I was wondering just how large is the so-called “disaffection” from the Church. 
We know that a majority of the Church, upwards of 75% may be less active or partially active. That might indicate a fairly large level of disaffection. But, perhaps not. Members are not active for a whole of reasons, none of which may indicate a disagreement with some aspect of the Church or gospel.
Less actives generally fall into the following categories:
1. Formerly active members who decided they are no longer interested in active participation. They may have a testimony but are doing other things in their life rather than participate.
2. Formerly active members who may have had an “incident” with another member or leader and just decided not to come to Church anymore. Again, no real doctrinal issues except a personal clash.
3. Members who were baptized as children but who were part of less active families and never participated in Church. Essentially members in name only. No particular issue against the Church, but never a part of it. I think this makes up a very large portion.
4. Converts, who never really integrated themselves into Church. They either never had any friends or discovered something objectionable after baptism that turned them off to the Church. Or just drifted back to another lifestyle.
5. Formerly active members, who found something in their Church experience, Church history, or leadership that caused them to leave the Church and in some cases, actively campaign against it.
This last group, the disaffected, probably make up the smallest group of members not active in the Church. In some cases, the disaffected are actually active at some level, but not fully committed to all that the Church teaches. This group also appears to have a large presence on the Bloggernacle. At least they want to make you think that.
But just how big is this group? I have not done a statistical analysis, but just made a few observations looking at the various blogs.
For the most visited blogs, a post can generate several hundred comments. However, the average is around 25. As I surveyed those comments, I found that the unique visitors numbered anywhere from 19 to 50. And, as to be expected, many of those unique visitors also frequented the other blogs as well. Even in the Bloggernacle, it’s STP (Same Ten People) just like in the Ward. These frequent bloggers write about each other’s blogs, comment on them and in some cases, a blog might be more like a clique than a blog.
What does this mean? It means that the size of the Bloggernacle is much smaller than one might think. I think that the totally population of active blog participants number in the several hundred, possibly as high as 500 if you throw in the more sporadic participants.
I also estimate that for every TBM that is on the Bloggernacle, there are about 6 to 10 disaffected members. Their level of disaffection varies from out and out warfare to small complaints. In fact, we don’t really know if they are really that disaffected or just acting as such because the anonymity afforded to them by a handle or nickname.
So I guess I conclude that while any disaffected or less active members is not a good thing for them or the Church, the number of those in quiet or open rebellion is probably much smaller than you might think. And what you read on the Bloggernacle might not be a good measure of why people are not active in the Church. The Bloggernacle numbers and its effect on members are probably greatly overestimated.
Wheat & Tares 
well, your post is just conjecture and anectdotal evidence. but you could look at some numbers: the new order mormon forum has 2000-3000 registered users at any time, and triple that in guests. So that’s 10,000 NOM or NOM curious folks right there.
Add in all the other groups, RFM, FLAK, Postmormon, Exmormon, STAYLDS, Mormon Stories, support groups for gay mormons, Pure Mormonism, and probably a million things I don’t even know about.
I think your estimates are low.
Your categories 1-4 will always exist. I think the bloggernacle feels that category 5 is getting larger. Do you have any thoughts on that?
“well, your post is just conjecture and anecdotal evidence.”
Of course, it is. I stated that. But registrations don’t count for much in my mind because in many cases, someone registers, might make a post and never returns. I do that for a number of sites.
But in most cases, many of those sites are cross-pollinated by the same people.
I am certainly open to the fact my numbers might be wrong, but they are nowhere near the numbers the “campaigning disaffected” claim.
“Do you have any thoughts on that?”
I think that people that feel that way are becoming more open about it on the Bloggernacle. I am not certain how well that represents the Church population as a whole.
I do think there is some issues with the younger aged folks in the 16-30 age category. I think it can be directly attributed to two things:
1. The church’s reduction of activities, primarily social, which puts the younger folks in a position of finding things to do outside of Church and possibly with people not of our faith.
2. The exposure to the outside influences, namely the Internet, which is just taking time away from more meaningful activities at home and away.
Jeff,
I thought it was a great analysis and accurately reflects the numbers.
Hm,
10,000 whiners out of 14 million members is low – really low. I don’t get your point.
A large number of the disaffected among my acquaintance are not on the Bloggernacle because they no longer have that any interest in either Mormon culture or Mormon theology.
