Are More People Leaving the Church: Study

[Calm]

Quote

The biggest problem with Elder Cook's comment is how could the number of members removing names possibly be significantly less in recent years than past years

More members are outside of the US and Utah.  Most of those probably could care less about removing names, especially if there is no publicity about protest movements etc.

If you are pointing to the differences in numbers on records....perhaps there is an effort to remove names of those who are on the records but were never actually viable members or even inactive members.  He may be making a distinction between those who actively seek to be removed and those who tell those double checking records they aren't members, so take them off.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The biggest problem with Elder Cook's comment is how could the number of members removing names possibly be significantly less in recent years than past years?  I could buy it if we are talking as a percentage of the whole.  

 

If one takes the number of members year over year, number of converts and number of COR, add and subtract to find the difference, the biggest difference on record, that is the most members lost over a year's time, was from 2013-2014.  

Year          Difference

2000	39548
2001	36473
2002	37244
2003	78674
2004	49541
2005	51211
2006	59114
2007	47523
2008	74585
2009	83483
2010	86729
2011	91350
2012	53476
2013	98876
2014	122903
2015	110,090
2016	101,159
2017	104,748

Recent years, even those most recent in 2015 have the highest numbers.  That happens in a growing organization though.  

If we're seeing this figure as a percent of the whole, again 2014 is the highest on record:

Year        % of whole

2000	0.36%
2001	0.32%
2002	0.32%
2003	0.66%
2004	0.40%
2005	0.41%
2006	0.46%
2007	0.36%
2008	0.55%
2009	0.60%
2010	0.61%
2011	0.63%
2012	0.36%
2013	0.66%
2014	0.80%
2015	0.70%
2016	0.64%
2017	0.65%

it could be there have been far more excommunications in recent years, I suppose, or far more deaths in relation to the whole, I guess.  But it feels unlikely to me.  

 

As usual, I wish I could give you a rep point!

 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

More members are outside of the US and Utah.  Most of those probably could care less about removing names, especially if there is no publicity about protest movements etc.

I think it's always been that most of those who leave have no interest or intent to remove their names.  That's why it's odd that the number who did so could have been significantly less, particularly since there have been more resources to have names removed in recent years.  

Edited August 2, 2018 by stemelbow

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think it's always been that most of those who leave have no interest or intent to remove their names.  That's why it's odd that the number who did so could have been significantly less, particularly since there have been more resources to have names removed in recent years.  

Well, if people have even less trust in organized religion nowadays, why would they bother?  Before they might have cared more about having their name associated with a religious group because it might matter to others even if not to them. 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Calm

[blueglass]

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Right. So either the research and the lived experience of many, many members is wrong, or Elder Cook is wrong. I know which I'd vote for. In fact the only real question I have (and I had at the time when I heard him say this) is- is he intentionally wrong, or is he not paying attention? I've heard many debates (many on this board) about whether or not more people are leaving and a number of people refuse to believe that more people are leaving. I'm always astounded by that. Hopefully continued research will help people accept the obvious reality that more people are leaving, and/or struggling through a faith crisis even if they happen to be present at church on Sundays.  

I had the same question when he said this in conference.  The essay had gone public with the NYT article on Joseph's 40 wives only a few months before in Nov, 2014 and I thought this would be a problem for some members.  Maybe I'm wrong and the statistics are not bearing this out?  Another follow up article a year after the Nov 2015 policy stumbled into existence  quoted Eric Hawkins of church PR that resignations was still less than 1/1000.   http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4535962&itype=CMSID

Considering that baptisms in Africa are huge and growing strong and considering the huge growth in stock portfolio valuations $32B+ held by Meadow Creek Investment Management LLC, et al. and other real estate values and it could be that these faith crisis issues are really very small in the eyes of leadership?

In my personal relationships with extended family, the story is entirely different.  Those who are the strongest have never heard of "essays", "sunstone", "seer stones", or "fanny alger", yet they are all technology savvy and have smart phones, and satellite TV, etc.?  If you're not interested in news + mormonism then you could be shielded in some way?    

