- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
So I’ve seen a number of posts discuss this issue tangentially, but I’ve not seen one dedicated to it. My question is this: what is the true scope of LDS disaffection? In other words, what are the numbers, percentages, etc. of active members who have either left the Church or are having major faith challenges? I don’t know that we’ll have anything other than anecdotal accounts rather than real numbers. This came up because a dear friend of mine recently revealed to me that he’s pretty much gone inactive. I don’t live in the U.S. anymore, but will be back there for a few weeks and wanted to stop in and see him. He knows I’m more of a Liahona Mormon than a TBM’er, so he didn’t feel any hesitation in “coming out” to me, but he wanted me to know before I come spend a day or two at his house.
This really got me thinking … I think the numbers are much higher than many of us would assume. I don’t think we’re anywhere near a majority, or even a critical mass, but I do think we’re not an insignificant number. Anyone have anything on this?
Significant. Lower than many of the vocal ex-Mormon groups assert but much higher than many traditional members believe.
The overall activity rate world-wide is around 25-40% – which, surprisingly, is not bad at all when compared with most other major religions and Christian denominations, especially given the commitment level required to be active. That rate isn’t significantly lower than most times in our history, and it actually is higher than at various points.
I assume it’s much like many of the estimates of the percent of homosexuals within any society – ranging widely depending on what the estimator wants it to be.
I believe that that all members are cafeteria mormons who pick and choose what they believe. You you ask how many are disaffected. I would say they are the majority because most mormons are not active and many of them because they no longer believe. I would guess that maybe 15%-20% are TBM of the total church population but that they are the most active, hold the majority of the power, and have the most to loose if they church is less than they believe it is. I would venture to say that 10%-15% of those that attend and even hold callings and pay tithing do so for the family/social aspect and don’t believe that the church is one and only true church. That leaves about 60%-70% of those that attend that couldn’t care less about the history, gay issues, etc and are just so busy with life, or watching TV or are retired and don’t want to face change that they will just coast along. As far as us here at StayLDS I would say we are a combination of all three. You know, the middle of the road types that sees the good and the bad, that want to believe but sometimes the truth stands in the way of believing. That’s how I see it. Kumahito wrote:So I’ve seen a number of posts discuss this issue tangentially, but I’ve not seen one dedicated to it. My question is this:
what is the true scope of LDS disaffection? In other words, what are the numbers, percentages, etc. of active members who have either left the Church or are having major faith challenges?I don’t know that we’ll have anything other than anecdotal accounts rather than real numbers… I think the numbers are much higher than many of us would assume. I don’t think we’re anywhere near a majority, or even a critical mass, but I do think we’re not an insignificant number.Anyone have anything on this? I think there are at least several hundred thousand and there could easily be well over a million or two by now. It is hard to even try to guess very accurately because many disaffected members that are still active will not necessary want other members to know about it and will typically try to blend in with all the TBMs without drawing attention to their disagreements with the Church and it would also be hard to tell the difference between members that are inactive mostly because of general apathy and/or not liking the active LDS lifestyle (WoW, tithing, tedious meetings, etc.) rather than primarily because they read things online that affected their testimony.
It seems like there have been significantly more inactives than active members for a long time already but what is different about the increasing number of NOMs and ex-Mormons in the last 15-20 years is that many of them were married in the temple and the type of members that probably would have remained obedient TBMs before the internet made it easier to research some of the un-sanitized history and potential problems with the Church’s story. Personally I wouldn’t overestimate the impact of the internet because there are definitely many TBMs that are mostly oblivious to all this and/or that don’t care that much about some of the issues they are aware of. However, I still think the impact of the internet combined with active members waiting longer to get married and having fewer children on average than in the past will gradually erode the Church’s support base to the point that it will have already declined significantly within 50-100 years if the Church doesn’t find ways to retain a higher percentage of the new members they count each year.
It really is not about how many who are disaffected but who has the power. Right now control of the church rests with less than 1%. They are the ones who make all the decisions. So unless there is some kind of threat to their position they are not going to change. I also agree that the vast majority of members are disaffected to some degree. Very few live up to everything the church espouses even if they think it is true They just are not vocal about it. In the church it is only the die hard true believers that get to say what they want unchallenged. So we have this system in place where a moderate has a very hard time getting into a position of power because those in control pick others like themselves. The old Soviet communist system has nothing on the church.
Critical mass will be achieved when there are to few tithe payers to support the hierarchy. Even then that may be a long time because the church is diversified and has investments to cover any shortfalls.
So if you ask me I think maybe 10% or less are in the true believer no matter what category.
Quote:In the church it is only the die hard true believers that get to say what they want unchallenged. So we have this system in place where a moderate has a very hard time getting into a position of power because those in control pick others like themselves. The old Soviet communist system has nothing on the church.