How are you defining “the bloggernacle” here. I’d say your sample set is skewed, if you are getting 6-10 to 1, but hey, my sample set is probably skewed as well. Just curious what you are looking at. When I did a survey last year, I had over 600 unique participants come in from NCT and Mormon Matters. 80% of which had a church calling, attended regularly and considered themselves a member.
You really can’t conclude much about the level of disaffection in the general church based on the number of English-speaking, Bloggernacle-participating disaffected members. I guess you could say with a high degree of certainty based on your evidence that there are between 500 and 14 million disaffected members of the church. But even that doesn’t take resignees into account.
Also, the group of disaffected members for historical/doctrinal reasons, are on average more educated and would have been leaders, absence their crisis of faith.
I do think most NOM’s suggest there is a DAM bursting with the internet and everything, but google insights for search suggest no increasing searches for Mormon history.
Google insight also suggests no increasing for Mormonism in general, other than maybe following Prop 8 and the BoM Musical.
In reviewing my ward list (a ward I’ve been in 10 years and with very little boundary change), there are about 2/3 who attend weekly, without fail. The other 1/3 are people who I have *never* seen at any church-related event. In the past 10 years there have been 2 families who were at one time “active” but have dropped out, quietly. My parents’ ward, a few minutes away, looks very similar, only no drop-outs; they’ve been in the same ward 15 years.
I’m sure that is not the experience of most wards, but when I notice the disaffection online, what happens in my own backyard offers some measure of balance.
Jeff:
Great post. As you mentioned, it is extremely difficult to infer larger trends from inherently biased statistical subgroups. I do have a few comments:
1) I absolutely agree that the number of comments mean little, as it is often the same few people making many of the comments. We particularly see this on this site when a post remotely related to politics is brought up, and 3-4 people go back and forth with dozens of comments.
2) However, the number of comments does NOT necessarily correlate with how many people have interest in a topic, however. If you look at views, the numbers are much larger. As an example, look at my last 4 posts on here. At the time of this comment:
General Conference Statistics: 136 comments / 2325 views
Changing Garments: 160 comments / 2162 views
Stop Counting Earrings: 79 comments / 1168 views
Separate Marriage from Sealing: 25 comments / 619 views.
And even in the Science & Religion series, for #3 in the series, there have only been 35 comments but 1551 views.
So, the number of people viewing any given post may be 10-40 times the actual number of comments. What this means… who knows?
3) All that being said, I do tend to agree with you about the cross-pollination between sites. I would also estimate the number of active participants in the Bloggernacle in the high hundreds or low thousands. Based on views vs comments, however, and knowing a number of people personally who have read various articles but have never commented or posted, I would guess the number of people who “drop by” to be in the high thousands vs tens of thousands.
Good analysis of a difficult topic.
#5 Will: 10,000 whiners out of 14 million members is low – really low. I don’t get your point.
Or to rephrase your comment: One lost sheep out of 100 is low – really low. I don’t get your point. It seems to me that perhaps Christ taught it differently – but maybe I’m wrong.
Perhaps one significant indicator would be the number of members resigning their membership each year for the past few decades. I would speculate that those that resign do not fit into categories 1 through 3 above and most likely in category 5. I have read estimates as “low” as 10,000 a year to as high as 86,000 to 100,000 a year. But like church finances who really knows for sure? Like church finances do we have clues as to this number from the limited information we are given or has leaked out?
Mike S.:
I would tend to agree with your assessment. Again, not sure of the numbers. I went to a number of the most popular blogs and counted.
So, I just used the numbers I found to extrapolate.
But I would say that views are not any better of a measure than comments. I tend to look at a lot of posts, but find they do not interest me, so I move on. And there are a lot of lurkers out there whose profile is unknown.
I even went to Post Mormon to look at their posts. Their biggest thread has almost 5000 posts in it over a 5 year period. but in looking over the first year, they had 75 unique commenters, but for every new person, there was at least 5 comments by established posters. Not very scientific, only observational.
I’m sure it drives the scientists and statisticians crazy.
Ron,
I do tend to think that those in category 5 publicize their resigning from the Church much more than any other group. And there might have been a “prop 8” blip in resignings.
My experience is that a majority of those resigning from the church have either never been active, left at a very early age or didn’t even know they were members. Also included in that are the ones who are part of other church that still thinks we are a cult and evil. They also want out.
The great majority of less actives are content to leave their membership the way it is.
