Some questions and thoughts about why people leave the Church.

[kimpearson]

In reading the discussions about why people leave the Church, there seems to be two broad viewpoints.  One is that the numbers haven't changed that much and most of these people left because they either had no faith or weren't really converted in the first place.  The other viewpoint is that members are leaving because of a loss of faith over historical issue, social issues, disagreement with leaders actions and feeling like they don't fit.  That the number of people leaving the Church is increasing.

I wonder if the two viewpoints talk past each other because they are really talking about two different groups.  Historically for many years now more than 50% of members are not active and have little connection to the Church.  An even higher percentage of new converts fall quickly into inactivity.  These groups of members represent a huge number that statistically makes up the vast majority of those leaving the Church.  It probably can be argued these folks never had much of a testimony or because of inaction lost whatever testimony they had.  I believe this is the group that Brad Wilcox and other church leaders refer to when they say the numbers haven't changed much.

The second group I am much more interested in and invested in listening to is members that were fully active then rather suddenly either went inactive or formerly withdrew from membership.  My wife, sister in law, mother in law, numerous nieces and nephews, aunts and uncles and friends fall into this category.  Our ward executive secretary was quietly release and his family suddenly disappeared.  Next thing I know, his wife is heading up the local thrive group for members who have decided to leave the Church.  Both he and his wife served missions, met at BYU, married in the temple and served faithfully in the Church for over 15 years.  This group also includes the many children of friends and family who grew up in fully active homes that followed all the Church guidance for making families strong including family home evening, scripture study, seminary and temple attendance.  When these children left home, they immediately ceased all activity in the Church.  This group includes young adults who come home from missions and within a year or two have gone inactive.  Statistically speaking, this group is much smaller than the first group.  The problem I see with this group that is leaving is that traditionally this group provided most of the leadership in the Church.  People leaving the Church from this group will really impact the future of the Church much more than the much large group of long time inactive or never fully active members.

What do you think?  Am I on the right track?  Should active members of the Church worry for the future of the Church because of either group or will there be no major impact to the Church's future?  Do you think Church leaders see any significant problems in this area that they are willing to address in detail and with much focus or do you think Church leadership believes if they remain faithful and all their efforts are focused on keeping currently faithful members active that God will protect the Church from any problems of those members who do leave?

[ksfisher]

41 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Should active members of the Church worry for the future of the Church because of either group or will there be no major impact to the Church's future? 

I think we should be show be concerned about anyone leaving the church, regardless of the reason or their past activity.  The church is not a collection of individuals, but a community of believers working towards a common goal.  Anyone the strays from the path lessens the whole.

44 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Do you think Church leaders see any significant problems in this area that they are willing to address...

Obviously you'd have to ask that question of church leadership to get the real answer.  Otherwise you're just getting the opinions of a bunch of people on the internet who, while they have opinions, aren't church leadership.

[Fether]

46 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

What do you think?  Am I on the right track?  Should active members of the Church worry for the future of the Church because of either group or will there be no major impact to the Church's future?  Do you think Church leaders see any significant problems in this area that they are willing to address in detail and with much focus or do you think Church leadership believes if they remain faithful and all their efforts are focused on keeping currently faithful members active that God will protect the Church from any problems of those members who do leave?

The fact that the church is more willing to talk about historical issues will help a ton. Had I been born just 5-10 years earlier, I would likely have left the church after feeling lied to. But I grew up hearing about all these historical issues in church and seminary. I know many in the same boat as me.

Willingness to talk about it is a big deal. We are also in this period of adjusting from a loyalty focus to an authenticity focus. We are still being lead by leaders where most value loyalty over authenticity and as long as that prevails, people will struggle. I think once millennials and Gen Z become the leaders, we will be in a good place.
 

Ideally, however, we stop looking to people who grew up 2 generations ago to lead us and start getting younger people in.

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Should active members of the Church worry for the future of the Church because of either group or will there be no major impact to the Church's future? 

While I think there could be short term and even long term issues in areas where members are sparse and a branch is highly dependent on the service of a few core families and there aren’t other families that can move into those positions if they see a need, I think in areas where there are wards with many families, that often members don’t do a lot of volunteering because they don’t see a need for it.  I have heard many express how they miss living in the mission field because they felt much more involved in their local community than they do once they moved to Utah or other Latter-day Saint dense areas, where they at times feel they are just one small fish in a mass of fish and the Church doesn’t need them to be showing up day after day because there is always someone else who can do their calling or ministering.  In these areas, if a ward takes a hit by losing a highly active family and it is clear there is a need for replacements, members who care about the community, but just didn’t feel there was a need before will step up and become ‘that family’.

