Church leaders’ view of why members leave versus reality.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I agree, and I think the last line doesn’t just apply to Millennials, it applies to other generations as well. We who live outside the Corridor are very cognizant of our neighbors being just as happy and at least as “blessed” as any member we know. Despite the assertion that some of the Q15 make that they don’t live in a bubble, they do live in a bubble. Maybe next time one visits our stake they should let me choose the members they go visit.

Not just “blessed” but “abundantly blessed”.

Quote:

They leave (as a group) not so much because they want TSM to receive revelations as in times of old – nor because they want women to have the priesthood. They leave because they live in a secular world where things like porn, pre-marital sex, “lack of righteousness and commitment” are just the new cultural norms that they navigate in their daily lives, I believe that many of them are just not finding the church very relevant.

My endowed daughter has endowed friends who find hiking in a tank top just fine. No fear of posting it on Facebook either. My inactive daughter finds more inspiration from women in her career field than the church ladies who only remind her that shoulders and covered knee’s are God’s most important priority. When they both look around they don’t see a church life that outshines the world. So follow your heart where ever it takes you.

[Anonymous]

Mom3, some thoughts on your mega post on the other page.

You paint a grim picture, at least IMO, but it’s not off base. It sounds like you’re saying that leaders would rather people change to conform to the type of people that the church is set up to minister to as opposed to putting in the effort it would require to minister to all types of people.

mom3 wrote:

In my life time I have known lots of people who leave (the previous posts above support what I’ve seen), but one area we really don’t acknowledge is The Church Just Doesn’t Fit Everyone. Get Over It.

I’m with you. The church doesn’t fit everyone… but the belief I see among most orthodox members I know is that the church does fit everyone; the church is the way, the truth, and the life, no one makes it back to the father except through church. If someone isn’t a good fit we typically chalk it up to them not having a testimony of the truth yet (they don’t realize the importance) or we chalk it up to sin that is preventing someone from being a good fit.

There is a middle way.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

You paint a grim picture,

Please note I used the words Top Leadership. Not Q15. That was deliberate. I believe there is diversity among the individuals. Even among clumps of individuals. But that need to be seen as one throws water on diversity.

I also include the PRethren in the Top Leadership. It’s not the just the visible front guys.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have any idea what the “ites” thing at the end of the language and cultural problems is about?

I think I get language and cultural problems. The church has struggled and is struggling with being a worldwide church (or more correctly a non-Utah-centric church). Utah does have its own culture and much of that is related to its pioneer heritage and close relationship with church leadership (including influence on the Utah legislature). After the mass immigration of the mostly English and other Europeans in the mid and late 1800s, little happened there for some time. More recently, Utah has become home to many Latinos, Pacific Islanders, and others, each of who have brought their own cultural backgrounds not related to Utah’s culture. Likewise, other places the church has established itself have their own cultural traditions as well. Short example: A few years ago we had a member of our ward temporarily assigned by his company to live in England. While there he became bishop. One of his biggest issues? Trying to get members not to celebrate St. George’s Day. (Frankly I don’t know why it mattered, but apparently it did). I think the church has made some headway in being cognizant of and incorporating traditions outside Utah – but very small headway, and as Mom points out they seem much more likely to expect conformation to “church culture” as opposed to allowing the influence of other culture. I think that’s an issue inside Utah with immigrants, and a bigger issue outside Utah. OK, I get that (if that’s what they’re referring to).

But what the heck is the “ites” thing? I’m pretty sure it’s not referring to the old “Brighamites” “Whitmerites” “Bickertonites” etc., nor do I think it refers to followers of Snuffer or the FDLS. But what does it refer to?

(If there are modern ites in the same sense as the classic ones I am an Uchtdorfite.)

[Anonymous]

We toss around a lot of terms like “relevant” and “Christ-centered” and “inclusive” as if, if the Church were more those things, more people would stay. If I may be allowed to be the person who points out the elephant in the room, I’d like to add “true” to the list. If the Church were as obviously true as I grew up thinking it must be, I think hardly anybody would leave.

Or were we taking that as an axiom? Or not talking about it because it’s not something the Church can change? Both?

[Anonymous]

Nibbler said:

“Every ward is different, from what I gather RS has a discussion… and in PH we read straight from the manual until we run out the clock. On that front I support having the sexes separated, at least the women are getting something out of the 3rd hour.”