Mary #10:
Now let’s guess how many active ward members will openly talk about their disaffection online — but just keep up activity for appearance’s sake.
Mike S. #12:
That prodigal son was more trouble than he was worth — the family’s better off without him!
I feel sheepish about posting since I am not in the blogger “clique”!
I think it is hard to make such hard and fast categories of where people are spiritually. For myself, I read nearly every entry (not all comments) on several LDS-related sites, but very rarely comment. I am curious, I love learning new things, I love the diversity of opinions, and it helps me to see big-tent Mormonism from the interesting perspectives of so many (many who are not members of the LDS faith– and thank you for posting!!). I consider myself just open-minded, and happy to be able to access these viewpoints. I am not sure that religious faith and position is something static, that can be categorized. It is just too complicated. We are all too complicated, and our faith rises and falls depending on so many events. All that being said, great post, as always. More food for thought. It made me wonder where I fit in, and that is a healthy exercise.
BrotherQ,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. We don’t consider ourselves too cliquish here at W&T. We tend to attract all comers and various POVs.
That being said, The irony of the disaffection is that the biggest target is the Church itself, not the gospel. so it is rarely a question of spirituality, but one of some organizational issue.
There is probably some correlation between disaffection with the Church organization and spirituality, but I don’t think I’ll go there just yet. It’s a huge presumption.
The beauty of statistics is that you can make numbers mean anything you want – and I would certainly look at this differently than Will, for example. Will uses a numerator of 10,000 and a denominator of 14 million, which is a quite small number. I agree that it makes it a “non-issue” when looked at that way.
However, regarding the numerator, I think it is a sampling of people who are disaffected or who otherwise have issues with the Church. There are obviously more than 10,000 people who have issues with something in the Church and who don’t spend much time online. There are 70% inactive, or around 9.8 million. So the number of “disaffected” is somewhere between 10,000 and 9.8 million. Pick any number you want.
As far as the denominator, I also think things are off. It seems that the majority of people on the Bloggernacle are in the US (although there are regular participants from the UK, Australia, etc). It also seems that quite a few are still fairly active LDS members. Given this, from Cumorah, there are an estimated 2.27 million ACTIVE LDS members in the United States.
And it gets even smaller. When looking at the 2.27 million active US members, the youth (under 18) generally follow their parents and aren’t really part of the “potential” Bloggernacle group. If this mirrors US demographics, this probably represents 20-30% of the above number, dropping it to around 1.5 million. Also, there are many in an older demographic who don’t tend to use the internet as much as the younger demographic. So of “potential” participants in the Bloggernacle – ie. active LDS living in the US between ages 20-50, there are probably under 1 million.
So, assuming that the 10k is a sampling of ??? 50k people, and using a denominator of under 1 million, this suggests that maybe 5% of active LDS members have an issue with something, and I think it’s even higher.
Who knows? It’s just statistics.
In any event, the fact that the Bloggernacle exists at all is evidence that there is a problem. Any deep faith of any type deserves a rigorous examination of itself. Different issues need to be discussed and resolved for individuals.
Granted, the Church shouldn’t necessarily discuss “deep” doctrines with investigators. The Church also shouldn’t necessarily dig up unsavory parts of its own history. BUT, it can’t suppress it either. The current culture in the LDS Church allows no dissent. The “Sunday School” answers are expected at Church. Formal outside discussion groups are discouraged. But people are still going to discuss these things – hence the Bloggernacle.
The few actual numbers we have also suggest that there is a bigger problem than the Bloggernacle might show. Our convert rates are decreasing. The numbers leaving are increasing. Our growth is slowing. And our young people are increasingly considered a “lost generation” by the church leadership.
To me, this is scary. I am a Mormon. My parents and grandparents and great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents were Mormon. My friends are Mormon. I view the world through a Mormon-influenced upbringing. I want the Church to succeed. I want it to be like the “stone rolling forth…”
But I think attitudes like “Meh. Only a few thousand out of 14 million” are a problem. It is putting our head in the sand and ignoring the world around us. While we can’t (and shouldn’t) change DOCTRINAL things, we SHOULD change everything else we can to make what we have as appealing to the world around us.
Justin,
“Now let’s guess how many active ward members will openly talk about their disaffection online — but just keep up activity for appearance’s sake.’
I actually think this is a large part of the overall group. They are not quite as unhappy as they might lead folks to think online.