Cadence, I respect you, sincerely, but this is a perfect example of the opposite side of the black-and-white view you lambast regularly – and it simply doesn’t represent reality when viewed in terms of the current First Presidency, more of the current apostles and General Authorities, Mitch Mayne and many leaders in the San Francisco area, the current Stake Presidency in an area where I used to live, many local leaders, me, etc. The first and last sentences above are especially hardline and extremist, and the last one is hyperbolic to the extreme. I express lots of things that are outside the norms or current orthodoxy, and I am challenged rarely. Some of that is because I’ve done my homework and can back up what I say with scriptures and statements of accepted leaders, but a lot of it is because of delivery.
I know for a fact that there are members in every ward I’ve attended in my life who nod in agreement when I say non-traditional things who aren’t comfortable saying what I say – and who sit quietly and wait for me to say it so they don’t have to say it. I get the difficulty many people have expressing minority views – in any organization. I know there is a real issue in creating an environment where these people feel comfortable speaking up more often – but, when it gets right down to it, many of these people don’t comment in classes much anyway, even when they agree with the common view. They just aren’t natural commenters.
Again, I understand the issue, and I understand that there are areas and topics where different views are harder or nearly impossible to express without pushback (as evidenced by cwald’s situation and church0333’s latest experience with his talk), but there are just as many places and topics, if not more, where they can be expressed without challenge – especially if done in a non-threatening, reasonable way. To paint the entire Church with the same brush in this regard is every bit as extremist as the hardliners you criticize – and it is every bit as cynical and dismissive.
Cadence wrote:I also agree that the vast majority of members are disaffected to some degree. Very few live up to everything the church espouses even if they think it is true They just are not vocal about it. In the church it is only the die hard true believers that get to say what they want unchallenged.
I appreciate what you’ve said about this, Ray, and I agree to some extent. I also believe, though, that Cadence is right with this bit he wrote.
In the Church, you never have to worry about being challenged, outed, ex’d, dropped from a calling, called into the bishop’s office or made an official project in Ward Council if you espouse the hard party line. In the Church, you are completely safe to say: “The Book of Mormon is a literal translation from gold plates. The earth is only 6000 years old. God really did flood the earth. Noah really did gather two of every animal onto an ark and save his family while the rest of humanity perished. There was no death on earth before Adam and Eve. Homosexual conduct is an abomination. Little girls shouldn’t wear shoulder-bearing sun dresses.” Etc., etc., etc. However, you run a decent change of getting some very negative repurcussions if you get up in Church and say “The Book of Mormon is probably more of a revelation than a translation, seeing how JS poked his head in a hat with a rock when he transcribed it. The earth is probably 6 billion years old, and the life on it is likely the result of an evolutionary process. I believe the flood and Noah stories are good allegories, but probably not real. Same with Adam and Eve. I’m not quite sure what I think about gay marriage and the role open homosexuals should have in the Church. And little girls should be able to wear a sundress if they want – modesty shouldn’t be much of a concern for a six year old.”
As you noted, we need look no further than cwald and his saga to find out how heterodxy in the Church is sometimes handled. I agree with you, Ray, that there are many wonderful, open leaders, including members of the First Presidency, the Q12, stake leaders, bishops, etc. But for every one like me, who has faced zero backlash for being a little “out there,” there is a cwald who has been pestered and hectored out of the Church. Having known folks like cwald, I don’t begrudge them their negative vies and attitudes towards the Church. I think they’ve gained that cynicism by hard experience, unfortunately.
Quote:Having known folks like cwald, I don’t begrudge them their negative vies and attitudes towards the Church. I think they’ve gained that cynicism by hard experience, unfortunately.
I agree, completely – and I hope nothing I write appears to say I disagree – but we simply can’t paint completely in black while decrying those who paint completely in white.
I like what a statistician once said. Quote:“The probability of [insert unpleasant thing X here] is very small, but it’s still pretty crappy when it happens to YOU”.
That’s how I feel about disaffection
I would have to agree with Ray that the loss of members is significant. This is my belief based on how the LDS Church counts and considers members. If there is not significant loss of members in the Church, why does the church count dead people in their 100’s, people have not been active in years and people who were baptized and never went back? These are the same tactics The Church of Scientology uses to make its organization look main stream. In addition, U.S census reports and census reports from other western countries also list much lower numbers of LDS church membership.
I could care less how many other LDS members are out there, I just don’t like the church misleading individuals.
