problem and are attempting to mitigate the severity of the problem to those that remain. 

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Unbelievable that an address at a stake conference (or special meeting)  would be focused on this subject.  This was unheard of only a few years ago.  

Critics like to have it both ways on this. If this is never discussed in meetings, the mantra is "Bunker mentality! The're whistling past the graveyard and ignoring the elephant in the room" (cue Jack Nicholson bellowing, "You can't handle the truth!") If it is discussed by leaders, the mantra becomes "Look at the effect we're having! The dam is breaking!" 

Edited March 1, 2017 by rongo

[stemelbow]

Let me clarify the setting.  The last two meetings of Church the adults met in the chapel.  So we sat in the chapel and listened to a speech by the SP counselor (wherein he told us how he's been very good at magnifying his calling and that's a great example for us)  then we stayed in the chapel.  They sprang upon us a Q&A or so they said.  They did this last year I believe it was.  But they took about 10 questions and said they'd address them for the next two hours.  From memory the questions were:

"Why can't my granddaughter become the president of the Church?"

   "how is the Church doing with women's issues?"

"How do we talk to our youth about suicide?"

"How do we talk to our family and friends who are leaving the Church?" (this is the one being addressed that sparked this thread, if it wasn't obvious)

"What if we know someone has transgressed.  What do we do about it?"

  "what if we have transgressed and we haven't had it resolved by our leaders?"

"What do we do about people who are hooked on opiates?"
  "what is the problem with legalizing marifuana?"

"What do we do about Same-sex attraction?"
  "how do we talk to our kids about it?"

  "what is the Church's stance on transsexuals?"
 

And perhaps there was one more.  The bolded questions  were the ones that the SP wanted to add as the few select members were allowed to ask their questions before it all got started.  For instance, the SP went off on Marijuana and then heroine for a good half hour, yet no one asked about it, but whatever.

I appreciate the effort to address difficult questions.  It was set up by saying they wanted to get to know us, but for some reason had a few people line up in the back with a microphone to ask the questions as not all of us were allowed to ask.  They didn't get to all the questions.  Each one they did address took quite a while and they rambled on tons.  There were, I acknowledge, a few good responses. 

The panelists answering were the Stake Presidency and our bishop.  I think our bishop was allowed to answer one question and took less than 2 minutes doing so.  The Stake President spoke the most, as has always been his custom and he stepped aside a couple of times as he chose who was going to answer what. 

 

 

 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, 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.

He said either no big deal or something similar, as I recall.  yes.  yeah...I was pretty disappointed. 

[Tacenda]

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He said either no big deal or something similar, as I recall.  yes.  yeah...I was pretty disappointed. 

A while back I read stories of inactive members being asked if they want their name off the records of the church. Seems opposite of what the church has done in the past. Do you know anything about this, or do others here know of this happening? 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Tacenda

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Critics like to have it both ways on this. If this is never discussed in meetings, the mantra is "Bunker mentality! The're whistling past the graveyard and ignoring the elephant in the room" (cue Jack Nicholson bellowing, "You can't handle the truth!") If it is discussed by leaders, the mantra becomes "Look at the effect we're having! The dam is breaking!" 

No. What is being said here is that it is disingenuous to minimize the problem by saying it is no big deal while simultaneously treating it like it is a big deal (2 conference addresses).

Here's what they should do:  Say it's a big deal. Treat it like its a big deal. Try to find solutions. Simple.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Critics like to have it both ways on this. If this is never discussed in meetings, the mantra is "Bunker mentality! The're whistling past the graveyard and ignoring the elephant in the room" (cue Jack Nicholson bellowing, "You can't handle the truth!") If it is discussed by leaders, the mantra becomes "Look at the effect we're having! The dam is breaking!" 

Given the additional information from Stemelbow ...its doesn't seem that this topic was the motivation for the meeting...merely one of several questions asked

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

A while back I read stories of inactive members being asked if they want their name off the records of the church. Seems opposite of what the church has done in the past. Do you know anything about this, or do others here know of this happening? 

Not in some campaign, but over the years as I've travelled the road of seeking out the less actives, I've been partners with people who have asked.  As in, we drop in on someone.  The response is "please dont' come visit me/us.  We don't really have any interest in Church and would like to be off any "to be visited" list you might have."

Sometimes my partner has come back with, "well would you like your name off the rolls of the Church?"  I recall I had a companion on my mission who was prone to do that kind of thing. 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

A while back I read stories of inactive members being asked if they want their name off the records of the church. Seems opposite of what the church has done in the past. Do you know anything about this, or do others here know of this happening? 

There isn't a church directive, but I have told people who freak out about Church contact (very upset, adamantly want nobody from the Church to contact them, ever again, worlds without end) that the only way to ensure this is to remove their name. If able to continue the conversation at that point, I explain that they must write a simply letter stating that they want their name removed, and I explain a) that I don't recommend they do this, because I believe they are severing their covenants, and b) that it is the only way to prevent further contact if they are serious (none of us will be in our callings forever, and if their name remains on a list, they have a 100% chance of being visited in the future, no matter how many post-it notes we leave telling people not to visit them. Their name is on the ward list). 

I only had one sister write the letter. Another resigned directly through Salt Lake, and my role was confirming this. And another was a mentally-incompetent man (his caretaker brought him in) who was furious that the missionaries stopped by. He threatened to sue the Church, and he was also upset that his sealing to his ex-wife was still intact. He wanted her excommunicated and their sealing cancelled immediately. I explained that by removing his name, he would be severing the sealing as far as he was concerned.

