Are More People Leaving the Church: Study

[SouthernMo]

There are some people who experience a ‘faith crisis’ who share their challenges more openly than some who chose to keep it personal.  If church leaders at any level want to address the problem, a great step could be to encourage those to share their crises more openly.  Challenges unexpressed are hard for leadership to address.

What can we do to create an environment where people feel comfortable sharing their doubts (in the right settings, I think)?  I have some ideas, but I know others have more and better ideas.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

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.

Have you considered setting up a follow up appointment with him to discuss?  I think you could do this in a respectful way.  I wonder if he considered how releasing you from your calling might have an impact on you and your faith journey.  I suspect that this leader is not very mature in their own faith, not enough to handle the idea of someone having honest questions about the church.  I think feedback from you as a member of his flock would be important at the least. 

[SouthernMo]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Have you considered setting up a follow up appointment with him to discuss?  I think you could do this in a respectful way.  I wonder if he considered how releasing you from your calling might have an impact on you and your faith journey.  I suspect that this leader is not very mature in their own faith, not enough to handle the idea of someone having honest questions about the church.  I think feedback from you as a member of his flock would be important at the least. 

I have thought about meeting with him again. I don’t want to sound cynical, but I don’t think a next meeting with him would help me or him. I don’t want him to feel bad that he doesn’t have answers.

I don’t expect him to have answers for me. I thought maybe he might have some ideas to get me closer to the truth. I’m of the belief that getting answers is my responsibility, and not my leaders’.

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I have thought about meeting with him again. I don’t want to sound cynical, but I don’t think a next meeting with him would help me or him. I don’t want him to feel bad that he doesn’t have answers.

I don’t expect him to have answers for me. I thought maybe he might have some ideas to get me closer to the truth. I’m of the belief that getting answers is my responsibility, and not my leaders’.

I would agree that he won't have answers.  I haven't expected any of my leaders to have answers.  I actually don't meet with my leaders hoping for them to give me answers, I meet with them hoping to help them understand that there are people like me in their stewardship who exist, who have real issues that are difficult and troubling at times, and to prompt them to be thoughtful of us.  Actually your message is encouraging me to meet with my new bishop, I've been hesitant to do this for a few reasons, but I think I will now.  Thanks for sharing.  

I think your meeting with him would be helpful for him to understand how he needs to be mindful of you as a member of his his ward, and that his actions can hurt, releasing you from a calling and not explaining why especially after you were vulnerable with him about your struggles.  You might want to share with him some quotes from people like Elder Holland about how questions are not to be looked down on, and or how leaders are encouraged to study the essays and get to know them.   

I think he as a leader could benefit from hearing from you as a thoughtful and earnest member, that hopefully he could grow from your exchange and from your feedback.  I think you're in the role of teacher here, not your Bishop.  

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, Prof said:

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.

Different leaders have different skills. For instance I know I'd be a lousy Bishop in this. I pray I never get called to that. People who might be good at answering technical questions may be lousy at counseling and vice versa. It's not just training as these are deep skills that can't really be taught. You're simply going to have a lot of variety in skills, understanding and so forth. Training can help a little but there is a pretty big limit in what training can do. Especially for a volunteer service with people who have full time jobs and family they also have to deal with.

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.

I think it's true to a point. The problem is that secularism encompasses a wide variety of beliefs and practices. You just can't treat them as the same. You can't really compare say evolution, for which there is a ton of evidence, to more political and/or ethical claims which typically have almost none. Part of the problem is that both sides tend to treat everything the same. That leads to unnecessary conflict.

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I think religion must embrace what is well established by science. The problem is that what is or isn't actually well established is somewhat disagreed upon. That's why New Atheists can make the arguments they do. There's a perception by many the science just invalidates most religion. Now technically this is just a pretty big ignorance of philosophy of science and philosophy of religion making such claims. But it does muddy the waters a great deal.

Once you move away from the hard sciences into the soft science not to mention the humanities then things get even more confusing. Especially when you get to the area where academics has embraces a strong element of political activism to remain relevant. (I think this has been very counterproductive in the humanities leading to a precipitous drop in the number of people majoring in those fields) 

I am very skeptical though that "to grow" religions have to embrace these things. I just don't see any evidence that's true and considerable that it's not. Just look at the rapid decline in liberal protestant sects since the 90's.