Frankly, we all have some beef against the way the Church is run. I have quite a few myself.
Jeff: But I would say that views are not any better of a measure than comments. I tend to look at a lot of posts, but find they do not interest me, so I move on. And there are a lot of lurkers out there whose profile is unknown.
I absolutely agree. My only point was that it is hard to extrapolate from anything. However, I think you have done as good a job as any I have seen, so thanks for tackling it.
I, too, have lurked various places. I am an active, TR-holding member, but have also checked out Post-Mormon, FLAK, etc. I don’t tend to go back very often, because of how antagonistic people seem to be, but I do agree that people wander a lot.
Hi Jeff:
You are so grossly misinformed that it is sad. I appreciate your effort. But you have very likely underestimated the size of (your) group number five (#5). [Side Note: Your logic for drawing your conclusion is a bit ridiculous.] Also, you are unfairly categorizing this group. Many people who leave The LDS Church (over historical problems) just leave. They don’t “actively campaign” against The LDS Church.
That said, I had a conversation with a TBM at my work a few weeks ago about this very topic (reasons people leave The LDS Church). This friend of mine had feelings similar to yours (on this subject). I told him he was wrong. He had a hard time believing it. So we polled in a bunch of LA/IA folks in our office and asked “Did you leave The Church because you didn’t like the lifestyle? Or did you leave because of the intellectual/historical problems?” EVERY SINGLE PERSON we polled said they left because of the intellectual/historical problems. EVERY SINGLE ONE!!! There is just something about polyandry, seer stones (in hats), etc. that rubs people the wrong way. Especially when they see The LDS Church hiding these facts.
But really, the LDS Church has created this problem. The LDS Church has become so caught up in guilt-based moralistic doctrine (let’s face it, The LDS Church has become an Old Testament Church) that when a person discovers all of the historical baggage (that The Church hides)… well, the contradiction becomes too much.
Basically, LDS members are asked to live by standards of honesty and integrity that The LDS Church doesn’t even seem to operate by. When people realize this is the case, they often decide to leave.
To use an analogy: It is as though The LDS Church tells us a duck is a goat. And we try our best to believe it is so. The correlated curriculum is designed to reinforce this idea. But the second someone goes to the duck bookstore (Deseret Book) and purchases a book on ducks (Rough Stone Rolling or the Autobiography of Lucy Mack Smith)… or perhaps they jump on the Internet to learn more about ducks… well, they learn the truth about ducks. They realize that the animal (that they love) has a yellow beak, webbed feat, and feathers… they have seen it fly in a V pattern and lays eggs that hatch into ducklings… and it poops like a duck. The definitively learn that it is a duck, and they can no longer call it a goat. At this point, these people can no longer buy into narrative of The LDS Church. The next logical conclusion is that The Church is not “TRUE”.
One final story/thought.
I was in priesthood a few weeks ago. I listened as an elder shared a story from his past week. “I went into the office of a coworker the other day,” he said. “And I gave them a hard time about their coffee. I told them they need to quit drinking that garbage and return to Church.”
All I could think was, “Dude, what if they no longer believe in JS, BY, or The Church? You didn’t show any love. You didn’t give them a reason to return. You probably just reinforced their perception that Mormons are intolerant jack***es. Oh, and BTW, the coffee probably came after they decided The Church was crap. But regardless, minor transgression at worst.” Ugh!
Dear Joe,
I am sorry that you are sad. I hope that you will regain your happiness in the near future.
Love,
Jeff
Also, you really expect me to buy that your own informal survey of how many people has anymore validity than what I did?
“Especially when they see The LDS Church hiding these facts.”
Hiding, really? I knew about all of this hidden, secret information within the first few years I joined the Church. Hidden? I don’t think so.
The Ark of the Covenant? Now that’s hidden.
BTW, I don’t think there is much cross-pollination. I listen to a couple podcast and quickly scan through a couple of blog sites. This is one of them only because Mike S and FireTag are fairly compelling.
Mike,
No, I got his teaching right:
“Si then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16)
In other words, he has more respect for one of his children who doesn’t believe and stays away as a result (integrity), then one who joins and contests every point of doctrine.
Our quest should always be to find his lost sheep, or followers. Sheep come when the master calls, they don’t attack the fold like a wild beast.
