Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[cinepro]

On a recent interview on RadioWest, historian Greg Prince discusses his upcoming book on the history of LDS Church policies on homosexuality, Prince shares the following anecdotal data:

 

Quote

Fabrizio: You write that while many resigned or simply walked away from the Church in the aftermath of Prop 8, "unofficial numbers suggest that the effect of the November policy (seven years later) was much more detrimental to Church members."

Prince: Yes.  Two data points there.  One that came from a source within the Church bureaucracy that I think is well informed, that in the 12 months after the policy was announced they had over 60,000 formal requests for having membership records nullified.  "Take my name off the records of the Church."  That's entirely different than someone just saying "ya' know, this isn't working for me anymore" and walking away quietly. Those numbers are not countable.

The other one was from a Stake within the Salt Lake valley,  where the Stake President in a meeting of Stake members said that in the year after that, 10% of his Stake had resigned their membership.  To me that's an astounding figure.

So if that type of thing were to continue.  And if you were to multiply that 10% by a factor of the people just pulling back, that's going to have an effect on the long-term vitality of the Church. 

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/history-mormons-and-homosexuality

43:45

 

Those numbers, if true, are shocking.  I've long suspected that anyone who is "active" enough to pro-actively resign their membership was probably active to some degree in their Church attendance.  If that 60,000 number is true, that's 5 or 6 Stakes worth of members!

 

 

 

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Those numbers, if true, are shocking.  I've long suspected that anyone who is "active" enough to pro-actively resign their membership was probably active to some degree in their Church attendance.  If that 60,000 number is true, that's 5 or 6 Stakes worth of members!

Where are you referencing that a large portion of these people were active to even some degree?

Edited October 24, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

On a recent interview on RadioWest, historian Greg Prince discusses his upcoming book on the history of LDS Church policies on homosexuality, Prince shares the following anecdotal data:

 

 

Those numbers, if true, are shocking.  I've long suspected that anyone who is "active" enough to pro-actively resign their membership was probably active to some degree in their Church attendance.  If that 60,000 number is true, that's 5 or 6 Stakes worth of members!

 

 

 

Does he ever say whether or not those requests were from active members?  

If the 60,000 were active before their request for record removal, then that's a big deal.  If not, then it's not going to make much of a difference in the church (I'm not talking about from the 'worth of a soul' perspective but from the perspective of people no longer participating).

In my mission in the late 90s, we had a few that i was aware of that were not active in the church at all but who decided to have their names removed after the church started vocally speaking out against SSM in local California elections at that time.  The move was symbolic for them and not a change in belief or actions.  That's why i'm questioning the activity rates of the people Prince is speaking of.

[clarkgoble]

I'm really skeptical of those figures myself. Like Bluebell I wonder if most of these weren't people largely already out of the Church. But I'd also like to see some confirmation.

[cinepro]

21 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Where are you referencing that a large portion of these people were active to even some degree?

I'm not sure what you're asking.  I say "I've long suspected..." which means it's just a gut feeling. 

[ksfisher]

28 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

 

 

Those numbers, if true, are shocking.  I've long suspected that anyone who is "active" enough to pro-actively resign their membership was probably active to some degree in their Church attendance.  If that 60,000 number is true, that's 5 or 6 Stakes worth of members!

 

 

 

Of all the people whom I'm aware of having resigned since 2015 in my stake, none have been active.

Edited October 24, 2017 by ksfisher

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure what you're asking.  I say "I've long suspected..." which means it's just a gut feeling. 

I don't know anyone personally who resigned because of the policy, but I do know quite a few believing church members who found themselves for the first time strongly disagreeing with the church leadership. This is especially true of members I know who have gay family members. They aren't about to resign (I don't think), but they feel differently than before in that they no longer accept without reservation what the church teaches and does. I don't know if I just know a lot of questioners or if this change in attitude goes beyond my circle of friends and family.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure what you're asking.  I say "I've long suspected..." which means it's just a gut feeling. 

Ok.  I came to a different conclusion reading stories written by many who had resigned.

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, cinepro said:

On a recent interview on RadioWest, historian Greg Prince discusses his upcoming book on the history of LDS Church policies on homosexuality, Prince shares the following anecdotal data:

 

 

Those numbers, if true, are shocking.  I've long suspected that anyone who is "active" enough to pro-actively resign their membership was probably active to some degree in their Church attendance.  If that 60,000 number is true, that's 5 or 6 Stakes worth of members!