And the Church has ways to reorganize to cover branches that go inactive, including sending in missionaries to increase conversion efforts.  

So logistically, I don’t believe the Church will suffer long term even if efforts slow down at times and wards and branches stagnant here and there.

That does not mean though the loss of committed families is not a blow to the Church community; any family is hurt when a family member chooses to walk away from it and that includes the church family.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Fether said:

We are still being lead by leaders where most value loyalty over authenticity

We are being led by prophets and apostles chosen by God to lead the church now.  They are they people God wants for this moment.

I would also say that your comment about our leaders valuing loyalty over authenticity comes off as condescending.  How do you know what they value?

9 minutes ago, Fether said:

Ideally, however, we stop looking to people who grew up 2 generations ago to lead us and start getting younger people in.

In an interview President Hinckley did years ago he commented that one of the strengths of the church was that it was led by people who have experience.  When the wind would blow this way or that they could remain strong and not sway this way or that. 

Personally I feel that I'm a much more thoughtful, caring, and compassionate than I was 20 years ago.  I think that carries over into how I serve.  Certainly I'm more experienced and I hope I can say that I have a greater understanding of how I should serve than I did then.

[Rivers]

People leave because our culture is becoming more and more secular.  As Patrick Mason puts it, people in the past were held onto by religion while people today hold to religion.  
 

I’ve become very pessimistic about the state of the church and it’s future.  As I look at the way things are going, I wonder if there’s any point in even trying to raise my kids in the church.  I have very little hope that they will want to stick with it into adulthood.  I love the gospel and am grateful to have had it in my life.  But I’m also a realist.  I am completely lost on how I am supposed to raise my kids in our modern rapidly changing society.  Someone please give me reason to have some hope.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Rivers

[CV75]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

In reading the discussions about why people leave the Church, there seems to be two broad viewpoints.  One is that the numbers haven't changed that much and most of these people left because they either had no faith or weren't really converted in the first place.  The other viewpoint is that members are leaving because of a loss of faith over historical issue, social issues, disagreement with leaders actions and feeling like they don't fit.  That the number of people leaving the Church is increasing.

I wonder if the two viewpoints talk past each other because they are really talking about two different groups.  Historically for many years now more than 50% of members are not active and have little connection to the Church.  An even higher percentage of new converts fall quickly into inactivity.  These groups of members represent a huge number that statistically makes up the vast majority of those leaving the Church.  It probably can be argued these folks never had much of a testimony or because of inaction lost whatever testimony they had.  I believe this is the group that Brad Wilcox and other church leaders refer to when they say the numbers haven't changed much.

The second group I am much more interested in and invested in listening to is members that were fully active then rather suddenly either went inactive or formerly withdrew from membership.  My wife, sister in law, mother in law, numerous nieces and nephews, aunts and uncles and friends fall into this category.  Our ward executive secretary was quietly release and his family suddenly disappeared.  Next thing I know, his wife is heading up the local thrive group for members who have decided to leave the Church.  Both he and his wife served missions, met at BYU, married in the temple and served faithfully in the Church for over 15 years.  This group also includes the many children of friends and family who grew up in fully active homes that followed all the Church guidance for making families strong including family home evening, scripture study, seminary and temple attendance.  When these children left home, they immediately ceased all activity in the Church.  This group includes young adults who come home from missions and within a year or two have gone inactive.  Statistically speaking, this group is much smaller than the first group.  The problem I see with this group that is leaving is that traditionally this group provided most of the leadership in the Church.  People leaving the Church from this group will really impact the future of the Church much more than the much large group of long time inactive or never fully active members.

What do you think?  Am I on the right track?  Should active members of the Church worry for the future of the Church because of either group or will there be no major impact to the Church's future?  Do you think Church leaders see any significant problems in this area that they are willing to address in detail and with much focus or do you think Church leadership believes if they remain faithful and all their efforts are focused on keeping currently faithful members active that God will protect the Church from any problems of those members who do leave?