Joe:
Maybe the coworker still believes in BY. And maybe when they were studying their Church history, they learned that Brigham Young included coffee in rations for pioneers. And perhaps they were just trying to reenact some of the pioneer spirit, much like some people duplicate pulling a handcart or wearing a bonnet. So … maybe they were actually affirming their belief in BY with their cup of coffee.
🙂
#25: Will
Perhaps the “spueing” is done by the Lord. Perhaps it should be as Christ taught – I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive. But for you it is required to forgive all men.
Perhaps instead of treating some members as “just a minority” not worth our time, we should instead treat everyone as if they were the “one lost sheep”. And maybe, as in the scripture you quoted, perhaps we should leave the actual judgement to God.
It seems to me there is too much judgement within the Church as to whose beliefs are “right”, whose are “wrong”, who is “hot”, who is “cold”, who is “lukewarm”, who “thinks like I do”, etc. Perhaps these attitudes are prevalent enough that they are contributing to people seeking out non-judgmental places like the Bloggernacle.
#23 @Jeff
I would suspect our quick survey had more legitimacy then your quick statistical inferences. At least we were actually talking to real people.
As far as your second comment is concerned… Jeff, would you please identify which of the following historical issues that you do not have a problem with:
• Joseph Smith was a “magical seer” in Palmyra. He used his magical chocolate seer stone to find missing items for town folks.
• He used this same stone to find Josiah Stowell’s silver mine, which conveniently was 1-2 miles deep… so it could never be accessed (why Emma’s dad didn’t like JS).
• JS used this same chocolate seer stone (thrown in his hat) to translate the BOM.
• But most of the translation was done in the Whitmer loft. The scribe could not actually see JS, however, as JS dictated to the scribe who was on the 1st floor.
• This was the period where we get 3rd and 4th Nephi, the Book of Ether, 1st and 2nd Nephi… or better stated, many of the chapters that duplicated his KJ Bible.
• These Bible passages perfectly match the Smith family’s edition of the KJ Bible (errors and all).
• The second Isaiah stuff is super troubling, no? Lehi’s family would have been in the New World. So how did these passages magically end up in the brass plates?
• JS (and BY) loved themselves a lot of women. Polyandry was in full practice. And these marriages were consummated.
• The Nauvoo Expositor published factual information about very troubling issues in The Church(these issues could make a huge list on their own).
• The Kinderhook plates, Book of Abraham, etc.
And the list goes on and on and on…
So Jeff, are you saying members know about all of this baggage? Really. I think, perhaps, you are being a bit disingenuous now.
“Perhaps instead of treating some members as “just a minority” not worth our time, we should instead treat everyone as if they were the “one lost sheep”. And maybe, as in the scripture you quoted, perhaps we should leave the actual judgement to God”
I agree fully with this comment.
Don’t get me wrong Jeff, I want to believe. But The LDS Church doesn’t seem to make a place for someone like me.
Joe,
You are a troll.
I think you are right that there aren’t as many disaffected members actively participating on the bloggernacle as it appears. However, I think the bloggernacle represents only a very small portion of the total of those that could be called disaffected.
As for your five categories, I think there is a lot of crossover between those groups and many who fall into one of the first five also fit into the fifth.
Also,there is another group of “less actives” that you have not listed–members with disabilities. Though the LDS Church has a general policy of accomodating for disabilities on a case by case basis, churches in the US are not bound by the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and the actual level of accomodation, as well as the acceptance by members, really varies from ward to ward. From my own experience (and the online community of people with disabilities of which I am a part), I would say that many people become less active because of disability and health issues (and some of them become disaffected as well).
It’s so hard to guess activity rates and disaffection because the Church does not publish even what it does keep track of. According to a member of our stake presidency, the percentage of attendance at Sacrament Meeting in our area is about 15-20%.
Joe:
We are fairly open and accepting towards just about everyone who comments on this site. We have a wide range of beliefs here, from atheists to 100%-both-feet-in believers. No one really cares what anyone else believes.
That being said, your list of standard “objections” to Mormonism is veering off from a standard discussion of ideas into a litany of anti-Mormon thoughts. The implication of your list is that anyone who still accepts the LDS Church knowing all those things is foolish. And I have an issue with that.
There are many (if not most) people here who are still members. After all, this is a Mormon-themed website. And I guarantee that all of the authors here (and likely the majority of the readers) have seen your list and have reconciled how they feel about it – one way or another.