We don't actively seek to have angry members remove their names, but I also don't expect my leaders to put up with being abused. I tell them to explain the option, if people say they want no contact. Having people actually write the letter is very, very rare, in my experience. 

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. What is being said here is that it is disingenuous to minimize the problem by saying it is no big deal while simultaneously treating it like it is a big deal (2 conference addresses).

Here's what they should do:  Say it's a big deal. Treat it like its a big deal. Try to find solutions. Simple.

I agree, but I was referring more to how ex and inner critics react to any attempt to "treat it." *They* try to declare victory whether one does nothing or something. 

I was just commenting on that. I agree that Church leaders should not be afraid to admit (tacitly, or openly) that there are concerns that lead people away from the Church, and to try to stop this or deal with it if it exists. 

I also wouldn't use his choice of words ("no big deal") as a stick to beat him with. I've misspoken or spoken clumsily before in live situations. We all have. I'm sure that he doesn't feel that it is No. Big. Deal. It sounds like he meant to put it in big picture perspective. 

[Rain]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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.

Yes, but one should use wisdom in how and when to go after the lost. Sometimes it means the only thing you do is keep loving them.

[BlueDreams]

On 2/28/2017 at 2:33 PM, 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 don't think it's lost. Though I would word it differently, I think the concern and sometimes energy put into this specific niche population is disproportionate. And in wards it's not the 99 and 1 lost sheep. It's often the 80 and 20 lost sheep. 10 are heading near a cliff, 5 are wandering aimlessly, 4 are relatively in open land but have illnesses that need treatment, 1 is very far off, in another land, and possibly unreachable at their current place. though the other sheep may have pieces of their concerns (doubts from historical issues, current issues, etc) most aren't really headed in that direction. So which do you focus on first? 

I also think these cases are closer to the prodigal son. He wasn't simply lost, he left. His father didn't stop him and didn't come for him until he was ready to turn back and return. At which point the father made the journey home easier. The cases mentioned aren't simply lost or gone astray, they're actively leaving. 

I don't mean this to be callous or uncaring about their concerns. Far from it. But I don't believe in focusing my energy on people who do not want said help. We also have a tendency, both on this board and elsewhere to focus on specific pet topics. Though some of these are definitely important, globally (or even locally, in this case) they may be "no big deal" or at least far less of a deal than we have placed on it.  It probably shouldn't be the focus of a specific ward's efforts to meet the needs of its congregants and less-active members when other issues may be more pressing and relevant to their sheep, both lost and found. 

 

Luckily we're also not called to just be sheep but servants of Christ. It means that we are all personally called to meet those groups that the stake can't focus on rescuing.

I keep thinking of this time that I saw a woman on the street with a sign. Where I work and live I see this all the time. I often go by, knowing that giving money isn't necessarily the best move and homeless advocates often strongly discourage it. But this woman stuck out and I knew her heart was afraid and at a breaking point. I felt prompted to help her and turned around. She was stranded, hurt from a boyfriend, and vulnerable/hungry. She was also bitter towards the LDS church who her local leaders hadn't been the best. So I did what I could, got her solid food, and drove her to the train station to leave her with a prayer and simply testimony, after hearing her hurts. It struck me that most wouldn't know both passing her by and in the larger church. Her life meant that the records were likely not up to date to where she was and she looked little different from anyone else who held a sign near parking lots, panhandling. She was really really lost...but God had not forgotten her.

I haven't become a scholar fighting back on historical concerns and rewriting narratives, I haven't become a homeless advocate fighting to heal the lost and afflicted. I still drive by most panhandlers/homeless, knowing there isn't much I can do for them.

 I have my niche to help and heal. And in a moment I was prompted to reach out and do something outside the norm. Not necessarily make it my new norm. Each of us do. My thought is, if you want to help, help. Pray for opportunities to work and be His hands. It doesn't have to be the stake president who leads all efforts to bring in ALL lost or wandering sheep. It is his to focus the efforts to best meet as many as he/the wards can. Based on what he hears from the leaders of these wards. If you feel unqualified, ask to become what is needed and to know where your limits lie...to know where your focus should be. But in the end I think there are personal limits to what we can and should focus our attention on in our spheres of influence. It's not cold, it's not forgetting the lost. It's knowing how best to help with the limitations we have. In the end, we will never be Jesus. Just a small part of His body of believers. 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

He said either no big deal or something similar, as I recall.  yes.  yeah...I was pretty disappointed. 

Relative to other reasons people leave I think he's saying it's insignificant. i.e. compared to peer groups (sex, drugs); pornography; lack of social connection and so forth. Now I'd guess that the number is actually larger than 50 and that most cases are complex (i.e. aren't tied to one problem) But since he's probably dealing with lots of people and history isn't brought up often, he thinks it's not where the focus should be.

Which honestly I can't fault. While I favor inoculation and being more open about such matters I'm pretty skeptical it's the big problem some portray it as. Likewise while I think preparing people for more complex history is something we should do, I think the real underlying issue is getting people to have a testimony and teaching them it's something that needs continually replenished. After all many know all the controversial stuff yet remain faithful. So it's worth asking what the difference is - and it's not encountering the history.

Edited March 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[carbon dioxide]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Uh...Yes! 

I'm not sure, but you don't happen to be my Stake President, are you? 

The words of Jesus of the shepherd going back to find the lost shepherd is one that he expects the sheep to return to the shepherd when found.  The sheep will come back willingly,  When a person leaves the church and goes so far is personally removes their name from the Church, they are purposely rejecting their baptismal covenant.  They are rejecting the shepherd himself.  Would the shepherd forcefully bring the sheep back knowing that the sheep hates the shepherd and will run away again when he gets the next chance?