 

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think it's true to a point. The problem is that secularism encompasses a wide variety of beliefs and practices. You just can't treat them as the same. You can't really compare say evolution, for which there is a ton of evidence, to more political and/or ethical claims which typically have almost none. Part of the problem is that both sides tend to treat everything the same. That leads to unnecessary conflict.

While that is true, there are various degrees of evidence to support secular points, this goes for religious theological positions as well.  A flexible approach is what I would recommend, one that wants to follow the strength of rational arguments above appeals to authority and tradition.  This requires great humility and introspection.  

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think religion must embrace what is well established by science. The problem is that what is or isn't actually well established is somewhat disagreed upon. That's why New Atheists can make the arguments they do. There's a perception by many the science just invalidates most religion. Now technically this is just a pretty big ignorance of philosophy of science and philosophy of religion making such claims. But it does muddy the waters a great deal.

Once you move away from the hard sciences into the soft science not to mention the humanities then things get even more confusing. Especially when you get to the area where academics has embraces a strong element of political activism to remain relevant. (I think this has been very counterproductive in the humanities leading to a precipitous drop in the number of people majoring in those fields) 

I am very skeptical though that "to grow" religions have to embrace these things. I just don't see any evidence that's true and considerable that it's not. Just look at the rapid decline in liberal protestant sects since the 90's.

I think there is much religion can learn from all corners of the world, including the atheists.  I guess where I'd differ is that I don't think ideas need to reach some level of "well established" to be properly considered and engaged with.  Who would even define what is well established anyway?  I think where religion traditionally has gone wrong, and continues to error today is for those who are fearful of new information that might cause them to need to shift their paradigm.  Dogma is an enemy of learning, whether its religious or secular dogma.  

I'm not saying religions need to embrace every fad that comes along.  I do think they should engage with the material, wrestle with it, and learn from the struggle in ways to make improvements.  To me, this what what it means to be a "living church".  

 

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

While that is true, there are various degrees of evidence to support secular points, this goes for religious theological positions as well.  A flexible approach is what I would recommend, one that wants to follow the strength of rational arguments above appeals to authority and tradition.  This requires great humility and introspection.  

That of course has difficulties especially within religion where revelation is distinguished from reason. If I think an authority has revelation then I'm apt to give them the benefit of doubt even if I don't necessarily have reasons for the belief. Now I don't mean that in absolute terms but more in terms of a benefit of doubt. That is there a burden of proof reason must reach before I doubt them. Now that's not itself irrational. Indeed we act in that way all the time since it's rare we have sufficient reason for most of our decisions. My point though is just to problematize the place of reason in what you say. 

I should note that this is a big issue in academia as well where reason has come under attack the past 50 years. (Thus the whole debate the last year or two over the Enlightenment such as Stephen Pinker's recent book)

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think there is much religion can learn from all corners of the world, including the atheists.  I guess where I'd differ is that I don't think ideas need to reach some level of "well established" to be properly considered and engaged with.  Who would even define what is well established anyway?  I think where religion traditionally has gone wrong, and continues to error today is for those who are fearful of new information that might cause them to need to shift their paradigm.  Dogma is an enemy of learning, whether its religious or secular dogma.  

I suspect we're talking past one an other over "engagement." I clearly think we need to think about ideas. My point is just that we have to distinguish how we treat them based upon the degree of evidence they have. That's part of engaging. How we engage with evolution should be quite different from how we engage with social intersectionality for instance. Denying evolution requires a high degree of irrationality. Denying intersectionality really doesn't.

But certainly I think we can learn a lot from a wide variety of sources.

Edited August 2, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That of course has difficulties especially within religion where revelation is distinguished from reason. If I think an authority has revelation then I'm apt to give them the benefit of doubt even if I don't necessarily have reasons for the belief. Now I don't mean that in absolute terms but more in terms of a benefit of doubt. That is there a burden of proof reason must reach before I doubt them. Now that's not itself irrational. Indeed we act in that way all the time since it's rare we have sufficient reason for most of our decisions. My point though is just to problematize the place of reason in what you say. 

