LDS Personal Faith Crisis- 2013 study

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

That's because you're expecting everyone's reading level to be yours. It was explicitly designed to be understandable by not just all Americans but people in 3rd world countries. To my eyes that's extremely difficult to do and they hit the spot perfectly in terms of readability. Those with more education will undoubtedly find it frustrating and patronizing but I think that's an unfair expectation. Most histories up until now simply were unapproachable by most members. I think many people - particularly middle class people who tend to be well educated - just don't understand what the typical member is at on these things.

I'm not so sure about that (at least I hope the "typical member" isn't at this reading level).  The feedback I've gotten from some members in the ward has been the same as my impression.  A husband and wife were reading it together and he told me at one point they both started laughing because it seemed like his wife was reading a child's book to him.  I do think I remember reading at one point that the book was aimed at reaching the youth, so that may explain it.

I'm not saying that some may actually completely enjoy reading this history.  I just found it quite lacking in the way it was written as well as lacking in content.

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'm not so sure about that (at least I hope the "typical member" isn't at this reading level).  The feedback I've gotten from some members in the ward has been the same as my impression.  A husband and wife were reading it together and he told me at one point they both started laughing because it seemed like his wife was reading a child's book to him.  I do think I remember reading at one point that the book was aimed at reaching the youth, so that may explain it.

I'm not saying that some may actually completely enjoy reading this history.  I just found it quite lacking in the way it was written as well as lacking in content.

I have to agree.  I tried to read it.  I REALLY wanted to love it and just kept reading.  I couldn’t get through it and neither could my husband 

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Really good points, I agree with you.  I think the new Saints narrative tells us that the current church leaders have quite a ways to go on this topic of not putting JS up on a pedestal.  I was quite disappointed with the portrayal of JS in that narrative.  He's not presented as a multi dimensional and flawed human being, and there isn't much nuance introduced in the narrative.  While they do broach topics that haven't been broached as often in times past, the way the narrative is written doesn't allow for multiple interpretations of complicated history, but instead builds on evidence that always seems to paint the church and particularly JS in a very positive light.  I was very disappointed with what I read.  

One does not turn a ship on a dime.  This will be a process.  JS was not perfect and we all know that.  It is good to admit to his flaws as we should admit to our flaws.  However it should not be a shock to anyone that the Church portrays JS in a very positive way.  Catholics and Protestants portray Paul, Peter, and others in a very positive way.   However JS is on a pedestal as he role in the restoration is critical.  He simply is not some other guy in terms of importance. 

[let’s roll]

Has anyone seen data that explores the question of whether those who identify  themselves as having a faith crisis characterize it as a crisis of faith in the Church, a crisis of faith in Christ, or both?

As to those who would say it’s a crisis of faith only with respect to the Church, which has curtailed or ended their association with the Church, it would be interesting to understand how they describe how they’ve been acting on their faith in Christ; whether they perceive those actions have led to a deeper faith in Christ and, if so, what actions they have taken as a result of that increased faith.

[Calm]

19 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree and wonder if the leaders have continued with having more studies done.  I believe there are even more leaving the church now over these issues than even back when this was published.

 

The leaders weren't the ones who had the studies done.  It wasn't commissioned by the Church, but was done by others who then shared it with Church leaders.  How much was new to Church leaders is debatable, imo.

Quote

Greg Prince and Travis Stratford, members of the team that led this project, have granted permission for release of the following:

Faith Crisis Report

Faith_Crisis_Report_R24B.pdf

Report prepared for [as target audience] Dieter Uchtdorf in 2013, presented to him by Marlin Jensen. The report includes a recap of their 2011 research and was meant to inform him and other general authorities so they could better understand what is happening (and take appropriate measures to compassionately address it).

Faith Crisis Chronicles

Faith_Crisis_Accounts_R3.pdf

Includes a number of qualitative narratives collected in 2013 as part of a separate survey (some of these inputs were included in the Uchtdorf report). Dieter later indicated that he read each of these narratives.

BYU-H Symposium Presentation

BYU_H_Social+Faith_R5.pdf

Part of this presentation focused on “user generated content” in the post-Mormon community and included a site-traffic analysis and growth projection for the r/exmormonsubreddit. Back in Oct 2016, there were 34K registered members of that community. Today there are almost 97K registered members, which is more or less on target per the projection to reach 200K in 2020. And while the number of registered users is impressive, the number of “lurkers” and level of engagement per user is especially fascinating. See Slides 17–31 for more info.