Just wanted to input that in my ward, it’s the opposite. My husband teaches PH 2nd and 3rd sundays and he’s an excellent teacher. He always has big discussions with the class on how to apply the lesson to ‘real life’. Of course, he doesn’t say that though He loves to ask questions that really get people thinking in an interesting way and sometimes borders what could be considered appropriate questions by TBM members. He’s had one of the TBM members get upset about him pointing out how bad Jonah was at missionary work as a prophet.

I always get jealous hearing him prepare his lessons and then sitting in my RS lesson with a teacher who only asks the class basic boring questions with primary answers, and nothing new to teach us. I always wish I could sit in his class and hear the comments people make. His class sounds so much more interesting than RS.

[Anonymous]

Reuben wrote:

We toss around a lot of terms like “relevant” and “Christ-centered” and “inclusive” as if, if the Church were more those things, more people would stay. If I may be allowed to be the person who points out the elephant in the room, I’d like to add “true” to the list. If the Church were as obviously true as I grew up thinking it must be, I think hardly anybody would leave.

We might as well ask what the True meaning of life is. The church is a story or narrative about our purpose. The story is punctuated by many miraculous events that if true would be hard to explain away. Unfortunately the miraculous events are either exaggerated or unverifiable (in addition to the normal difficulty of telling history without bias) at almost every turn.

The moral of the story could still be true … just that there are significant “leaps of faith” in order to get there.

[Anonymous]

Reuben wrote:

We toss around a lot of terms like “relevant” and “Christ-centered” and “inclusive” as if, if the Church were more those things, more people would stay. If I may be allowed to be the person who points out the elephant in the room, I’d like to add “true” to the list. If the Church were as obviously true as I grew up thinking it must be, I think hardly anybody would leave.

Or were we taking that as an axiom? Or not talking about it because it’s not something the Church can change? Both?

I’m sure that plays a large role for many. Random thoughts that run through my head:

1) Where would a quest for a “true” church lead someone? Maybe this is why some people that have experienced a faith crisis end up abandoning organized religion altogether.

2) I know plenty of people that would have stayed at church despite it not being “true” but have left because it’s not a good fit for them. I also know people that believe that the church isn’t “true” but stay because the culture is a good fit for them. Once the true church bubble pops it’s more about the actual experience.

3) Believing the church is “true” makes a lot of the things people find annoying about the church easier pills to swallow. If you believe your salvation is on the line you may be more willing to accept or do things you otherwise wouldn’t do. One approach is to continue on with the church cafeteria style but there’s a strong tendency for the experience to be all or nothing and that pressure comes from both internal and external sources.

It’s a very high demand religion. I can see many questioning why they should sacrifice so much if they no longer feel the church is true, especially if they feel their give:take ratio is out of balance.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

My endowed daughter has endowed friends who find hiking in a tank top just fine. No fear of posting it on Facebook either.

I do the same. It’s AZ and it’s over 100 degrees every day between May & September. Even our SPcy wife up the street does this (not just heathens like me). But that’s because I don’t live in Mesa / Gilbert / Chandler where they are trying to out-Provo Provo.

I’ve been giving some thought to the different reasons people go to church, and I think the reasons vary greatly:

1 – Belief that it’s necessary to be saved (e.g. one true way, ordinances, access to revelation, prophets). These guys will stay in because otherwise they believe they will be damned. They will also (in many cases) trash the people who leave. And unfortunately, most of the people behind these charts and discussions are probably at church for this reason. The other reasons I can think of are below.

2 – Those who want to be a part of a community of believers / social & spiritual reasons. These are the people who want church to be a way to do service opportunities, to have a community of support of “good people” for themselves, their kids, and their families. They see their spirituality as mostly individual, up to them, working out one’s own salvation with fear & trembling, but the ward is a positive social atmosphere for reflection, service, and friendships. This is probably the closest to where I am, and it’s the only way I can positively engage. It’s still tough at times due to #3 and some of the attitudes of people in #1, though.

3 – Those who see the church as a moral supplement / way to better themselves. Unfortunately, at least for me, this has been kind of the opposite for a while, particularly since Nov 5 2015. On the whole, I feel like the church is asking me to be less moral than my own instincts (e.g. homophobia, sexist, blaming the poor, etc.). Me having a values split with the conservative (in some cases) Trump-supporting church members makes this completely untenable for me. If this was my reason for being at church, I’d be gone already.