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by blueglass

[hope_for_things]

A couple more thoughts that I've had recently.  I think organized religions are failing in that they aren't satisfying the needs of the younger generations.  Greg Prince talked about this a little in his address at Sunstone last Friday night.  He talked about how truth claims are not a defining factor to keep younger generations loyal.  I've noticed this more with my kids and their friends.  They don't seem to be as interested in strong truth claims as I was through my Gen X upbringing.  If this observation is accurate, it presents a major problem for the LDS church as the dominant narrative model is centered around truth claims as being the central pillar of identity and loyalty to the church.  

Secondly, I was impressed by a session with Thomas McKonkie as he took us through a mystic mindfulness exercise.  He mentioned that one of the draws of religion is the idea of mystery as we considered the mystical aspects of religion.  In complete candor, I've had a hard time since leaving my orthodox days with viewing the mysterious in religion as my very rational and skeptical mind takes over.  However, I had a really good experience in his class making connections to other people in a small group exercise we did and letting go of some of my more rational thoughts for a period and getting in tune with my feelings.  

It seems to me that mystical experience and having intimate connections with people in exploration of vulnerability and discussion of things that produce awe, could be way that modern religions can resonate with younger generations better.  Its interesting that with the movement away from organized religion we aren't seeing large increases in people who identify as atheist.  Younger people still have a yearning for the spiritual, and all humans have an innate desire for connection with others. 

If the LDS church could make significant moves in these two directions, spiritual connections with others, and de-emphasis on truth claims and authority, I think it could have better success in the future.  

[blueglass]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The biggest problem with Elder Cook's comment is how could the number of members removing names possibly be significantly less in recent years than past years?  I could buy it if we are talking as a percentage of the whole.  

 

If one takes the number of members year over year, number of converts and number of COR, add and subtract to find the difference, the biggest difference on record, that is the most members lost over a year's time, was from 2013-2014.  

Year          Difference

2000	39548
2001	36473
2002	37244
2003	78674
2004	49541
2005	51211
2006	59114
2007	47523
2008	74585
2009	83483
2010	86729
2011	91350
2012	53476
2013	98876
2014	122903
2015	110,090
2016	101,159
2017	104,748

Recent years, even those most recent in 2015 have the highest numbers.  That happens in a growing organization though.  

If we're seeing this figure as a percent of the whole, again 2014 is the highest on record:

Year        % of whole

2000	0.36%
2001	0.32%
2002	0.32%
2003	0.66%
2004	0.40%
2005	0.41%
2006	0.46%
2007	0.36%
2008	0.55%
2009	0.60%
2010	0.61%
2011	0.63%
2012	0.36%
2013	0.66%
2014	0.80%
2015	0.70%
2016	0.64%
2017	0.65%

it could be there have been far more excommunications in recent years, I suppose, or far more deaths in relation to the whole, I guess.  But it feels unlikely to me.  

 

Dying to know how these were extrapolated from the reports?  Let's take it at 104,748 for 2017.  still the church had 233,729 convert baptisms, and 106,771 children of record born into the church.  With 233,729 > 104,748 it is still not a crisis right?  Now when resignations start to breach higher to 1.5 - 2% and then begin to overcome convert baptisms that is a concern because now as one new person walks in the doors, another leaves out the back door.  These are hedged somewhat by not reporting these figures at conference any more and Pres Eyring sharing scriptures such as Oct 2016, "Nephi said that our total numbers would not be great but that the cumulative light would be a sight to see:  “And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few. … 1Nephi14:12,14

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Well, if people have even less trust in organized religion nowadays, why would they bother?  Before they might have cared more about having their name associated with a religious group because it might matter to others even if not to them. 

That may be.  But then Elder Cook using the claim that the number who seek resignation is significantly smaller than it has in the past doesn't really confirm her point.  Or he's unaware of what's going on.  Either way, then, I'd question his comments about never been stronger stuff, based on that.  

[Jeanne]

After all is said and done..the long term affects from resignations for any reason and inactivity is that families as a whole leave or do not participate.  As a church less is more when it comes to families, friends and associates.

[stemelbow]

44 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Dying to know how these were extrapolated from the reports?  Let's take it at 104,748 for 2017.  still the church had 233,729 convert baptisms, and 106,771 children of record born into the church. 