Finally, please note that this project was pro-bono work (conducted without pay and without being commissioned by Church leadership).

acknowledgement: John Dehlin co-led the survey research. His posting of the survey results is here. More context on the survey can be found in this "Reply All" podcast.

edit: added the note about this being pro-bono work and acknowledgement

From the person who posted the info:

Quote

Here's what I know:

A while ago Bill Reel released some pdfs of an earlier version of the study (with very little background info). After a short time, his links went dead. That was my first introduction to this study, and like you, I had lots of questions.

Somebody had tracked the study back to Greg Prince, so recently I messaged him about releasing the documents, and he and Travis agreed to release the documents. I suggested a path and some verbiage for releasing the documents (based on how they had described the documents to me); they suggested some minor changes in the verbiage and removal of pages with identifying information on them (each document is complete except for a single page of identifying information which I removed).

Beyond that, I know almost nothing about the context of the study itself except for what is written in them (i.e., what initially motivated it, who was ultimately leading it, goals for the group, etc). I could speculate, but my speculation would merely be based on inferences from the reports themselves.

I am not saying the study is inherently flawed, but context and bias should be remembered.  This was not produced by Church employed scholars or done from the POV of church leadership.  Unlikely done with much, if any, inside knowledge, if I understand the process correctly.  Dehlin appears to be highly involved which increases my caution substantially.

comment in the intro:

Quote

All team members love the Church and wish to see our members suffer less as the result of Faith Crisis. 

Interesting phrasing, especially knowing it includes Dehlin.  Wonder if they identify how many researchers are believers in the traditional sense or have varying positions or are actually disbelievers, but do not see themselves as ctritics and/or antis.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Can't quote this part, but there is a claim that now for the first time in history, the Church can't control the message and narrative for its members. Page 8

Unless I misunderstand them, it seems a rather limited view.  In the early and not so early days of the Church, members were constantly exposed to other messages and narratives (reading newspapers from that time and speeches makes that clear to me), including by members and Exmembers as well as nonmembers and forceful critics.  David Whitmer's Address for example.  With isolation in the West, in some areas there may have been high control but not all Saints primarily lived among other Saints and by the time I was paying attention in California and Illinois in the 60s and 70s there was plenty of other messages and narratives being presented to members by nonmembers family, countercult workers, friends, scholars, politicians, TV and radio ministers.  Accessibility to different views of the Church is wider, deeper, and more consistent geographically, but a lot has always been there.  My husband told of how investigators would talk to pastors or priests or just the people who followed the missionaries around in his area, intent on preventing baptisms....and next lesson, the message and narrative they had been presented would be often challenged heavily.

There is an example of a young man posting an exmormon site on his FB page and exposing dozens of his friends to the message as if nothing like this could ever happen before...they have had books and newpapers the entire history of the modern church.  Papers that were promoted among membership and shared.  The Bible and Book of Mormon wouldn't have been the only books passed around.  It might have been slower and smaller, but not as different as is being demonstrated, imo.  A young woman in my husband's mission in South America brought her message of conversion to others and there were hundreds baptized through her efforts in a decade or so.

Most of us weren't living in caves only allowing church approved material in our homes, on our TVs and radios, at our schools.  I didn't grow up in Utah, so I don't know if it was all that different. I do know the four months I lived in Provo with Grandma in 6th grade was my introduction to pretty much every vulgarity I have encountered in my life, so I doubt there was rigid control.  I was also aware of the Evangelical church a mile or so from her home and the RLDS church up on the hill.  I was told they were active in the community, but no personal experience.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

This part I could quote:

Quote

This Faith Crisis ethnographic survey consists of 3,086 responses.
All respondents believed at one time the LDS Church was “true” but most no longer believe this to be the case.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Survey respondents consisted of self-selected participants who were recruited via social media over the course of two weeks in October 2011. Total respondents = 3,388, 302 of whom were removed due to incomplete data. Given the lack of budget, the survey sample was not randomly selected. The study does not claim to be predictive in nature or of statistical significance. That said, the data collected are considered a robust ethnographic study of the Faith Crisis cohort and many points of this analysis are indicative of the experiences of many people in the Church who pass through a crisis of faith.

For a future study—to scientifically establish a correlation between Church history and disaffection—our team would like to locate a random sample of Saints and then monitor their reading habits and Church activity over a sustained period. But even without this more extensive research, we believe this ethnographic study provides an undeniable link between issues related to Church history and loss-of-belief. 

The problem with using people's descriptions of their experiences after the experiences are over with is that they have more than likely gone back and reprocessed those experiences in light of their new beliefs.  It can be useful in describing where they are now, not so good about the actual process they got there with, imo.