I have a sense that the numbers of people leaving haven’t changed much, but the speed with which people make the decision to leave and the publicity involved have increased. At any given time, it may also appear that more people are leaving than ever before, following by less-publicized periods where they are not.

This is just a viewpoint, without doing the research to back it up, but those who feel strongly about their viewpoint tend to back their conflicting positions with stats anyway.

As far as worrying about the Church’s future, it’s not my Church (it’s Jesus’) so I don’t. I do try to stay anxiously engaged in all I’ve covenanted to do. This would include rescuing inactive as well as retaining active members, and I believe our Church leaders are all over that and leading the way. I am sure they use statistics to measure how well those efforts are going.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

In reading the discussions about why people leave the Church, there seems to be two broad viewpoints.  One is that the numbers haven't changed that much and most of these people left because they either had no faith or weren't really converted in the first place.  The other viewpoint is that members are leaving because of a loss of faith over historical issue, social issues, disagreement with leaders actions and feeling like they don't fit.  That the number of people leaving the Church is increasing.

I wonder if the two viewpoints talk past each other because they are really talking about two different groups.  Historically for many years now more than 50% of members are not active and have little connection to the Church.  An even higher percentage of new converts fall quickly into inactivity.  These groups of members represent a huge number that statistically makes up the vast majority of those leaving the Church.  It probably can be argued these folks never had much of a testimony or because of inaction lost whatever testimony they had.  I believe this is the group that Brad Wilcox and other church leaders refer to when they say the numbers haven't changed much.

The second group I am much more interested in and invested in listening to is members that were fully active then rather suddenly either went inactive or formerly withdrew from membership.  My wife, sister in law, mother in law, numerous nieces and nephews, aunts and uncles and friends fall into this category.  Our ward executive secretary was quietly release and his family suddenly disappeared.  Next thing I know, his wife is heading up the local thrive group for members who have decided to leave the Church.  Both he and his wife served missions, met at BYU, married in the temple and served faithfully in the Church for over 15 years.  This group also includes the many children of friends and family who grew up in fully active homes that followed all the Church guidance for making families strong including family home evening, scripture study, seminary and temple attendance.  When these children left home, they immediately ceased all activity in the Church.  This group includes young adults who come home from missions and within a year or two have gone inactive.  Statistically speaking, this group is much smaller than the first group.  The problem I see with this group that is leaving is that traditionally this group provided most of the leadership in the Church.  People leaving the Church from this group will really impact the future of the Church much more than the much large group of long time inactive or never fully active members.

What do you think?  Am I on the right track?  Should active members of the Church worry for the future of the Church because of either group or will there be no major impact to the Church's future?  Do you think Church leaders see any significant problems in this area that they are willing to address in detail and with much focus or do you think Church leadership believes if they remain faithful and all their efforts are focused on keeping currently faithful members active that God will protect the Church from any problems of those members who do leave?

I agree that there are separate groups. The 50-60% inactive who were likely never very active and then the very active members and families who are now leaving. Honestly, I think the church is disingenuous when they talk about how the numbers leaving now is no different than any other time. I think they are leaning heavily onto the traditional inactive numbers instead of addressing the committed members who are leaving. Obviously, not everyone who leaves the church resigns or makes a big deal out of leaving, yet there seems to be something different about ultra-active, temple going, leadership serving members who leave versus those who may have been baptized after a pick-up basketball game when they were 12. I think the church consciously tries to muddy the waters as if to prove that there is "nothing to see here" regarding an exodus of formerly loyal saints.

Will the exodus of formerly faithful saints impact the church's future? Yes and no. Yes, some people will miss them but they'll move on quickly and won't miss them for too long. Yes, there will be an impact to leadership and tithing funds, but NO because the church has a wealth of leadership and money. So on a personal level it will impact people and the church's growth rate may be impacted but that won't really have a major impact on the church itself. The church is BIG and will weather the fall out. It may become smaller but I think many members will actually prefer that and possibly even wear it as a badge of honor for being one of the few remaining virgins prepared for the wedding feast.

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I’ve become very pessimistic about the state of the church and it’s future.  As I look at the way things are going, I wonder if there’s any point in even trying to raise my kids in the church.  I have very little hope that they will want to stick with it into adulthood.  I love the gospel and am grateful to have had it in my life.  But I’m also a realist.  I am completely lost on how I am supposed to raise my kids in our modern rapidly changing society.  Someone please give me reason to have some hope.