In 2017 membership was reported to be 16,118,169

In 2016 15,882,417

The difference (increase) between the two being 235,752 

As you note there were 233,729 converts baptized and 106,771 COR.

Add those two together:  340,500  (such a sweet round number)

The difference between the addition and the overall increase gives us:

104,748

I call them those names off the list due to, presumably, death, ex-communicated and names removed.  

44 minutes ago, blueglass said:

With 233,729 > 104,748 it is still not a crisis right?  Now when resignations start to breach higher to 1.5 - 2% and then begin to overcome convert baptisms that is a concern because now as one new person walks in the doors, another leaves out the back door.  These are hedged somewhat by not reporting these figures at conference any more and Pres Eyring sharing scriptures such as Oct 2016, "Nephi said that our total numbers would not be great but that the cumulative light would be a sight to see:  “And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few. … 1Nephi14:12,14

Surely not a crises.  And the Church is still increasing in number and reach.  

At what exact point did Nephi see our day?  1841? 1896?  1942?  1968?  2001?  2075?  Surely in all cases the numbers would be few.  

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

My suggestions on how to keep and maybe gain members:

I think if the church can somehow get to the stage where it can say that maybe JS invented some things in order to promote faith but that history doesn't matter if something good came of it, then maybe the church history crisis can die down. Also, making church more of an enjoyable experience with less repetition and monotony would help. Give the younger generations community service opportunities without having to pressure others to join. The younger generations are more group oriented and nothing spikes that more than a choose ye this day attitude. Ditch the emphasis on authority. Have more activities that engage community without evangelizing the community for the older generations as well. How about renting out the church buildings to other groups or donating the buildings? This would involve the church more in the community.

So abandon the gospel. I think that defeats the purpose

[SouthernMo]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

How much has changed in 3 years?  

In April 2015, Quentin Cook said the church has never been stronger, and people removing their names is going down.  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/the-lord-is-my-light?lang=eng

"Elder Cook mentioned that some believe that more members are leaving the Church today and that there is more doubt and unbelief than in the past."

“This is simply not true,” he said. “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never been stronger. The number of members removing their names from the records of the Church has always been very small and is significantly less in recent years than in the past. The increase in demonstrably measurable areas, such as endowed members with a current temple recommend, adult full-tithe payers, and those serving missions, has been dramatic.

“Let me say again, the Church has never been stronger."  footnote24

24.  "Over the last 25 years, the actual number of members leaving the Church has decreased and the Church has almost doubled in size. The percentage leaving is greatly reduced."

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2013/01/15/reports-of-the-death-of-the-church-are-greatly-exaggerated

 

See: All is well in Zion!

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

So abandon the gospel. I think that defeats the purpose

There is a difference between the gospel and the church.  The church can make all sorts of changes.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/07/this-is-my-gospel?lang=eng

3 Nephi 27

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Younger people still have a yearning for the spiritual, and all humans have an innate desire for connection with others. 

If the LDS church could make significant moves in these two directions, spiritual connections with others, and de-emphasis on truth claims and authority, I think it could have better success in the future.  

David Bokovoy had a good post a while back on spirituality in the secular age.  Not sure where he stands now.  He says that the key to raising healthy youth is to stop calling facts "fables" and demonizing secular knowledge while at the same time pushing education.  "we must allow for doubts, mistakes, and non-traditional beliefs to be incorporated into our spiritual journey."  He then counters Packer, "to save the LDS youth in a secular age, we need to make room on the pew for feminists, critical scholars, and intellectuals."  

• http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/12/how-to-save-lds-youth-in-a-secular-age/

The risk or opportunity depending on perspective is that our idea of God may be entirely reconstructed.  If not, if we write the millennials and Z generation off and push forward with no change then we will have an ever shrinking white haired church - still a super strong stock portfolio which grows for 100's of years until the 10k members which are left build the LDSS Nauvoo and travel to Kolob on a generational starship.   Alternate meaning to Moses 7:69 "ZION is fled".

[USU78]

There was an unholy alliance in the 2nd half of the XIXth Century between the Reconstruction US government and Protestant Padres and educators. The latter were granted an almost exclusive right to educate children and Mormons were terribly short of trained teachers capable of running and staffing elementary schools.