I should note that this is a big issue in academia as well where reason has come under attack the past 50 years. (Thus the whole debate the last year or two over the Enlightenment such as Stephen Pinker's recent book)

I agree this causes difficulties, and I call more more humility and allegiance to following the strength of evidence, not allegiance to authority and tradition and "revelation" however people want to subjectively define that.  I'm not sure what you mean by we rarely have sufficient reason for most of our decisions, and I would challenge that assertion, and would like you to elaborate on why you think that's accurate.  

BTW, which Pinker book, I just got started Better Angels, is this the newer one Enlightenment Now?  

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect we're talking past one an other over "engagement." I clearly think we need to think about ideas. My point is just that we have to distinguish how we treat them based upon the degree of evidence they have. That's part of engaging. How we engage with evolution should be quite different from how we engage with social intersectionality for instance. Denying evolution requires a high degree of irrationality. Denying intersectionality really doesn't.

Ok, I think I get what you're saying, but aren't you advocating for a default position of cynicism about things like intersectionality, like you've prejudiced the argument before even considering its value.  Religious traditions seem to approach new ideas with too much caution, and I think that needs to stop.  

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Many members I've noticed have really negative views of younger generations, like ages after 1994, because so many are leaving.  I'd imagine in the next five years or so we'd get a better feel for that generation born between1994-2004 (14-24 year olds) or so.  But I'd imagine they are leaving even more quickly and at higher rates, than those born between '71-'94 (i'm close to your age, as you know).  I think members typically see that as signs of the times, and younger people being more selfish and more evil in some way.  At least that's how I hear it.  I think it's far more about information.

I don't think the younger generation is more evil or more selfish.  They simply get bored easier.  We have raised a generation of people in society who need to be constantly entertained.  Church has never been a place to get that quick fix.  Kids have an desire to learn new things.  Sunday lessons are more about repetition of basic things than getting something new and exciting.  I understand the purpose of repetition but it also comes with a downside which is the increased risk of boredom.  I have learned a lot of exciting things in the gospel and in church history which have helped keep my faith strong.  Almost none of it came from going to church but learning it outside of Church. 

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What have I been taught?

Probably what everyone else has. Let's start with 3 Nephi 20-21 and D&C 85. What have you been taught regarding these?

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I don’t expect him to have answers for me. I thought maybe he might have some ideas to get me closer to the truth. I’m of the belief that getting answers is my responsibility, and not my leaders’.

Getting answers to our questions and issues is our responsibility.  We also cherish the journey of getting those answers more when we put the effort in rather than having it given all the time by someone else.  We need to remember that leaders are not called to any position based on things like knowledge or being great teachers.   The primary teacher might have a broader and deeper knowledge on the scriptures and church history than the bishop or stake president.  We need to foster a culture of learning in the Church.  Learning comes by asking questions.  Learning comes by hearing different perspectives on issues.  A culture of learning comes when people are not afraid to ask sincere and legitimate questions openly.  To not know something or struggling with an issue or a "faith crisis" should not been seen as a weakness.  It should be seen as an opportunity.   It does not mean allowing people to saying hostile things against the Church or promoting negative things.  We would know those people anyway as those people rarely have anything positive to say about the Church, its policies, teachings and history.   If we allow things to opening up a bit to allow members to give different views on topics, even controversial ones then  learning will occur. 

There may be a dozen people in your ward that can help you with your questions more than your bishop but you probably don't know who they are because everything is bottled up in church so few of them really get an opportunity to share with us their knowledge on many diverse issues.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Of coruse major changes could come with the Church and really turn this around.  But I'm not seeing it.  

The trouble is, the kind of changes you seem to want directly contradict previous teachings, going back millenia.  If that wouldn't be seen as a desperate attempt to remain relevant, I very much miss my guess.

And then, just how many current members would choke on the church giving approval to gay marriage, to name one item?  

 

[carbon dioxide]

58 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The trouble is, the kind of changes you seem to want directly contradict previous teachings, going back millenia.  If that wouldn't be seen as a desperate attempt to remain relevant, I very much miss my guess.

And then, just how many current members would choke on the church giving approval to gay marriage, to name one item?  

 

Not very many.  We have seen what gay marriage has done to other religious groups.  The schism that would occur in the LDS Church over it accepting gay marriage would be far bigger and significant than the one that occurred after Joseph Smith died.  Whatever the church gained from such a decision would be small in comparison to the loss.  It would be as destructive to the church as the Church formally rejecting the Book of Mormon. 