You raise them with them feeling the fire of your faith from the time they are little. If people miss this boat and have other priorities when they are little, then they "have no promise" and take their chances. 

I think it's easier to transmit this faith generationally within a literalist framework. I think the "nuanced," "it's mostly just symbolic, but still somehow powerful" trend that is popular with some doesn't really have the same impact on generational faith. I think many of those who love "Saints Unscripted," et. al. might (or might not) last through their life with their faith intact, but their kids won't have compelling reasons to believe and remain committed. Just my opinion, of course. 

[Fether]

31 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We are being led by prophets and apostles chosen by God to lead the church now.  They are they people God wants for this moment.

Becoming a Prophet or Apostle does not make someone void of preference or ideology.

I do agree though. I will sustain them to the end.

31 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How do you know what they value?

This is just what I have seen growing up. It’s a comment about that generation, not the leadership.

33 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

In an interview President Hinckley did years ago he commented that one of the strengths of the church was that it was led by people who have experience.  When the wind would blow this way or that they could remain strong and not sway this way or that. 

Personally I feel that I'm a much more thoughtful, caring, and compassionate than I was 20 years ago.  I think that carries over into how I serve.  Certainly I'm more experienced and I hope I can say that I have a greater understanding of how I should serve than I did then.

I agree, it is a strength, and I’m not saying we should be run by 30 year olds. I’m saying it would be nice to have a variety of ages in the Q12 and 70.

[Metis_LDS]

Well the bulk of the Church's money is always going to be in America.

The bulk of the membership may not be in the future. The thing about a worldwide Church is what you lose in one place you gain in another.  I have come to accept that this forum is mostly North American, it is not a bad thing, but does give members in the western world a narrow view of the Church. The Temple numbers now are 170 Dedicated,  45 Under Construction,  50 Announced (these numbers maybe out by a few). This progress on Temples does not give the appearance of a Church in decline.  When I joined the Church as a convert there were 15 in the world and now look!

Edited March 2, 2022 by Metis_LDS
Spelling

[mfbukowski]

I think the problem is essentially history which was swept under the carpet, and the search for what is conceived as "evidence for the truth claims" of the church.  People don't question it while growing up, and then don't understand why none of that matters when they DO become aware of it.

What they don't understand is that by joining the church they are accepting a philosophical system and not a bundle of historical facts.

Most people believe that all humans are "created equal".

THAT is an ethical belief, and the fact that equality has never actually been achieved historically is irrelevant to believing that it is a true principle!

It is a virtually universal belief for which there is NO EVIDENCE at all!

The church presents such a system of BELIEFS, not facts, as well,  which similarly must be believed on their own merits alone:

1 God exists and loves us.

2 He provided us with an atonement if we do our absolute best to repent for sin.

3 He has provided a means for all humanity to hear and accept his plan of happiness, which we can experience both here and in the eternities, if we emulate the behaviors of Jesus Christ, the ideal, perfect human 

4 Prophets, are just inspired humans, not perfected beings, who make mistakes just like everyone else. 

5 Most importantly, we must gain understanding of these abstract beliefs by internal feelings, just as we believe that all humanity is equal, by internal feelings.

All the other errors in LDS history are the errors of men, and NOT of the beliefs themselves.

Are the beliefs sweet to you?

THAT is the only real question 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

You raise them with them feeling the fire of your faith from the time they are little. If people miss this boat and have other priorities when they are little, then they "have no promise" and take their chances. 

I think it's easier to transmit this faith generationally within a literalist framework. I think the "nuanced," "it's mostly just symbolic, but still somehow powerful" trend that is popular with some doesn't really have the same impact on generational faith. I think many of those who love "Saints Unscripted," et. al. might (or might not) last through their life with their faith intact, but their kids won't have compelling reasons to believe and remain committed. Just my opinion, of course. 

Where is the "literal framework" for the belief that all men are created equal, and have human rights?

When literal frameworks disappear, as we grow up, so does the belief, just like Santa, not when they understand from the beginning that faith in beliefs come from within, like after the conscience kicks in when they know they have done something wrong.

Notice that around age 8 is when kids start doubting Santa as a fact?