The first generation of Mormon youth were intentionally pried away from the religion of their parents by federal policy. My great grandfather reported he was the only one of his crowd that survived this prying. All the rest were successfully "evangelized."

My understanding is that the primary begun in Farmington was a response to this prying.

There's nothing new under the sun. Federal educational policies lead to successful evangelization of too many to the cultural "norms" favored by a largely hostile Fed.

Edited August 2, 2018 by USU78

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

How much has changed in 3 years?  

In April 2015, Quentin Cook said the church has never been stronger, and people removing their names is going down.  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/the-lord-is-my-light?lang=eng

"Elder Cook mentioned that some believe that more members are leaving the Church today and that there is more doubt and unbelief than in the past."

“This is simply not true,” he said. “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never been stronger. The number of members removing their names from the records of the Church has always been very small and is significantly less in recent years than in the past. The increase in demonstrably measurable areas, such as endowed members with a current temple recommend, adult full-tithe payers, and those serving missions, has been dramatic.

“Let me say again, the Church has never been stronger."  footnote24

24.  "Over the last 25 years, the actual number of members leaving the Church has decreased and the Church has almost doubled in size. The percentage leaving is greatly reduced."

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2013/01/15/reports-of-the-death-of-the-church-are-greatly-exaggerated

 

One thing that hasn't changed in the last three years is whether or not I think GA's are reliable sources of data about Church activity and growth in cases where the news might be bad. 

And when that GA is a lawyer, the likelihood of me believing their claims approaches zero.  Publish the actual numbers, and let us use our own brains to decide what is "dramatic" and what isn't.

Edited August 2, 2018 by cinepro

[SouthernMo]

Some months ago, I shared with my bishop that I was having a hard time sustaining President Nelson as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.  I showed him why I thought that way, and asked him to teach me or help me find answers.  I told him very clearly my doubts were no ultimatum, and that I would continue attending services and serving in my calling because I see so much that is true, but that wanted his help on this challenge.  I have told no one else about my concerns except my wife and dad.

He encouraged me to pray and read the talks from General Authorities.  That’s all the counsel he had for me.  Three weeks later, I was released as EQ president with no replacement calling.  He’s not followed up in any way to my challenges; he has not even asked how I’m doing in my personal journey to find my answers - which I continue to do.

I’m not mad at him at all.  He’s just a guy.  I’m still going to church.  But, I share this to underline the point that some leaders have no idea how to address faith crises, and struggle with how to treat people who express challenges with their faith.  When people don’t know what to do, the default is often to do nothing.

[strappinglad]

If we can take the NT at face value ( big if for some ) , it is recorded that people stood and watched as Christ healed many ,many illnesses and handicaps and even raise the dead , yet refused to accept Him as divine. After Christ gave one notable address , it was said that many turned away and followed Him no more. He Himself said the message would separate families. All of that without any mention of Joseph and polygamy and blacks and gays.

As has been said, loyalty is a current issue. People used to be loyal to a company and the company loyal to their employees. That has changed even in super loyal Japan.

Are the majority of members living outside of NA yet? The African and Asian areas are just now being opened with great potential for expansion.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For me, it appears more like the church's is suffering losses as a result of it's correlation efforts and white washing of history coming home to roost, especially for the generation that grew up knowing nothing different. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "you should have known", mostly by those in older generations.

I'm not sure what you mean by correlation here since correlation was well in effect in the 60's and 70's. I'm assuming you're trying to create an opposition between "official" sources and the change in the late 90's with the internet and the easier availability of information.  I'm not sure I really buy that opposition, although I do agree that the internet did change things. I just don't think it changed things primarily in terms of information. Yet that's the aspect that most focus in on.

Again to repeat my earlier claim, I think those on the fringes of Mormon demographic geography encountered most of this quite regularly. You just couldn't avoid anti-Mormon materials, investigator questions, and people with stereotypes of Mormons. In the Mormon corridor (Utah, southern Idaho, and for a period California and parts of Arizona) you could just ignore such things and coast along because most people you knew were Mormon. It was the status quo. Elsewhere that just wasn't an option.