[Okrahomer]

A study done by PRRI toward the end of 2017 suggests that the LDS Church is rather more the exception than the rule when it comes to the number of folks who are leaving.  See here.  

(FYI:  PRRI utilizes a much larger sample size than other religious self-identification surveys; hence its margin of error is lower.)

”The Mormon Exception:  Although Mormons are a predominantly white Christian religious tradition, there is little evidence to suggest that they are experiencing similar declines.13 Currently, 1.9% of the public identifies as Mormon, a number identical to findings from a 2011 study of Mormons in the U.S.14”

[CV75]

10 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

 

I think the selected research from the OP and Elder Cook's talk are apples and oranges. Elder Cook is speaking globally; the surveys and research are not. The GAs are disseminating the same Gospel message and ordinances across the globe, and different cultures (and traditions, economies, etc.) have different receptivity and challenges. The OP focuses on American issues which might mirror issues in similar cultures (European for example, but which cultural landscape is changing much quicker than America's), but ignore the rest of the Church globally. The Book of Mormon warned of wealth and secular advantage if they are not used for "the intent to do good" (Jacob 2:19 describes that) and building the kingdom (2 Nephi 9:29, 1 Nephi 1:1).

It would be a shame when privilege is leveraged for faith crisis. This is certainly not true in all cases, but in comparing the global with the American in the different conclusions that are drawn from what is offered by research in the OP and the observations in Elder Cook's talk, and for the purposes of this thread, it is something to be strongly considered.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Okrahomer said:

A study done by PRRI toward the end of 2017 suggests that the LDS Church is rather more the exception than the rule when it comes to the number of folks who are leaving.  See here.  

(FYI:  PRRI utilizes a much larger sample size than other religious self-identification surveys; hence its margin of error is lower.)

”The Mormon Exception:  Although Mormons are a predominantly white Christian religious tradition, there is little evidence to suggest that they are experiencing similar declines.13 Currently, 1.9% of the public identifies as Mormon, a number identical to findings from a 2011 study of Mormons in the U.S.14”

Unfortunately we don't have PRRI surveys for past years. While the study compares their results to the Pew results that can be somewhat dangerous if the exactly same questions and so forth are used. For instance it's well known that ARIS and Pew get different figures for Mormon populations - although both have them fairly consistent in percentage of the national population over time. I'm not saying they're wrong to note the similarity - just that I'm somewhat skeptical of using the Pew and then switching to PRRI. If we did that with Pew and ARIS we'd get the appearance or significant growth or loss depending upon which we put first.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

BTW, which Pinker book, I just got started Better Angels, is this the newer one Enlightenment Now?  

Yup. I've not read it I should note. He has covered some of the same territory in The Blank Slate about a decade ago. To be fair, while I was very sympathetic to his argument in The Blank Slate whenever he covered areas I was familiar with he wasn't exactly fair to them and often misread them egregiously. So one has to be cautious with Pinker on these matters.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree this causes difficulties, and I call more more humility and allegiance to following the strength of evidence, not allegiance to authority and tradition and "revelation" however people want to subjectively define that.  I'm not sure what you mean by we rarely have sufficient reason for most of our decisions, and I would challenge that assertion, and would like you to elaborate on why you think that's accurate.  

I'm here simplifying by treating revelation as sensual more like seeing or hearing. But of course it's not that simple since there are many hermeneutic issues involved in receiving revelation. So take this as a first order approximation to make a point - but I'm aware of the complexity underneath.

As for sufficient reason (and it's hard not to think Leibniz here) I'm more just noting that often our beliefs are seriously underdetermined in practice. That doesn't seem a terribly controversial point. Most of the time we're just going on vague memories as we act even as we know how often our memories are wrong.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, I think I get what you're saying, but aren't you advocating for a default position of cynicism about things like intersectionality, like you've prejudiced the argument before even considering its value.  Religious traditions seem to approach new ideas with too much caution, and I think that needs to stop.  