Is there anything actually unexpected from an exmormon POV?

I am not criticizing the quality of the suggestions etc.  It just reads like the academic version of a typical exmormon narrative, which from the description of the method makes sense.  There is much overlap with what I think would be good from what I have seen and wanted, which I would expect from anyone who think knowledge is important.

 I have just been doing it for an hour or two, something might surprise me.  Bedtime though...

Edited November 1, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

The leaders weren't the ones who had the studies done.  It wasn't commissioned by the Church, but was done by others who then shared it with Church leaders. 

What do you think this means then? (Sincere question)

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Report prepared for [as target audience] Dieter Uchtdorf in 2013, presented to him by Marlin Jensen.

I took this to mean that Uchtdorf had asked for it to be done ("prepared for" him).  How do you interpret that?  

If not by the church, I wonder who paid for this publication?  It was very well done and nicely published, IMO.

ETA:

With reading further, I saw this:

Quote

Finally, please note that this project was pro-bono work (conducted without pay and without being commissioned by Church leadership).

So, that's stated more clearly.

Edited November 1, 2018 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

One does not turn a ship on a dime.  This will be a process.  JS was not perfect and we all know that.  It is good to admit to his flaws as we should admit to our flaws.  However it should not be a shock to anyone that the Church portrays JS in a very positive way.  Catholics and Protestants portray Paul, Peter, and others in a very positive way.   However JS is on a pedestal as he role in the restoration is critical.  He simply is not some other guy in terms of importance. 

I agree that it will take time to make changes.  However, I think its clearly taking too long and people are suffering because of an inability to lead out on this issue.  now we know they have had data and recommendations that they haven't taken substantive action on, it shows to me that there is gross negligence taking place.  

As for JS, its different for Mormons than those other examples as Paul and Peter are venerated the way Joseph is in our faith.  We also don't know as much about their lives and their flaws, where we have a whole lot of details about Joseph's flaws, and he was an extremely flawed character, so propping him up is even more morally problematic.   

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that it will take time to make changes.  However, I think its clearly taking too long and people are suffering because of an inability to lead out on this issue.  now we know they have had data and recommendations that they haven't taken substantive action on, it shows to me that there is gross negligence taking place.  

As for JS, its different for Mormons than those other examples as Paul and Peter are venerated the way Joseph is in our faith.  We also don't know as much about their lives and their flaws, where we have a whole lot of details about Joseph's flaws, and he was an extremely flawed character, so propping him up is even more morally problematic.   

This report shows that at least some of the top leadership are very aware of the problem. Are they taking appropriate steps to support members and fix the errors of the whitewashed history? I think reasonable people will disagree about that.

I'm curious though, how instrumental Uchtdorf was in pushing for change and if his removal from the 1st Presidency will impact progress. At the time, the report reached the first presidency. Does it reach the current 1st Presidency? If so, how is it received? I don't think it's too much to expect church leadership to address this issue directly.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree it's the expectations that are often kind of ridiculous. They're also expectations that anyone who has been in leadership usually loses quickly once they're the one responsible for receiving revelation. I don't think that means the Church isn't steered by God. Just that it's a slow moving ship with much more going on than that steering. God isn't a micromanager and a surprising number of members assume he is.

I've heard it often said that the Lord is in the details of this church

"For instance, it takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/the-lord-leads-his-church?lang=eng

I take this to mean that God is in the details where they count.

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm curious though, how instrumental Uchtdorf was in pushing for change and if his removal from the 1st Presidency will impact progress. At the time, the report reached the first presidency. Does it reach the current 1st Presidency? If so, how is it received? I don't think it's too much to expect church leadership to address this issue directly.

I'm curious about this as well.  After seeing those leaked videos with church leaders bringing up relevant current event topics and having outside subject matter experts bringing them information on topics it makes me think that they are very aware of what's happening.  My opinion has shifted on this topic of how much the leaders really know about what's happening on the ground.  I used to think they were oblivious and/or naive and I was giving them the benefit of the doubt for not really understanding the complexity of these issues.  Especially on topics of faith crisis or LGBTQ topics, or sexism and racism. 

I no longer think they are naive on these topics.  My opinion has shifted to thinking they instead are very calculating about how they want to handle these issues, and that the choices they are making are deliberate and intentional.  Which unfortunately for me, takes away from my giving them the benefit of the doubt.  