The jump from Santa to God is very short, if they are taught literally, instead of by "good stories" that may be historical, like St. Nicholas, or just "good stories" to help us BE good, like the prodigal son.

What year the prodigal son lived, and proof of where he lived on a census record is irrelevant to the lesson inherent in the story

But then we have adults who still believe that Joseph Smith was infallible.

The BELIEFS are true, just as the golden rule is true. You know it with certainty within you.

But he was still historically a very human being, with an incredible spiritual God given gift and mission.

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

What do you think?  Am I on the right track?  Should active members of the Church worry for the future of the Church because of either group or will there be no major impact to the Church's future?  

The Church's future was set before Joseph entered the grove.  A chunk of the Church leaving was prophesied.  A millennial reign where people continue to follow other faiths was prophesied.  And the end results are already known.

If people choose to help fulfill this process that's ok.  🤷

[let’s roll]

Hand-wringing about Church membership levels is, IMHO, misplaced.  Having a relationship with Deity is the only sin qua non of spirituality.  

Church membership without a healthy relationship with God has little value.  While the Church can play a role in inviting us to seek Divine communion, it can’t do the work needed to cultivate that communion for us.

I believe if we help those we love understand how we can know God, model for them a life led in partnership with Him (and are honest with them about our weaknesses in that attempt) and invite them to pursue their own relationship with Deity, we will serve them better than having our sole focus be persuading them  to “stay in the Church.”

Success in the former will more often take care of the latter than accomplishment of the latter taking care of the former.

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

People leave because our culture is becoming more and more secular.  As Patrick Mason puts it, people in the past were held onto by religion while people today hold to religion.  
 

I’ve become very pessimistic about the state of the church and it’s future.  As I look at the way things are going, I wonder if there’s any point in even trying to raise my kids in the church.  I have very little hope that they will want to stick with it into adulthood.  I love the gospel and am grateful to have had it in my life.  But I’m also a realist.  I am completely lost on how I am supposed to raise my kids in our modern rapidly changing society.  Someone please give me reason to have some hope.

So you see the issue for our young people is the society around them?  I see the issue as the Church not offering much that appeals to today's youth as something they need to have a sense of purpose and fulfillment.  The young people I talk to including my kids see a church addressing none of today's issues in a substantial way.  They hear the same tired messages in talks and lessons that offer them little in the way of meaning in today's world.  They also have a dislike for the attitude of we are special that older members exude when using phrases  like the elect of God, covenant people, join the army of God and in the world but not of the world.

[kimpearson]

58 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Well the bulk of the Church's money is always going to be in America.

The bulk of the membership may not be in the future. The thing about a worldwide Church is what you lose in one place you gain in another.  I have come to accept that this forum is mostly North American, it is not a bad thing, but does give members in the western world a narrow view of the Church. The Temple numbers now are 170 Dedicated,  45 Under Construction,  50 Announced (these numbers maybe out by a few). This progress on Temples does not give the appearance of a Church in decline.  When I joined the Church as a convert there were 15 in the world and now look!

All it takes to build temples is money of which the Church has more than enough.  The real measure is how much those temples will be utilized.  As the Church offers no statistics on temple utilization, we will have only word of mouth.  I have heard numerous stories from people on the internet that many temples in South America and Asia have very low temple attendance.  The only ones booming with attendance are in Utah and Idaho.  Covid obviously has had some effect but it will be interesting to see if all those temples are really utilized.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I am completely lost on how I am supposed to raise my kids in our modern rapidly changing society.  Someone please give me reason to have some hope.

People who have experienced for themselves the reality of the Restored Gospel very rarely walk away unless they stop having those experiences and then reinterpret them once the fog of memory sets in. You can't 100 per cent prevent the latter, but you can certainly raise children in a home where the gospel works on an everyday basis -- one where revelation flows, not just to you and your partner but to your children as well; one where visions, healings, angelic ministrations, etc. are expected and received; one where ministering to others is both common and unmistakably aided by the assistance of heaven; one where the scriptures are a source of comfort but also a guide for behaviour; and so forth.

You've got this!

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Are the beliefs sweet to you?

Is it an all or nothing proposition? Can I "cafeteria style" pick and choose the beliefs that are sweet to me?