How are you using value here? It sounds like you're using it different from how I was using it - I meant it in a more epistemological sense as how valuable as knowledge. Not how valuable in utility. With all apologies to Mark who likes to conflate the two, I tend to see them as quite different. While some might see intersectionality as valuable politically or ethically in terms of evidence it doesn't have a lot of reasons to assume it's true. So I just used it as an example of something that seems extremely difficult to argue is true except along the instrumental angle of truth that say Mark often defends.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

They simply get bored easier.  We have raised a generation of people in society who need to be constantly entertained. 

This has been part of the litany of the lacks ofthe younger generation at least since I was a kid...usually coupled with stories about how different life was for them (grandpa went and hung around where he wanted to get a job as a young teen working for free until they hired him and learned his engineering skills on the job, became one of the top engineers with UI Sugar and the Morton Salt while grandma let us know how her knees got so red from scrubbing floors at home, she was scolded by her teacher for putting rouge on them...apparently a fad back then; grandma especially laid into us about not showing appreciation to our parents and instead being too focused on fun if there was a basket of clothes not yet put away, a messy countertop, etc).  I remember the talk shows Mom would have on while working about how to teach kids commitment and pride in their work so they wouldn't be lost in a world full of distraction.

Edited August 3, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

11 hours 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 can't help but wonder how much of this is US versus international dynamics. 

Your Utah experiences certainly don't convince me that the data and experiences in Asia and Africa are wrong. 

[Okrahomer]

56 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Unfortunately we don't have PRRI surveys for past years. While the study compares their results to the Pew results that can be somewhat dangerous if the exactly same questions and so forth are used. For instance it's well known that ARIS and Pew get different figures for Mormon populations - although both have them fairly consistent in percentage of the national population over time. I'm not saying they're wrong to note the similarity - just that I'm somewhat skeptical of using the Pew and then switching to PRRI. If we did that with Pew and ARIS we'd get the appearance or significant growth or loss depending upon which we put first.

 

Ah, yes.  I see what you're saying.  (By the way:  PRRI data do go back to 2013, and the Mormon percentage is still 1.9%)

An interesting side note regarding the differences between ARIS and Pew: 

A few years ago someone here had indicated that Pew's 2007 Mormon results were unreliable due to oversampling in Utah.  Online searching showed that this criticism probably originated with two ARIS researchers (Phillips and Cragun).  I decided to e-mail Pew to see if they were aware of the criticism, and ask if they had a response.  I did not really expect much of a response, so I was shocked when a few days later, my cell phone rang.  It was one of Pew's researchers.  He told me that they were aware of the criticism, and while an over-sampling method had in fact been used in one instance (I think it was in the 1990's), it had never been used before or after; and that he was quite confident in their numbers.

On the other hand, he indicated that ARIS data were not without problems.  He noted in particular that ARIS did not utilize any secondary questioning in their surveying.  I asked what he meant.  He said that in response to an initial question about religious identification, a very  high percentage of people give a nebulous sort of answer, such as "Christian."  When Pew surveyors get this answer, they switch to a secondary line of questions that attempts to ferret out a more specific tradition or denomination.  The researcher felt that since ARIS did not utilize secondary questioning, their results tended to understate denominational self-identification.

Sorry for the derail.

Edited August 3, 2018 by Okrahomer

[clarkgoble]

38 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Ah, yes.  I see what you're saying.  (By the way:  PRRI data do go back to 2013, and the Mormon percentage is still 1.9%)

Do you have a link? I tried to find that and I couldn't. There is the 2012 American Values Survey but that didn't seem to break out Mormons. They instead had an "other Christian tradition (10%), a category that includes Mormons, Orthodox Christians, and Hispanic Protestants." When I wrote about PRRI last year I thought it was new. If they have an older study I'd love to compare it in the details. I wonder why they referred to Pew rather than their own study.

BTW - that quip where they use Pew is also wrong. Here's what I wrote back at T&S when it came out.

• They wrote, “currently, 1.9% of the public identifies as Mormon, a number identical to findings from a 2011 study of Mormons in the U.S.” However the study they refer to was the 2012 Pew one. However that study I believe merely recontacted Mormons from an earlier 2007 study. I suspect they were going by the line “Mormons make up slightly less than 2% of the US public.” But that’s misleading both because of the date (it’s 2007 not 2011) but more significantly because the figure was 1.6%.

As I mentioned at T&S, if PRRI and Pew are commensurate it's hard not to assume that means Mormons are growing significantly in the US.