Beyond that, to me, the most important thing is the kind of person I am and the reasons I do the things I do. I should be constantly striving to avoid the types of things that Jesus warned against: hypocrisy, judgmental behaviors, being a Pharisee. But too often those are the things that are actually rewarded at church, not taught against. And yet, I don’t feel like I’m getting sucked into that. For me, I wouldn’t want to stay or leave for reasons that are an indictment of my character because my character is more important than the church. If I “stay” out of fear or pride or whatever, that’s just as bad as if I leave for those reasons.

[Anonymous]

Reuben wrote:

We toss around a lot of terms like “relevant” and “Christ-centered” and “inclusive” as if, if the Church were more those things, more people would stay. If I may be allowed to be the person who points out the elephant in the room, I’d like to add “true” to the list. If the Church were as obviously true as I grew up thinking it must be, I think hardly anybody would leave…Or were we taking that as an axiom? Or not talking about it because it’s not something the Church can change? Both?

I see this as something they can’t really do much to change other than maybe stop making quite so many truth claims that don’t hold up to scrutiny very well and stop depending so much on so many different doctrines needing to be true at the same time. Why is it that typical practicing Catholics can know about some of their church’s less than flattering history, not believe in official doctrines like transubstantiation, etc. without automatically feeling like they need to leave their church permanently over this the way we see so often in the LDS Church? To me it looks like it is the Church itself that has set the expectation that truth is supposed to trump practically every other consideration and now that approach is starting to backfire in a big way.

In reality even belief in God and life-after-death is mostly a matter of speculation and most people have no reliable way of knowing for sure if they exist in the first place. So relying on any assumptions about these when making important decisions involves a leap of faith and people should be aware of that and comfortable with it if that’s what they want to do. And for the LDS Church it is not just uncertainty for members to have to live with once they face the facts but many inconsistencies in the history, scriptures, etc. that make it increasingly difficult for many of them to believe in the Church’s claims about revelation, prophets, etc. once they know about some of these details. That’s why I think Church leaders’ primary goal should not be about numbers or anything like that but simply to try to make Church membership more of a positive experience for more people than it currently is so that even if many members will inevitably lose faith at least they would have less to legitimately complain about in that case.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

2) I know plenty of people that would have stayed at church despite it not being “true” but have left because it’s not a good fit for them. I also know people that believe that the church isn’t “true” but stay because the culture is a good fit for them. Once the true church bubble pops it’s more about the actual experience.

That’s a good way to put it. I think this is why we’re talking about the actual experience so much. We take “the Church isn’t true in the sense the Church teaches” as axiomatic here. Our “true church bubble” has popped.

nibbler wrote:

3) Believing the church is “true” makes a lot of the things people find annoying about the church easier pills to swallow. If you believe your salvation is on the line you may be more willing to accept or do things you otherwise wouldn’t do.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

1 – Belief that it’s necessary to be saved (e.g. one true way, ordinances, access to revelation, prophets). These guys will stay in because otherwise they believe they will be damned. They will also (in many cases) trash the people who leave. And unfortunately, most of the people behind these charts and discussions are probably at church for this reason.

Let me finish this thought. Those behind the charts and discussions believe that the Church can’t weaken its truth claims or demand less obedience. Therefore, the solution lies with changing the members: more belief, more commitment, more work to reach out to those who are “struggling,” and maybe a little sugar for those bitter pills. Get more of them to church, build their testimonies, and put them to work building the kingdom. Pull the elect in from the left and right lest they be deceived. Sharpen the boundaries and preach the evil of the outside.

I think those who are “struggling” fall (roughly) into two camps, who will react to this in different ways.

1. Those who still believe it’s necessary to be saved. Some will react well to the reaching out and come back. Most will be unaffected. Some will be pushed further away to avoid increased guilt and shame from not meeting the higher demands.

2. Those who don’t believe it’s necessary to be saved. I really can’t see “more Mormonism as she is taught” helping these people return, ever.

Some of those who aren’t “struggling” will begin to struggle as the demands on both belief and behavior increase.

One of our area goals is to double sacrament meeting attendance by 2020. I have no idea what they’re smoking. We won’t meet that goal by driving the stakes further into the ground.

Hence this discussion, I guess.

[Anonymous]

I think one of the other reasons people leave may be that they simply think they do not get much in return for their investment – whether finances, time or labor.

Also there are certain saturation points in a Mormon’s life, the sort of “now what?” moments:

* You’ve prayed and have or have not obtained a testimony.

* You ticked all the boxes, but now they want you on a mission.

* You’ve done your mission.