Kumahito wrote:In the Church, you are completely safe to say: “The Book of Mormon is a literal translation from gold plates. The earth is only 6000 years old. God really did flood the earth. Noah really did gather two of every animal onto an ark and save his family while the rest of humanity perished. There was no death on earth before Adam and Eve. …
I just have to say in my ward if you said “The earth is only 6000 years old.” or “God really did flood the [
entire] earth.” You would get some push-back. There are a few that see things that way, but in our adult classes they are not the vocal majority. (and yes we can have some “lively” discussions at times!) AngryMormon, I did some research on this for a discussion in a different forum a few years ago. Every church counts its membership along the same general lines as the LDS Church does – conservatively in a way that won’t cut out anyone who hasn’t asked to be cut out and erring on the side of the organization in cases where no clear evidence was available. In fact, many churches are even more liberal in their counting than the LDS Church, since we at least require people to listen to a series of discussions, make specific promises and participate in an official entrance ceremony. ( with the exception of the infamous baseball baptism years of a few decades ago) Some evangelical churches publish counts based on people who have “committed their lives to Jesus” at some official meeting/event, even if those people never attended meetings regularly after the event. Thus, some denominations have claimed hundreds of thousands of converts through large revivals in places like Africa, even though there is almost no formal instruction given, the people do not see themselves as having joined the denomination and many of them don’t even see themselves as Christian. Also, the LDS Church doesn’t count dead people if they are known to be dead, but it also doesn’t count them as dead at an earlier age than is necessary. While I have no illusions whatsoever that the official count is perfectly accurate, and while I would like to have activity rates / numbers mentioned along with total membership, I couldn’t care less about the specifics of how the Church does the official counting – as long as they aren’t counting people they know are dead or have asked to have that their names be removed. I know hundreds of people just on my own who have been inactive for years (and, in some cases, decades) who have returned to activity. They were baptized; the Church didn’t know if they were dead or alive in some cases; they were members, as far as could be determined. It was that simple for them, and there was no deceit in having them counted as members all those years.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:In the church it is only the die hard true believers that get to say what they want unchallenged. So we have this system in place where a moderate has a very hard time getting into a position of power because those in control pick others like themselves. The old Soviet communist system has nothing on the church.
Cadence, I respect you, sincerely, but this is a perfect example of the opposite side of the black-and-white view you lambast regularly – and it simply doesn’t represent reality when viewed in terms of the current First Presidency, more of the current apostles and General Authorities, Mitch Mayne and many leaders in the San Francisco area, the current Stake Presidency in an area where I used to live, many local leaders, me, etc. The first and last sentences above are especially hardline and extremist, and the last one is hyperbolic to the extreme. I express lots of things that are outside the norms or current orthodoxy, and I am challenged rarely. Some of that is because I’ve done my homework and can back up what I say with scriptures and statements of accepted leaders, but a lot of it is because of delivery.
I know for a fact that there are members in every ward I’ve attended in my life who nod in agreement when I say non-traditional things who aren’t comfortable saying what I say – and who sit quietly and wait for me to say it so they don’t have to say it. I get the difficulty many people have expressing minority views – in any organization. I know there is a real issue in creating an environment where these people feel comfortable speaking up more often – but, when it gets right down to it, many of these people don’t comment in classes much anyway, even when they agree with the common view. They just aren’t natural commenters.
Again, I understand the issue, and I understand that there are areas and topics where different views are harder or nearly impossible to express without pushback (as evidenced by cwald’s situation and church0333’s latest experience with his talk), but there are just as many places and topics, if not more, where they can be expressed without challenge – especially if done in a non-threatening, reasonable way. To paint the entire Church with the same brush in this regard is every bit as extremist as the hardliners you criticize – and it is every bit as cynical and dismissive.
I was referring strictly to the upper levels of leadership being the 15. They are by design dedicated to the status quo. Sure there are lots of good folks in the church that are not so vested in total agreement with everything, but they have little voice. Maybe a stake president could say something, but I think by the time you get to that level you are one of the boys and generally go along. So if you can point out to me how you really have a voice in the church to effect change I am all ears. You can make comment in Sunday School and on these boards but it is more venting than making a difference. The good thing is it is just the Mormon church. It really does not matter much in the big scheme of things unless you are vested in it.
My individual input has made a difference at the ward and stake leadership level many times in my life – and I have no illusions that I am unique in that regard. Pres. Uchtdorf is a great example of how not everyone at the very top thinks alike – and the entire current First Presidency is another example of quite radical change from the FPs during my lifetime. There is much that is happening now that I couldn’t have imagined happening when I was a young adult.
Ray, I have to strongly but respectfully disagree with your statement regarding this is how all Church’s count members. When I was a member of the Episcapol Church, there were not 1000’s of people added to the church memberships via “soccer baptisms” in which many didn’t even know what was going on. Also, it’s very easy to get your name off the Episcapol membership list as compared to the LDS Church. I just had to send an email and it was done. There was no demand that I meet with a Bishop or Stake President to leave the church I no longer believe in.
In addition, the Episcapol and Catholic Church actually admits to loosing members. Unlike the LDS church, whose numbers never go down!
I don’t get this! If there are 14 million Mormons, where are all of them?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.