38 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

On the other hand, he indicated that ARIS data were not without problems.  He noted in particular that ARIS did not utilize any secondary questioning in their surveying.  I asked what he meant.  He said that in response to an initial question about religious identification, a very  high percentage of people give a nebulous sort of answer, such as "Christian."  When Pew surveyors get this answer, they switch to a secondary line of questions that attempts to ferret out a more specific tradition or denomination.  The researcher felt that since ARIS did not utilize secondary questioning, their results tended to understate denominational self-identification.

The Pew data though had some real headscratchers of results that seemed pretty hard to believe. I've been pretty skeptical of Pew has ridiculously high rates of tithe paying and related things for instance. I confess it was hard to reconcile some of their results, which make me more than a little skeptical of Pew in general. Pew and ARIS had much closer figures for Mormons though. 1.6% vs. 1.4%. 1.9% is quite a bit higher and closer to Gallup's numbers of 2%. However Gallup wasn't adjusting for a representative sample of Mormons. That's just the percent of people who said they were Mormon in various surveys.

Even if that was a problem with ARIS it's also a bit of a problem in Protestantism in general. I don't think it'd affect Mormon figures much. The issue there is how Church of Christ (nee RLDS) or other schisms self-identify.

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Okrahomer]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Do you have a link? I tried to find that and I couldn't. When I wrote about PRRI last year I thought it was new. If they have an older study I'd love to compare it in the details. I wonder why they referred to Pew rather than their own study.

BTW - that quip where they use Pew is also wrong. Here's what I wrote back at T&S when it came out.

• They wrote, “currently, 1.9% of the public identifies as Mormon, a number identical to findings from a 2011 study of Mormons in the U.S.” However the study they refer to was the 2012 Pew one. However that study I believe merely recontacted Mormons from an earlier 2007 study. I suspect they were going by the line “Mormons make up slightly less than 2% of the US public.” But that’s misleading both because of the date (it’s 2007 not 2011) but more significantly because the figure was 1.6%.

 

It's in their American Values Atlas.  Also, I should correct something I had misremembered (based on the notes I just reviewed) Phillips & Cragun had in fact criticized Pew's 2011 study.  And that is apparently the study where Pew had utilized the oversampling technique.  It seemed obvious that the researcher was also not nearly as confident in the 2011 results as he was in everything else.

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

It's in their American Values Atlas.  Also, I should correct something I had misremembered (based on the notes I just reviewed) Phillips & Cragun had in fact criticized Pew's 2011 study.  And that is apparently the study where Pew had utilized the oversampling technique.  It seemed obvious that the researcher was also not nearly as confident in the 2011 results as he was in everything else.

Thanks a ton. I'd found their writeup but they hadn't broken out Mormons in that. (See above - you quoted me while I was still editing. Sorry I'm a slowpoke.) That makes their reference to Pew even more of a headscratcher. I wonder if they meant to refer to their 2012 study that was conducted in 2011 but accidentally wrote Pew instead. Seems like whatever method they use is consistent yet results in a much higher reach of Mormons for whatever reason. That makes much more sense than using Pew which would indicate rapid Mormon growth.

On the other hand PRRI has made some graphs in the past utilizing both theirs and Pews data. That seems unsafe at best - especially considering how different theirs and Pew's Mormon figures are.

Edited August 3, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Nevo]

From where I sit, I'm not seeing much of an exodus. Over the past five years exactly two families in my ward have stopped attending church over historical/doctrinal issues. Since 2014 there has been a slight decline in the percentage of endowed members with recommends but no dramatic change.

Currently, 100 out of 178 endowed adults in our ward hold temple recommends. All things considered, I think that's still pretty high (especially since we're in one of the more godless regions of Canada). Of course, this is all anecdotal evidence...

Edited August 3, 2018 by Nevo

[Thinking]

14 hours ago, blueglass said:

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."

I am always skeptical about claims made about numbers without the actual numbers.

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/2/2018 at 7:42 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Full disclosure, I'm in the cohort of 1971-1994. So the main questions would be, what has changed? Correlation? Access to information? End of days sifting?  But the short answer to the question of Are More People Leaving the Church? The answer seems to be an obvious yes.

Elder Maxwell put it this way....

Quote

Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions.

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Bernard Gui