The charge of "you should have known" in Utah in the 90's or even naughts doesn't make sense because of that ability to coast on the status quo. You simply were typically never challenged in your beliefs. If there were challenges they tended to be about sex, about alcohol/drugs, or about small scale offense in local level politics. Outside of Utah while there still were the challenges of sex and drugs, especially for the youth, the reality was those weren't the only or even major challenges.

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it's way too simplistic to blame conversion numbers on the missionary age. Numbers had been declining long before that occurred. I agree that the change is a retention program, but like you, I haven't seen any evidence that it's working. The church obviously is studying and tracking these things. It would be interesting to see the results of their studies. As a membership, I think we deserve to know the numbers and the possible effects of church policies.

I would never say that it's all that was going on. I don't have a graph for the latest data. I'll try and put together some statistics tonight. Here's a post I did spring of 2017 on baptisms per missionary. I've not bothered doing one since because the figures have been pretty consistent since 2013. Nothing changed much in the statistics this spring. You see a pretty abrupt drop around the time of the age change. Now it's true that there was a consistent drop since the mid 90's but that bottomed out around 2002. The numbers were going the other direction until the big changes in the missionary program. (Not just in age but in how missionaries were utilized and structured)

However clearly there is a secularization trend in the United States. I'm not sure it's quite the same as the secularization that beset Europe and more or less ended in the 80's and 90's. Canada is an interesting middle ground. It's secularization started around 10 years before the United States. That's partially why I'm pretty skeptical of the "it's information on the internet" thesis. American secularization has also in many ways now surpassed similar trends in Canada. Ultimately though it's hard to believe one can separate out Mormon trends from these larger social trends. The reason conversions and retention in Europe are bad is because Europe became a mostly atheistic or at least loosely spiritual culture in the 80's. Mormons who live there are part of that culture. Ditto for the US and Canada and their cultures. So cultural effects are driving a lot of this.

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

So abandon the gospel. I think that defeats the purpose

If you equate the "gospel" with authority then yes. But "gospel" can mean other things like love your neighbor as yourself and serve others, etc.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

The leaders know how many members are officially leaving. They also know what the activity rate is. They don't release those numbers. IMO they don't know what to do.

It's not terribly hard to get reasonably good numbers for that in the United States. Worldwide is much harder since there just aren't good public statistics. 

That said, I do agree they didn't seem clear on what to do. That in part I think was due to Pres. Monson being largely incapacitated the previous 5-6 years. Pres Nelson has come in with a lot of changes. I suspect this fall we'll see even more changes. So I think he at least has some ideas of how he'd like to change things. It'll take a year or two to see what effect such changes have. My guess is though that we'll see some transfigurations of the church at least as significant as anything done since McKay.

 

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The biggest problem with Elder Cook's comment is how could the number of members removing names possibly be significantly less in recent years than past years?  I could buy it if we are talking as a percentage of the whole.  

If one takes the number of members year over year, number of converts and number of COR, add and subtract to find the difference, the biggest difference on record, that is the most members lost over a year's time, was from 2013-2014.  [figures deleted]

Recent years, even those most recent in 2015 have the highest numbers.  That happens in a growing organization though.  

If we're seeing this figure as a percent of the whole, again 2014 is the highest on record: [figures deleted]

it could be there have been far more excommunications in recent years, I suppose, or far more deaths in relation to the whole, I guess.  But it feels unlikely to me.  

One big change is the decrease in births (partially due to the decrease in marriages but also tied to the decrease in desired family size). If you look at official Church numbers versus self-identification numbers they track surprisingly close. (Again we don't have good very recent self-identification numbers but should be getting a slew of new statistics soon) I did a post on this a few years back. "How Successful is Mormon Retention" The data is somewhat dated as I noted in the post. At this point it's almost 10 years old. So we do have to be pretty careful not reading too much into it. However he's the key conclusion:

• ...we end up with about 65% of the people officially on the records considering themselves Mormon. That, to me, is extremely high. This is fairly close to the rates other have calculated, such what Phillips and Cragun have for the naughts. Going with the ARIS survey from 1990 to 2008 the official Church numbers increase by 30%. Using self-identification figures the figure increases by about half that: 16%. That to me is a pretty impressive figure.