[CV75]

On 10/30/2018 at 1:20 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently the results of this study was shared with the brethren in 2013. I can't confirm that, it's only what I've heard. But I find it interesting and I can see evidence that leaders began speaking more directly about the issue of faith crisis after 2013. It appears some of the recommendations of the study have been accepted while I don't see any evidence that others have been accepted. For example...

What are your thoughts?

Some observations by way of objective critique about this presentation. I don’t see anyone having brought them up to so here goes:

“Proprietary and confidential” does not mean the Church commissioned it. As explained later, it was a pro-bono effort of concerned volunteers presented to the Church.

“Faith Crisis Defined” should be qualified as “for the purposes of this paper.”

Using quotes by LDS luminaries such as Clayton C. Christensen (which is misattributed; the quote is originally by Henry Ford) and B.H. Roberts; the reference to “faithful LDS scholars, educators, and professionals” on the research team; the line at the bottom of iv and the subjective tone in the “Survey Methodology” description; and especially the call to action on pages 8 and 129 (which exceeds the “Project Objective” on page 6) makes it come across as lobbying material.

I think these missteps can be overlooked for the sake of mining helpful content, but it is clearly coming from one strong perspective with an intended response, and so warrants taking caution in any potential working relationship.

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My opinion has shifted to thinking they instead are very calculating about how they want to handle these issues, and that the choices they are making are deliberate and intentional.  Which unfortunately for me, takes away from my giving them the benefit of the doubt.  

That is my take, with a positive spin of course, which is why I think they were very gracious to accept this contribution for what it was worth.

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That is my take, with a positive spin of course, which is why I think they were very gracious to accept this contribution for what it was worth.

Gracious in what way?  

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I've heard it often said that the Lord is in the details of this church

"For instance, it takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/the-lord-leads-his-church?lang=eng

I take this to mean that God is in the details where they count.

I think he's open to people asking about the details. That's not the same as being a micro-manager or even always answering if people ask. Again I go back to the narrative of the brother of Jared. God doesn't tell him how to light the ship. I'm sure God was concerned about such matters but I also think God gives us our sphere's we're supposed to act within. God can watch over and be concerned about the details while still expecting us to use our own initiative - which may including asking for help on particulars. 

Put an other way, I think God is very willing to let us make mistakes. Further God is willing to prompt us but let us choose not to listen.

Edited November 1, 2018 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think he's open to people asking about the details. That's not the same as being a micro-manager or even always answering if people ask. Again I go back to the narrative of the brother of Jared. God doesn't tell him how to light the ship. I'm sure God was concerned about such matters but I also think God gives us our sphere's we're supposed to act within. God can watch over and be concerned about the details while still expecting us to use our own initiative - which may including asking for help on particulars. 

Put an other way, I think God is very willing to let us make mistakes. Further God is willing to prompt us but let us choose not to listen.

He is certainly at the helm steering the ship as unwieldy as it may be, and not instead prioritizing the fourth cook’s struggle ridding the pantry of weevils. President Eyring’s talk did highlight big picture details if that isn’t an oxymoron 😊 (see the fundamentals he lists in the beginning).

It seems though that God is also willing to be interrupted for the smaller scale details of our lives if not the Church, as President Monson taught: “The Lord is in the details of our lives.”

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/consider-the-blessings?lang=eng

On the page with the above talk there is this link, which seems to tie the two concepts together: “If we will truly receive the Holy Ghost and learn to discern and understand His promptings, we will be guided in matters large and small.” (President Nelson, last April’s conference). https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/revelation-for-the-church-revelation-for-our-lives?lang=eng

So it seems that if the fourth cook has the faith, he can still get the inspiration as you pointed out.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

What do you think this means then? (Sincere question)

I took this to mean that Uchtdorf had asked for it to be done ("prepared for" him).  How do you interpret that?  

If not by the church, I wonder who paid for this publication?  It was very well done and nicely published, IMO.

ETA:

With reading further, I saw this:

So, that's stated more clearly.

"Target audience" means to me the writers did it with him in mind and believe they were successful in getting Elder Jensen to give it to him.

The survey itself may have been the one Dehlin did, so already paid for perhaps.  Or they may have used his names which can consume a lot of hours vetting and with over 3000 names I think we would have heard about it, given the collection tactics if it was a different one.  Need to compare the numbers of participants to see if possibility as well as questions asked.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This report shows that at least some of the top leadership are very aware of the problem. Are they taking appropriate steps to support members and fix the errors of the whitewashed history? I think reasonable people will disagree about that.

I'm curious though, how instrumental Uchtdorf was in pushing for change and if his removal from the 1st Presidency will impact progress. At the time, the report reached the first presidency. Does it reach the current 1st Presidency? If so, how is it received? I don't think it's too much to expect church leadership to address this issue directly.