* You’re endowed and all the temple work is done for close relatives.

* You’re married.

* Your children have moved on/gone the other way.

* You’ve attained a prominent calling.

* You’ve married in the temple and it didn’t work out.

* Your friends and relatives in the church have died or moved on.

* You’ve done everything you’ve been asked and it’s still not working for you.

* You’ve dated and not found the one.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Quote:

My endowed daughter has endowed friends who find hiking in a tank top just fine. No fear of posting it on Facebook either.

I do the same. It’s AZ and it’s over 100 degrees every day between May & September. Even our SPcy wife up the street does this (not just heathens like me). But that’s because I don’t live in Mesa / Gilbert / Chandler where they are trying to out-Provo Provo.

I’ve been giving some thought to the different reasons people go to church, and I think the reasons vary greatly:

1 – Belief that it’s necessary to be saved (e.g. one true way, ordinances, access to revelation, prophets). These guys will stay in because otherwise they believe they will be damned. They will also (in many cases) trash the people who leave. And unfortunately, most of the people behind these charts and discussions are probably at church for this reason. The other reasons I can think of are below.

2 – Those who want to be a part of a community of believers / social & spiritual reasons. These are the people who want church to be a way to do service opportunities, to have a community of support of “good people” for themselves, their kids, and their families. They see their spirituality as mostly individual, up to them, working out one’s own salvation with fear & trembling, but the ward is a positive social atmosphere for reflection, service, and friendships. This is probably the closest to where I am, and it’s the only way I can positively engage. It’s still tough at times due to #3 and some of the attitudes of people in #1, though.

3 – Those who see the church as a moral supplement / way to better themselves. Unfortunately, at least for me, this has been kind of the opposite for a while, particularly since Nov 5 2015. On the whole, I feel like the church is asking me to be less moral than my own instincts (e.g. homophobia, sexist, blaming the poor, etc.). Me having a values split with the conservative (in some cases) Trump-supporting church members makes this completely untenable for me. If this was my reason for being at church, I’d be gone already.

Beyond that, to me, the most important thing is the kind of person I am and the reasons I do the things I do. I should be constantly striving to avoid the types of things that Jesus warned against: hypocrisy, judgmental behaviors, being a Pharisee. But too often those are the things that are actually rewarded at church, not taught against. And yet, I don’t feel like I’m getting sucked into that. For me, I wouldn’t want to stay or leave for reasons that are an indictment of my character because my character is more important than the church. If I “stay” out of fear or pride or whatever, that’s just as bad as if I leave for those reasons.

I think #2 is where I’m at, mostly for the spiritual aspect. And I relate well to the closing paragraph as well. I’m pretty sure the local leadership doesn’t feel the same, though, and I’m also not sure the higher leadership sees it either.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

My thing was teachings that in my experience turned out not to be “true.” I’m not sure which bubble that fits in.

I have been thinking about this a lot, actually. We are taught quite a few if/then statements as principles, and when the if/then statement fails, we’re given a shrug and told to “work harder”, “pray harder” and figure it out and shamed for our confusion. I feel this is especially true when the if/then statement breaks down because of our choices.

Heber13 wrote:

I’m there with you DJ. Personal revelation and personal experience lead to loss of faith in the church or the messages from authority figures…but not losing faith in God or the gospel.

I still don’t see them drawing that distinction…and perhaps…that is the major reason I still see a disconnect. This is just my gut feeling…I could be limited in my view…but I feel they still see church and gospel as equivalent and inseparable. So…the person that leaves church activity must therefore have lost faith in all things good in the gospel…

Exactly. My father tried to teach me that there was a difference between the church and the gospel, but I did not fully understand it then (not sure I fully understand it now actually), and I have no idea how to transfer my understanding to my spouse and children safely. I suspect that those who see the church and gospel disconnect either end up here and/or are no longer actively involved in the church, for the most part.

Heber13 wrote:

The focus is on the extreme behaviors and equating those with the idea that if you stay in church and keep the Sabbath holy, you don’t have those behaviors. I think they are conflating things because their point of view is not seeing a distinction between the institution and the principles taught.

I think they want to identify and implement a standardized formula for retraining members. Between cultural traditions/mindset, changing challenges, and people being people, “it’s not that simple”. 😯

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

It sounds like you’re saying that leaders would rather people change to conform to the type of people that the church is set up to minister to as opposed to putting in the effort it would require to minister to all types of people.