I know the answer to these questions in my mind are no and yes, but I also know that there have been some inartful things said about being a "cafeteria Mormon." I do sometimes wonder how much of the "reason" people like those @kimpearson is talking about end up leaving because of too much all or nothing thinking/rhetoric. I wonder if part of the "solution" (if there is a solution) would be to help people feel more comfortable as partial believers.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

So you see the issue for our young people is the society around them?  I see the issue as the Church not offering much that appeals to today's youth as something they need to have a sense of purpose and fulfillment.  The young people I talk to including my kids see a church addressing none of today's issues in a substantial way.  They hear the same tired messages in talks and lessons that offer them little in the way of meaning in today's world.  They also have a dislike for the attitude of we are special that older members exude when using phrases  like the elect of God, covenant people, join the army of God and in the world but not of the world.

I'm sorry but the gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't need to be marketed.  We're not selling something. It's not a social club.

Seriously, when did offering the gospel of salvation and the ordinances of exaltation become something we needed to make people want?  If they don't care for the welfare of their eternal souls that's not due to bad marketing.

I see why God will have to start preaching his own sermons in a society where people wonder what's in following Christ for themselves.

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, kimpearson said:

In reading the discussions about why people leave the Church, there seems to be two broad viewpoints.  One is that the numbers haven't changed that much and most of these people left because they either had no faith or weren't really converted in the first place.  The other viewpoint is that members are leaving because of a loss of faith over historical issue, social issues, disagreement with leaders actions and feeling like they don't fit.  That the number of people leaving the Church is increasing.

I wonder if the two viewpoints talk past each other because they are really talking about two different groups.  Historically for many years now more than 50% of members are not active and have little connection to the Church.  An even higher percentage of new converts fall quickly into inactivity.  These groups of members represent a huge number that statistically makes up the vast majority of those leaving the Church.  It probably can be argued these folks never had much of a testimony or because of inaction lost whatever testimony they had.  I believe this is the group that Brad Wilcox and other church leaders refer to when they say the numbers haven't changed much.

The second group I am much more interested in and invested in listening to is members that were fully active then rather suddenly either went inactive or formerly withdrew from membership.  My wife, sister in law, mother in law, numerous nieces and nephews, aunts and uncles and friends fall into this category.  Our ward executive secretary was quietly release and his family suddenly disappeared.  Next thing I know, his wife is heading up the local thrive group for members who have decided to leave the Church.  Both he and his wife served missions, met at BYU, married in the temple and served faithfully in the Church for over 15 years.  This group also includes the many children of friends and family who grew up in fully active homes that followed all the Church guidance for making families strong including family home evening, scripture study, seminary and temple attendance.  When these children left home, they immediately ceased all activity in the Church.  This group includes young adults who come home from missions and within a year or two have gone inactive.  Statistically speaking, this group is much smaller than the first group.  The problem I see with this group that is leaving is that traditionally this group provided most of the leadership in the Church.  People leaving the Church from this group will really impact the future of the Church much more than the much large group of long time inactive or never fully active members.

What do you think?  Am I on the right track?  Should active members of the Church worry for the future of the Church because of either group or will there be no major impact to the Church's future?  Do you think Church leaders see any significant problems in this area that they are willing to address in detail and with much focus or do you think Church leadership believes if they remain faithful and all their efforts are focused on keeping currently faithful members active that God will protect the Church from any problems of those members who do leave?

Prophecy is the key to knowing (by the power of revelation from God) the glorious destiny that God has promised lies in store for his Church. According to Nephi’s vision, the Church will not rise up in the full majesty of its glory until the faithful members of the Church first weather the storm of a great worldwide persecution,  during which the Lord will begin to destroy the hosts of the great whore who is only now beginning in earnest her attempt to destroy Church. It will not be until the people of God who have faithfully endured persecution are endowed with the power of God in great glory, and the wrath of God is poured without measure upon the whore and her hosts that the instability in the Church that you now lament will come to an end.

When the Lord pours out his great wrath upon the whore of all the earth, these terrible judgements will be poured out first upon the Church and many members will fall because they will not be able to withstand the storm and maintain their faith and steadfastness during the prophesied day of the worldwide persecution of the Church. And in spite of all your fears, angst and apparent attempts of what looks like ark steadying, all will work out wonderfully in the end, especially for those who keep the faith of Christ, for they will come off as more than conquerors.You are jumping the gun and worrying excessively over things that the Lord has said will happen and eventually pass away after the unsettled day of turmoil and persecution comes to an end.