If you are interested in discussing things in a reasonable way, you are more than welcome. You don’t even have to agree with everyone here (Will and I go back and forth quite a bit, but at the end of the day, I absolutely respect him for his beliefs).
We’d love you to stay, but if so, you need to respect the fact that we’re not really interested in “anti-Mormon” propaganda. There are plenty of other sites that are more along that vein.
#31 @Jeff
Ha, ha, ha.
Seriously? The best you can come up with is to call me a name?
I ask legitimate and honest questions that question the validity of your claims (yes, I think your assumptions are wrong). And you turn around (in your most sarcastic tone) and tell me that my facts suck and my stories stink. Then you tell me that any idiot can read LDS Church history and come away feeling OK with the facts they discover. But I guess it was OK because you did it with a smile, no?
And you call me a troll?
The truth is this, Jeff: You are exactly like the guy in my priesthood class that thinks everyone becomes LA/IA because they secretly want to drink coffee.
#33 @Mike
You are probably right. Jeff has me fuming (a bit). IMHO, he has made several assumptions that are pretty unfair. He is making judgements about people that he doesn’t even know.
That said, I think it is a bit unfair to call my rant “anti-Mormon”. By your own admission, “all of the authors here (and likely the majority of the readers)” know about these facts.
And we all know that the topics (that I bulleted) can be found/verified in sources straight out of Deseret Books. I was using this list only as a starting point for many of the difficult issues that has driven members away from The LDS Church.
As for me, I am in the limbo between belief and disbelief. I really, honestly want to believe. But the gap between what The LDS Church teaches and the historical facts is so significant that I am having a hard time reconciling this.
Maybe we could chat sometime Mike. You are incredibly reasonable. I would love to know how you reconciled the differences.
…the Book of Ether … or better stated, many of the chapters that duplicated his KJ Bible.
The Book of Ether?
#36 @Stephen
My bad. I was quickly running through the list of many of the books finished during the time at the Whitmer farm. I was writing quickly, and I actual meant to list all of the books (in order written including Mormon, Moroni, and Words of Mormon) from 3rd Nephi to Words of Mormon. But I am sure you get my point, which was this:
Twenty-twenty five percent duplicates… this duplication is contained almost exclusively in these books… this was what was translated most quickly while JS was translating from the loft… etc.
Anyway, I won’t post anymore. I can see I have frustrated a few of you. I do want to be clear in stating that this post (and its corresponding comments) clearly identify the problem/disconnect that The LDS Church (and its active membership) is facing.
Me personally, I knew many problematic issues already. But when I started teaching EQ and digging even further in to LDS Church history, I discovered a ton of new (to me) inconsistencies. To continue my analogy from above, I reached a point where I felt I had to completely suspend all ration thought to call the duck a goat.
But for people like me… we can’t talk about our concerns. We get called apostates (or trolls). So we are left hanging in some limbo (hoping and praying, literally) that something will come along to re-affirm our faith. But that simply isn’t happening.
____________________
One last thing, Jeff. Here is the demographics for the people we polled. They were all 18-40 years old. A lot of them are YSA. Everyone of them is a college graduate. This poll was done in a professional work environment. So this was a poll of the creme de la creme (as far as income and leadership potential is concerned).
“Anyway, I won’t post anymore”
What. Why?
Dude, I have more thumbs down than all other commentators combined. I wear it as a badge of honor. Don’t quit now.
@Joe 28
“JS (and BY) loved themselves a lot of women. Polyandry was in full practice. And these marriages were consummated.”
hahahaha!! If JS and BY were really practicing polyandry, then I’m fairly certain the church’s perspective on prop 8 would have been radically different. 😀
I know you meant “polygamy” (multiple spouses) or maybe polygyny (multiple wives), but it was still really funny to think about JS and BY with multiple husbands. I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m mocking you, because I sincerely got a kick out the mix up and I know it doesn’t reflect on you intelligence or anything like that (as some often will make the silly move of equating one’s language mistakes with mental acuity). I’m just wanted to let you know I am grateful for the laugh. I would love to see someone write an article using this particular mix up and title it “Polyandry: The Secret Lives of Mormon Pioneers.” Hahaha!!
Anyway. Thanks for the laugh.