 

 

 

Those numbers sound reasonable to me, this new policy was a big deal and hurt a lot of people.  Unfortunately we have to speculate because the church doesn't publish its numbers so we are forced to resort to non-public sources to speculate about the fallout. 

I wonder what the impact was on members that didn't ask to have their names removed, but that their commitment level/activity levels were negatively impacted related to this policy change.  It would really be interesting to see the tithing impact as I think tithing is one of the best indicators of commitment, probably even better than attendance.  There have always been those who attend but don't contribute very much to the church financially.  I know for myself, I'm still semi-active (depends on my mood and my ability to negotiate how I feel about the church), but that I don't contribute to the church anymore and issues like this are part of the reason why.  

Wish we could see the financials, just another reason we need financial reporting transparency.  

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know anyone personally who resigned because of the policy, but I do know quite a few believing church members who found themselves for the first time strongly disagreeing with the church leadership. This is especially true of members I know who have gay family members. They aren't about to resign (I don't think), but they feel differently than before in that they no longer accept without reservation what the church teaches and does. I don't know if I just know a lot of questioners or if this change in attitude goes beyond my circle of friends and family.

This is what I have experienced as well (in actually quite high numbers within my area and also some family members).  I think many disagree with the new policy, but most are not real vocal about their disagreement.  I do personally know of one person who resigned, but they had not been active for years.

Edited October 24, 2017 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This is what I have experienced as well (in actually quite high numbers within my area and also some family members).  I think many disagree with the new policy, but most are not real vocal about their disagreement.  I do personally know of one person who resigned, but they had not been active for years.

Just after the policy change, we had family here for Thanksgiving. I ran some errands with one family member who is a returned missionary, married in the temple, and is currently executive secretary in his ward. His older brother is gay, and I didn't bring up the policy because I figured it would be a painful subject. He brought it up and told me how much it hurt, how hard it was to reconcile the policy with the gospel, and how disappointed he was. He said it was the first time he had considered that the brethren could make a mistake collectively on a major issue. He said he had faith that this bad decision would eventually be undone. I've had similar conversations with a number of other people. I suspect they don't mind talking to me because they know I am not going judge anything or try and influence them either way.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

On a recent interview on RadioWest, historian Greg Prince discusses his upcoming book on the history of LDS Church policies on homosexuality, Prince shares the following anecdotal data:

 

 

Those numbers, if true, are shocking.  I've long suspected that anyone who is "active" enough to pro-actively resign their membership was probably active to some degree in their Church attendance.  If that 60,000 number is true, that's 5 or 6 Stakes worth of members!

 

 

 

The upside is that those 60,000 who resigned probably weren't the full tithing, church attending types, so in that sense did it really hurt the churches bottom line? But that's just conjecture on my part and I can't back that up with any stats to support it.  Maybe it really did hurt the church to get rid of all of its inactive, non tithe paying,  members in name only types.

[Johnnie Cake]

On the bright side...maybe those 60,000 resignations were kind of like the missionary surge.  They had an immediate impact on artificially suppressing church growth numbers and now that they've all been purged from the church the church will once again show a substantial uptick in membership growth numbers. So maybe this is a positive...I guess we'll find out come April..

Edited October 24, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[smac97]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Those numbers, if true, are shocking.  I've long suspected that anyone who is "active" enough to pro-actively resign their membership was probably active to some degree in their Church attendance.  

Hmm.  I had actually thought of this from the other way.  That is, I suspected that a not-insignificant number of the people who resigned their membership were not active in the Church.  For example, I recall a 2014 "Mass Resignation" event that was supposed to have 400-600 people show up.  About 100 showed.  One of the people interviewed, Tamara Fox, had "stopped attending {church} about 10 years" prior to the event.  A similar event in 2015 yielded approximately the same number (see here).  In contrast, however, this February 2016 story discusses how an attorney, Mark Naugle, in Salt Lake set up a website to facilitate name removals, and that he claimed to have arranged 6,500 such removals at that point (I question, however, how many actual resignations he has facilitated, as compared to the purported 6,500 submissions on his website).  However, I noted at the time:

Quote

Mr. Naugle has set up a website where anyone and his dog can submit a resignation request (or perhaps even several).  Mr. Naugle will not, I think, have any way of knowing which of these requests come from actual members and how many are from shills, cranks, never-mos, people who have previously resigned, etc.