Please pay particular attention to the following verses from Nephi’s vision that I will place in bold.

11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.
12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.
13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God.
14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.
15 And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was poured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and kindreds of the earth.
16 And as there began to be wars and rumors of wars among all the nations which belonged to the mother of abominations, the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold, the wrath of God is upon the mother of harlots; and behold, thou seest all these things—
17 And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Is it an all or nothing proposition? Can I "cafeteria style" pick and choose the beliefs that are sweet to me?

IMO The church encourages everyone to have a testimony of every principle. Blind obedience sometimes works to help get a testimony, as an experiment (Alma 32) but you have your own conscience to follow as prime directive.

One should never turn one's life to a belief they find wrong!

But I have not found any such doctrines after 42 years of pretty serious STUDY and a lot of church experience, and am still finding things that just WOW me with how beautifully all the tiny pieces come together eventually!  I have a testimony of it ALL!

[carbon dioxide]

8 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Should active members of the Church worry for the future of the Church because of either group or will there be no major impact to the Church's future?  Do you think Church leaders see any significant problems in this area that they are willing to address in detail and with much focus or do you think Church leadership believes if they remain faithful and all their efforts are focused on keeping currently faithful members active that God will protect the Church from any problems of those members who do leave?

If one understand how everything is supposed to occur in the last days, one should not be worried about the future of the church.  Everything will be fine for those that are active and endure to the end.  Many years ago it was said that the church would be put under a test and many would leave the church.  God will weed out the tares.  Sure it is sad that people leave but that is their choice.  We lost a third who sided with Satan in the premortal world.   The book of Mormon speaks of many people leaving the church.   Apostasy has always been a part of the church and will be up to the end.  The people who leave the church are only blowing themselves up in the end.  Think of all the time and efforts they spent in the premortal world working towards exaltation.  They come to earth, they have it in their grasp and they give all away.  Billions upon billions of years of hopes and dreams and work down the drain for this or that excuse.  Sad but it is how it is.   I am confident if one was able to go into the spirit world and interview the many apostates of the Nephites how things have worked out for them since leaving the Church and they would say not so well.   The faithful just need to endure to the end and it does not matter who chooses to leave around them.  Mortal life is short, eternity is a long time.

Edited March 3, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[InCognitus]

27 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

God will weed out the tares.

And also in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13), of the three types of soil that receive the seed and it takes root, only one third of them bear fruit, and even among that group, some a hundred fold, some sixty, and some thirty.  The other two thirds are either in the stony or thorny places, where the seed either doesn't take deep root "in himself" or is encumbered by the thorns and becomes unfruitful. 

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

People who have experienced for themselves the reality of the Restored Gospel very rarely walk away unless they stop having those experiences and then reinterpret them once the fog of memory sets in. You can't 100 per cent prevent the latter, but you can certainly raise children in a home where the gospel works on an everyday basis -- one where revelation flows, not just to you and your partner but to your children as well; one where visions, healings, angelic ministrations, etc. are expected and received; one where ministering to others is both common and unmistakably aided by the assistance of heaven; one where the scriptures are a source of comfort but also a guide for behaviour; and so forth.

You've got this!

I am going to respectfully disagree.  I know many who have left the church who have experienced the reality of the restored gospel.  If people here are really interested in getting a good cross section of reasons why members leave, then I suggest visiting the exmormon subreddit (www.reddit.com/r/exmormon).  There are exit stores ranging from teenagers to retired grandparents.  From the newly baptized to Stake Presidents and Bishops who have been active for five decades. The reasons they leave are diverse, but almost never trivial.  These are for the most part knowledgeable people who were very committed.  Many of these stories a heart breaking.  It would be a mistake to discount them or categorize them some stupid and offensive category like lazy learner, unruly children or lax disciples.   If things were really that cut and dried, then embarrassing failures like Swedish rescue would have turned out much different.

As for the OP question of velocity of departures, who knows.  I think the evidence points to a decline. And I believe the brethren are very aware of this, and have taken steps to address it.  Lowing the mission are is one example.  The subreddit I mentioned above current has 228,000 registered members.  When I signed up five years ago, there were 60K registered users. I know its anecdotal, but that is just one forum.  Yes, people are leaving, and they are leaving in large numbers.

Edited March 3, 2022 by sunstoned