This. I am not that great at conforming – I am great at halfway pretending to conform periodically or conforming not to conform, but because there is good reason to conform – just not usually everyone else’s reason.

Example: I don’t drink alcohol. The first reason I don’t do so is because 3 out of my 4 grandparents were alcoholics and I don’t want to deal with the consequences that would ensue if I drank alcohol. The fact that it is a currently considered a commandment is incidental to me. It’s an inconsequential checkbox I get to check off on the list of what “good” Mormons do.

I don’t fit in socially very well at church. I can talk to people and be friendly, but I am not a comfortable conformable latter day saint. My best friends at church are 10-35 years older than I am. I have friends because we are in a branch, so people are more like family. I love it at the branch, but I don’t love it the way I love my board “branch” here.

Example:

My husband is always at home with the kids (between being a SAHD and us having 1 car, he doesn’t go places). He is fine with being at home and doesn’t really want to see people anyways. But I get weird looks from people when I ask if I can bring my baby to a branch baby shower (the planners can say no), or bring both girls to a branch R.S. activity (making cinnamon rolls for Father’s Day), or the Women’s broadcast. The idea that I would cart them with me to R.S. Sisterhood activities to see them, or serve my husband by giving him some time off from being the on-call parent doesn’t seem to make sense to other sisters. Or maybe, it’s in combination with the fact that I ask the planners or the R.S. President ahead of time as a sign of respect. It would be nice if I wasn’t given weird looks for finding an alternative that works for all of us, or being a deviant and entertaining kid/mom time is as equally important as R.S. time. I get that it is nice to be away from kids if you are a mom, but what if it is nicer to be with your kids if you are the mom and you don’t want to drop activities?

A judgement-happy sister took something I said in a passing conversation out of context 2 years ago as a reason to dislike me, and didn’t feel like working it out with me until she was “forced” to be my VT a few months ago and we wound talking about me as her “project” for self-improvement (general gist). I am not mad or offended that she made a judgement not to like me – that is her call. I have 2 regrets about the situation. I just wish she had TALKED to me about it, or gotten to know me a little to realize she could TALK to me about it instead of just not liking me and not saying anything. I wish that I had been able to pick up on her extreme dislike of me enough to make efforts to fix it. I don’t pick up on non-verbal cues as well as the average female, so I had NO CLUE she did not like me. Needless to say I don’t consider her my VT, and will not rely on her in the future as a VT. In fact, I did speak up and request a different VT – but only because my mom pointed out that my R.S. President might want to know just in case she did the same to other sisters she visited. And yes, my husband thought it was weird that I recommended to my R.S. president a sister whom I had a relationship with and whom was already functioning as my VT – and requested that she be assigned to it because I was going to consider her my VT – so they might as well get credit for what was going to happen anyways. Now, I know protocol is that you don’t normally request callings or VT because they want to break up cliches. But what if cliche-building is not an issue? When do the needs of the person/people outweigh administrative policies?

nibbler wrote:

I’m with you. The church doesn’t fit everyone… but the belief I see among most orthodox members I know is that the church does fit everyone; the church is the way, the truth, and the life, no one makes it back to the father except through church. If someone isn’t a good fit we typically chalk it up to them not having a testimony of the truth yet (they don’t realize the importance) or we chalk it up to sin that is preventing someone from being a good fit.

There is a middle way.

I used to think that there was only 1 way, but now I don’t. It used to be a matter of faith that somehow my quirkiness and not really fitting into standard categories would resolve itself into the 1 way or at least I would get enough brownie points for it to do so. Now, I don’t know if it matters that I feel that I don’t fit well in the church program even though on paper I fulfill all the TBM check boxes. I can readily accept that in order for the church way to fit me, changes have to be made on both sides. The skirmishes I have had in this area (ie, providing input on the best callings for me to my branch president) already cause my husband to nearly swoon from shock. The rationalizations I make for what I do what I do make sense to him, but the audacity I have in bringing up concerns requiring changes from the church drives him nuts.

I don’t even feel worthy enough to make the qualification as to which way is the best way – only each individual can on their behalf, or in some cases, on behalf of their children.

A few years ago a sister in our branch included in her testimony (I am paraphrasing now) how wonderful it was to see a “tender mercy of the Lord” that her nephew and family had found a Christian church to belong to since they moved to their new house. [Yes, we are outside the Mormon Corridor]. This surprised me because she was specifically citing a non-Mormon church and I normally don’t hear that. Now I understand what she was talking about.

[Author]

Posts