I also wonder how many of these resignations are from recently-active members of the Church.  Prior discussions about "mass resignation" events have left me somewhat skeptical.  For example, in this thread there was discussion of this issue.  See also here.  

In any event, as I have said before:

Quote

That's not to say that large-scale apostasy is not possible. It might happen some day. It happened in the early days of the Church. It also happened in the primitive Church as recorded in John 6 and described by Elder Neal A. Maxwell this way: 

The more declarative Jesus was, the more tentative some followers. Is this not the same today? As long as Jesus’ church and its prophets are doing certain things of which people fully approve, there is admiration. But when modern prophets begin to be declarative, then it is a very different matter!

“The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.” (John 6:41.)

“From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” (John 6:66.)

And by Sister Ardeth G. Kapp here: 

Sometimes we are shortsighted and are not aware of what awaits us just around the corner following our obedience. We do not “receive a witness until after the trial of [our] faith” (Ether 12:6). We don’t negotiate with our Father in Heaven on these matters. The laws are in place. We know that “there is a law. . . upon which all blessings are predicated,” and we know that when we receive any blessing “it is by obedience to that law” (D&C 130:20).

And so our Father, wanting us to qualify for all of the blessings, has given us laws and commandments. These commandments are given not to restrict us but to redeem us—not to just reform us but to exalt us. Therefore, as Nephi said, “Cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life” (2 Nephi 10:23).

Some of us will resent, resist, even recoil from the apparent restrictions imposed upon us. And so it was in the Savior’s time. There were those who didn’t like what he taught. “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” they said. “When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?” (John 6:60–61). And we read that “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (John 6:66).

The number of people who have accepted the Restored Gospel is not a first order piece of evidence in favor of the truth claims of the Restored Gospel. The Church is as true in 2015 with 15 million members as it was in 1830 with six.

 

And here:

Quote

If the Church has concerns about the number of resignations referenced in this thread, I think such concerns will not be focused on the welfare of the Church, but on the welfare of the individuals who are resigning.  

I am persuaded that the Church will survive.  The membership numbers will ebb and flow, but I suspect the trend will be generally upward.  There will be instances where large numbers of people resign over a given issue.  That is unfortunate, but not unexpected.  It happened during Christ's ministry, it happened during the early days of the Church in the latter days.  

"For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me." (D&C 98:15)

Nevertheless, there is always hope.  Some who leave return.  But whether they do or not, we should always be kind and patient and understanding with those who leave the fold.  (This is more a reminder for myself than for anyone else.)

I'm not sure how much we can extrapolate from these anecdotal stories.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The upside is that those 60,000 who resigned probably weren't the full tithing, church attending types, so in that sense did it really hurt the churches bottom line? But that's just conjecture on my part and I can't back that up with any stats to support it.  Maybe it really did hurt the church to get rid of all of its inactive, non tithe paying,  members in name only types.

But this is assuming that the policy didn't impact active tithing paying members in a negative way, and I think it did that as well.  I think where you'll see people resigning from the church, you will also see others impacted who respond differently.  

[stemelbow]

I'd think it's probably true that if 60,000 did resign as a result of the 2015 policy (I know a handful of members--only a couple were considered active in some sense) they were probably members of record only (as in not active and participating).  But it's quite a statement to make it official due to the policy, rather than saying "ya' know, this isn't working for me anymore' and then quietly leaving. 

I notice many members want it both ways--"we have 15 million members" and then turn around and accuse those who aren't active or in complete agreement of not really being members because they aren't active, hold a calling, carry a recommend etc. 

if you take the number of members the year previous (according to the Statistical report given out in April) add to that the number of converts and children of record added, and then take the difference of that sum with the number of members reported the next year, you get a figure that represents those lost (assumed to be those who died, were ex'd or had their name removed).

that number the past few years (percent is percent of total membership):

2012            53,476      .36%

2013            98,876       .66%

2014           122,903      .8%

2015            110,090     .7%

2016            101,159     .64%

I'm not sure a claim of 60,000 fits.  But then again, maybe those who request their names be removed remain as members on record for some odd reason.