It sounds like it reached then Pres Utchdorf, though that may have been an assumption if they just turned it over to Elder Jensen.  Which means maybe two leaders knew about it.  Haven't finished reading it, but is there any indication they got actual feedback from Elder Utchdorf or that he or Jensen read it and shared it with others.  They seem nice guys, so I think it likely, but I don't think it is wise to make those kinds of assumptions without specific details provided as I bet church leaders get a ton of unsolicited stuff/advice and there may be other people who deal with it rather than the intended target.

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Gracious in what way?  

It was, imo, more than likely they were already aware of the material in this and they are being treated as ignorant to a certain extent.  I read it last night so my impression may be wrong, but I remember some use of "we" that struck me as the authors claiming decisionmaking status as if they were actual, official contributors to the process rather than a collection of lay members hoping to influence top leaders (nothing wrong with that).

Edited November 1, 2018 by Calm

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Target audience" means to me the writers did it with him in mind and believe they were successful in getting Elder Jensen to give it to him.

The survey itself may have been the one Dehlin did, so already paid for perhaps.  Or they may have used his names which can consume a lot of hours vetting and with over 3000 names I think we would have heard about it, given the collection tactics if it was a different one.  Need to compare the numbers of participants to see if possibility as well as questions asked.

According to the Home and About pages, the target audience at this point, 8 years later would be those who upon itital consideration would like to "...peek behind the curtain …to critically investigate LDS truth-claims” where a "Private and confidential" document would be very intriguing!  

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/

“This site is a collection of resources, research, and thoughts on the truth-claims, teachings, and culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (referred to as “the LDS Church” herein).

    Brief sketch of events surrounding my resignation

    Outline of my beliefs

“I undertook this research carefully and with as much objectivity as I was capable. If I am mistaken in what I have written or the conclusions I have drawn, then please do not hesitate to offer me correction." https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/about/

[Ouagadougou]

On 10/30/2018 at 11:20 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently the results of this study was shared with the brethren in 2013. I can't confirm that, it's only what I've heard. But I find it interesting and I can see evidence that leaders began speaking more directly about the issue of faith crisis after 2013. It appears some of the recommendations of the study have been accepted while I don't see any evidence that others have been accepted. For example...

What are your thoughts?

I also don't think Elder Holland's childish rant back in 2016 about those who leave the church was helpful and/or appropriate in addressing this 2013 study; behavior like that, IMO, only causes more frustration and strengthens the position of those who have left the church or are inactive. Screaming and yelling at the pulpit is counter-productive, IMO.  

Edited November 2, 2018 by Ouagadougou

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

It was, imo, more than likely they were already aware of the material in this and they are being treated as ignorant to a certain extent.  I read it last night so my impression may be wrong, but I remember some use of "we" that struck me as the authors claiming decisionmaking status as if they were actual, official contributors to the process rather than a collection of lay members hoping to influence top leaders (nothing wrong with that).

I didn’t pick up in that vibe at all.  I’m pretty proud of grass roots efforts in the church, it shows how much people care.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I didn’t pick up in that vibe at all.  I’m pretty proud of grass roots efforts in the church, it shows how much people care.  

I may be projecting. Over the years I have gotten a lot of advice about my health and other things from people who are not willing to accept I have worked hard to be informed and who keep on talking even after I have told them I understand or have tried that or studied. Lots of time and energy wasted because others don’t trust that I know my own work best. Being polite, I generally just smile and thank them for their concern. 

So I may be biased when I see people telling others they have no stewardship or assignment over at work or church or anywhere what should be done.

I don’t mind people offering help or personal experiences. It is when they are certain they are familiar with my concerns and therefore have all the answers 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Calm

[Okrahomer]

On 10/31/2018 at 6:18 PM, ALarson said:

 I do think I remember reading at one point that the book was aimed at reaching the youth, so that may explain it.

I'm not saying that some may actually completely enjoy reading this history.  I just found it quite lacking in the way it was written as well as lacking in content.

Some relevant comments here from a BYU English professor:

“Saints” is also created for a worldwide audience. Crowe said he was told the writers were trying to strike about an eighth-grade reading level, which means the book will be an easy read for good readers while remaining accessible to readers in countries with developing literacy.”

“Harper said the book is “intensely readable” and will have an “exponentially larger readership than any church history we’ve ever had before”; however, he also recognized there’s a demographic of church members who will never pick it up, and he said how much the book holds readers’ attention is up to them.”