Also, I’m happy to see you cooling down a bit as you interact with Mike S. If you gave Jeff a chance, I think you would find him as hard-nosed as you seem to think he is. For instance, I’m not sure why your survey of your like ten coworkers who have left is intrinsically a better representation of the disaffection phenomenon than Jeff’s observation about blog commenters. Each observation is obviously limited and subject to interpretation. You seem to adamantly disagree with Jeff, but he seems to only be presenting the possibility that the mass-exodus of disaffection observed by many in the bloggernacle may not be as steep as some think. I think Jeff would openly acknowledge that he could be wrong and that without more data, it is difficult to prove one way or the other. As I understand his point, he is not saying that there is no possibility that his group 5 is somewhat larger than he estimates, but he is saying that it is just as likely that the number is rather small. I think most of us would admit that it would be basically impossible to get an accurate picture of the “state of the church” and its members “faithfulness” simply by looking at the number of participants in ‘nacle, or by looking at office surveys.
I would guess that most people in the ‘nacle would concede that there is a problem at the moment with how to deal with the controversial aspects of Mormon history, with the membership and its relation to politics, and with the resistance many have to various policies. But whether or not these problems constitute a sinking ship that people are abandoning seems to be highly subjective and indeterminate.
I just glanced at my post, and I think I proved that I wasn’t mocking anyone’s mistakes with language, because just look at all those typos!
Since I laughed at Joe’s humorous mistake, that gives everyone a free pass to laugh at my mistakes as well. Have at ’em!
Dang it. I need a cooling off period to ensure that (1) I don’t leave an emotional post, and (2) To give me time to catch my spelling/grammar/content errors.
#40 @James
Ya, ya, ya. OK, so I was using polyandry very loosely to describe JS and BY’s marriages to married women. But you are right, it’s the women who are entering the polyandrous relationship.
As for your errors, no worries… I get the idea. And that is what matters, no?
And this really will be my last post (I think 😛 ).
“So Jeff, are you saying members know about all of this baggage? Really. I think, perhaps, you are being a bit disingenuous now.”
And I think you don’t know a hill of beans what members actually know. To say you can’t find any discussions of this is Deseret Book is just as funny. Ever heard of FARMS? Ever hear of BYU Studies? Ever heard of B.H. Roberts? Ever hear of Hugh Nibley? Ever hear of . . . the list could go on. I am just working at the top of my head in a quick post. That members might not know of these arguments is less about the Church and more about the members themselves and their reading habits. Besides that, I feel most of your displeasure is a rejection of the counter explanations and arguments of the issues of Church history than the lack of the issues getting attention.
I strongly disagree of people saying the LDS Church should teach this and that about its past or doctrine. Maybe it can do better on some of it, but that isn’t its job. Do you really think that learning about the list would at an earlier age or during Sunday School lessons would increase faith? I guess my definition of the purpose for “Church” is much different than the bloggernacle participants.
I was going to read the comments, really…but I kinda skimmed after comment 5.
I have written about this before (indirectly) at MSP.
My angle was to try to understand why the common stereotype of exmormons is that they left the church because they wanted to sin or because they were offended. I theorized that, despite the self-selected group memberships of NOM, the various Outer Blogness blogs, etc., etc., perhaps it is true that when most members think about someone who has “left the church,” they instead are more aware of people we would call “inactive.”
Or, in your terminology, the people you have labeled 2 and maybe 4 in particular, but really all of 1 – 4 count.
Anecdotally, this seems right in my experience. For example, in my ward, I don’t personally know anyone who left because of serious doctrinal issues. (It’s very possible that these people exist, but I just haven’t heard about them. Similarly, I don’t advertise my issues either so I’m sure some people in the ward don’t suspect anything amiss with even me.)
However, I know *several* people who have “fallen away.” I’d call them inactive, but I could see how someone else might say they have left the church. These people, overwhelmingly, didn’t leave because of doctrinal, theological, or historical issues. Many of them had some kind of WoW or chastity issue that got exposed, barring them from a mission (and then things never went uphill from there.) And I can think of several people who are offended.
So, of the vast majority of the church that is inactive, I’d be willing to believe that most of them are not like the average person who posts on an Outer Blogness blog or whatever.
(But I think that’s the same for the Bloggernacle. Of the people who are active, most of them are *not* like the average person who posts on a Bloggernacle blog.)