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by stemelbow

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I had actually thought of this from the other way.  That is, I suspected that a not-insignificant number of the people who resigned their membership were not active in the Church.  For example, I recall a 2014 "Mass Resignation" event that was supposed to have 400-600 people show up.  About 100 showed.  One of the people interviewed, Tamara Fox, had "stopped attending {church} about 10 years" prior to the event.  A similar event in 2015 yielded approximately the same number (see here).  In contrast, however, this February 2016 story discusses how an attorney, Mark Naugle, in Salt Lake set up a website to facilitate name removals, and that he claimed to have arranged 6,500 such removals at that point (I question, however, how many actual resignations he has facilitated, as compared to the purported 6,500 submissions on his website).  However, I noted at the time:

And here:

I'm not sure how much we can extrapolate from these anecdotal stories.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Who knows? I suspect the policy change was the proverbial last straw for people who were on their way out, anyway. But I do know a lot of faithful members who have had their worlds turned upside down by the policy change. I do know a few people who were thrilled by the policy from the start, but then they are the kind of people I would expect to be thrilled about it. Everyone else I know has struggled to one degree or another with it.

[Johnnie Cake]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

But this is assuming that the policy didn't impact active tithing paying members in a negative way, and I think it did that as well.  I think where you'll see people resigning from the church, you will also see others impacted who respond differently.  

For the vast majority of active members, the November policy was like water on the back of a duck...

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I had actually thought of this from the other way.  That is, I suspected that a not-insignificant number of the people who resigned their membership were not active in the Church.  For example, I recall a 2014 "Mass Resignation" event that was supposed to have 400-600 people show up.  About 100 showed.  One of the people interviewed, Tamara Fox, had "stopped attending {church} about 10 years" prior to the event.  A similar event in 2015 yielded approximately the same number (see here).  In contrast, however, this February 2016 story discusses how an attorney, Mark Naugle, in Salt Lake set up a website to facilitate name removals, and that he claimed to have arranged 6,500 such removals at that point (I question, however, how many actual resignations he has facilitated, as compared to the purported 6,500 submissions on his website).  However, I noted at the time:

And here:

I'm not sure how much we can extrapolate from these anecdotal stories.  

Thanks,

-Smac

We're all trying to read the tea leaves (herbal of course) and determine what the impact was.  I think everyone would agree that there was an impact, how significant is the question, and I think since many people respect Greg Prince as a reliable source, that the information he provided has some merit.  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

For the vast majority of active members, the November policy was like water on the back of a duck...

I don't think anyone could say that with any degree of certainty. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

On the bright side...maybe those 60,000 resignations were kind of like the missionary surge.  They had an immediate impact on artificially suppressing church growth numbers and now that they've all been purged from the church the church will once again show a substantial uptick in membership growth numbers. So maybe this is a positive...I guess we'll find out come April..

Putting aside the repellant amount of sheer spitefulness and contempt that is so obvious is this statement, I would like to clear one thing up...

In your view, the affirmative act of resigning one's membership in the Church is, in your view, equivalent to the passive event of being "purged from the church?"  

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

It could also be that most who think they are resigning by having their names blotted out, don't really have their names blotted out.  If 60,000 in one year resigned it would surely show up, no? 

[Oliblish]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

On a recent interview on RadioWest, historian Greg Prince discusses his upcoming book on the history of LDS Church policies on homosexuality, Prince shares the following anecdotal data:

Those numbers, if true, are shocking.  I've long suspected that anyone who is "active" enough to pro-actively resign their membership was probably active to some degree in their Church attendance.  If that 60,000 number is true, that's 5 or 6 Stakes worth of members!

 

I listened to that podcast and this statistic stood out to me as well.

The number surprised me at first, but I  realized that I don't have any idea what the baseline is.  What is the average number of resignations per year?  If I had to hazard a guess, I would say 10k-20k (around 1/1000).  That would mean that 60000 would be 4 times the average.  

I doubt many people go from active to resigned overnight.  At the same time I don't think many people who have been inactive for 20 years suddenly resign.  They are so far removed from the church at that point that they probably aren't paying much attention to it.

It would make sense to me that most of those who resigned had already started to back away from the church, and then something came up that pushed them over the edge.  I know that the 2015 policy bothered a lot of people.  It pushed a number of people to resign who were probably on their way out anyway.  

I think the more important number would be the active people it jolted who are now starting down the path towards disaffection.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think anyone could say that with any degree of certainty. 

He's probably right though--just through observations of my own.  If I asked my ward about the Nov 2015 policy most would wonder what I was talking about, because it came and went and didn't mean anything to them. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

He's probably right though--just through observations of my own.  If I asked my ward about the Nov 2015 policy most would wonder what I was talking about, because it came and went and didn't mean anything to them. 

Maybe so. The bottom line for me is that it doesn't seem to have shaken the faith of many people to the point at which they questioned their belief in the church.