I don't know the statistics on how many converts are still members after 10 years. Typically back when I had a feel for such things something like 80% left within six months of baptism. I don't know with changes since 2000 let alone since 2014 if that's still true. I'd assume it's not radically different though. I'd be shocked if it were below 60% for instance. Even with the significantly decreased efficiency in missionary work the past five years, that still means a fairly high number of effectively non-member converts. Those numbers have to come off the official records somehow. That's why I found the statistics from ARIS so interesting as it suggests a surprising number of official members of records still self-identify as Mormon. Far more than I'd have suspected.

 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

More members are outside of the US and Utah.  Most of those probably could care less about removing names, especially if there is no publicity about protest movements etc.

If you are pointing to the differences in numbers on records....perhaps there is an effort to remove names of those who are on the records but were never actually viable members or even inactive members.  He may be making a distinction between those who actively seek to be removed and those who tell those double checking records they aren't members, so take them off.

Yes, there's some semantic issues that aren't exactly clear. I suspect that's leading to some equivocation due to terms shifting meaning. Back in the day when I was young there was a lot of effort to get people off the records who'd been baptized but never really become Mormon. That was due to how activity rates affected building fund. When building funds were changed I'd imagine things changed. However I've not heard in recent years of systematic efforts to get people off the roles. In my current ward we keep on the rolls people who clearly don't consider themselves Mormon. Yet we still make sure to keep aware of their needs, send Elders if their drives need shoveled or so forth. (Except in some cases where they are pretty vehement about wanting absolutely nothing to do with the Church) At what point are people's names taken off the rolls and how exactly is this done? It's clear, from the statistics, that it's happening. Otherwise we wouldn't expect the self-identification figures to track so closely with official figures in the United States. Something is going on that isn't quite clear.

 

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by clarkgoble

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Three weeks later, I was released as EQ president with no replacement calling.

Isn't that a Stake calling?

[SouthernMo]

Just now, cinepro said:

Isn't that a Stake calling?

Yes, but the bishop often has a big say in it, and in our stake, I know I was called because he asked me, and the next EQ president was called after our bishop requested him.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

David Bokovoy had a good post a while back on spirituality in the secular age.  Not sure where he stands now.  He says that the key to raising healthy youth is to stop calling facts "fables" and demonizing secular knowledge while at the same time pushing education.  "we must allow for doubts, mistakes, and non-traditional beliefs to be incorporated into our spiritual journey."  He then counters Packer, "to save the LDS youth in a secular age, we need to make room on the pew for feminists, critical scholars, and intellectuals."  

• http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/12/how-to-save-lds-youth-in-a-secular-age/

The risk or opportunity depending on perspective is that our idea of God may be entirely reconstructed.  If not, if we write the millennials and Z generation off and push forward with no change then we will have an ever shrinking white haired church - still a super strong stock portfolio which grows for 100's of years until the 10k members which are left build the LDSS Nauvoo and travel to Kolob on a generational starship.   Alternate meaning to Moses 7:69 "ZION is fled".

Those are great points by Dr. Bokovoy, I vaguely remember that post, and I agree.  I think one challenge organized religions face is that many people consider secular ideas a threat to their identity.  While evidence for sciences continue to accumulate and enlighten the human experience, it becomes increasingly difficult to just ignore this evidence.  If religions in the future wish to not only grow, but to thrive, they need to incorporate and embrace what truths are being learned in the academy, instead of feel threatened by them.  There are ways to be spiritual and at the same time embrace the scholarly world.  I don't believe these two things need to be in tension, but it requires a more mature approach, and unfortunately that kind of a more mature approach takes effort and humility, and those qualities aren't shared by all.  

[Prof]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

 But, I share this to underline the point that some leaders have no idea how to address faith crises, and struggle with how to treat people who express challenges with their faith.  When people don’t know what to do, the default is often to do nothing.

This has been my experience as well. Many of the leaders I have had were people of great faith and very active as well. However, they really didn't have the people skills to counsel others or really even conduct the business of the ward or stake. 

Perhaps better training of leaders is part of the key to addressing this problem.