From here, I have some quibbles with the post. For example, who counts as a TBM on the Bloggernacle? I don’t want to be “that guy,” but I would tend to say that the bloggernacle isn’t composed of TBMs. Maybe Nothing Wavering is the TBM blogosphere, but the bloggernacle is (as you have no doubt realized) far more liberal. This isn’t to suggest that the bloggernacle are total apostates or NOMs, but I have heard that claim levvied…
OK, maybe now I’ll go back and read some comments 😉
#44 Andrew S: …who counts as a TBM on the Bloggernacle?
This is the most pertinent comment so far. I think that many one here might consider my views “unconventional” or non-TBM. I certainly disagree with the more “TBM” folks here. And there are lots of things I question – probably no more than some people who are considered “apostate” by others.
But in my ward, I am active. I attend all my meetings. I have a TR. I pay tithing. I have served in a number of callings. I’m probably considered TBM there.
So, who knows what I am?
re 45:
Mike,
Please note that TBM doesn’t describe activity. The B in TBM arguably stands for “believing”.
The question is: what does one have to believe to be TBM? I think everyone has a different answer here…
So…I’ve gotten around to reading more comments…
I don’t even…
A few things I would like to say and/or reiterate.
It’s folly to try to extrapolate the number of disaffected/inactive/ex members based on internet activity. There is simply little reason to believe that the internet/bloggernacle/various sites are representative of the offline world. There are many reasons why this is the case, drilling down to in some way or another why people would be motivated to talk on the internet about stuff.
Gees, I go away for a bit to spend some time with the fam and look what happens. I am compared to some Elder’s Quorum guy who rags on someone about drinking coffee. I’m not even in Elder’s Quorum, nor would I ever do that.
But I do see some “auto disagree” programs have been at work.
My post is mere speculation, not statically significant and subject to change with more data.
I was just making a view observations not trying to cure cancer. I leave that to Dr. Mike.
Thanks, James for explaining me to Joe.
Andrew S,
“There is simply little reason to believe that the internet/bloggernacle/various sites are representative of the offline world.”
Exactly, but I think those who are on the Internet want to believe they are but the tip of the iceberg. When in reality, they are an iceberg unto themselves, albeit a small one.
A small and very vocal iceberg.
#48 Jeff I was just making a view observations not trying to cure cancer. I leave that to Dr. Mike
If someone’s life seriously depends on me curing cancer, they’re going to die. At the end of the day, I’m just a carpenter that happens to work with bones instead of wood. 🙂
As I mentioned above, these numbers are incredibly hard to extrapolate from, and you can use them to “prove” just about anything you want. I think you did a great job of raising the issue for discussion.
i think most people in categories 1-4 were never believers, so a better question is, how many believers are falling into category 5?
In that case, you are drawing from a pool of maybe a couple million, and if there is a five figure number of those people participating online that is a big deal.
The more important question: are people falling into category 5 at a faster rate? are more people joining this category than before?
“What does TBM really stand for?”
Andrew hit this one on the head. I am a Mormon and I Truly Believe that the LDS church is false. Guess that makes me a TBM.
“A small and very vocal iceberg”
Andrew and Jeff are totally off on this one. Just look at activity stats in each ward. Someone mentioned 33% IA in their ward. That would 55% in mine. These are official ward stats we are talking about, and they represent a pretty big iceberg. To think the majority leave because they want to drink coffee or got offended is ridiculous.
Oh and for the record, if a man is married to a married woman (like JS was) he is participating in a polyandrous relationship…not just the woman. So the nit over Joe’s perceived mistake, was actually a mistake.
re 53:
Bishop Rick,
Again, you’re trying to extrapolate the background of people online to people offline.
What reason do you have to believe that the 33% of inactive people in someone’s ward (or 55% in yours) is all doing so because of doctrinal/historical issues other than the fact that you are skeptical of the baser reasons? (As if human behavior here should be shocking?!)
I’d love if that were the case, but based on the comments I hear in Sunday School, in Priesthood, etc., I can’t really be convinced that most people read the scriptures and lessons they already have, much less research more deeply to find the really unfortunate stuff. On the other hand, I can EASILY see people getting into trouble with Word of Wisdom issues, Law of Chastity issues, etc.,
Additionally, if we recognize that we who are so inclined to blog and discuss things online are exceptions and not the rule, then all of a sudden the stereotypes about people who leave (that don’t represent our experiences) makes sense: they aren’t describing us. They are describing the masses of people who go inactive, of which we are exceptional.
Andrew,
“Again, you’re trying to extrapolate the background of people online to people offline.”
Not really trying to do that. If we look at that 30-50% in our wards that are IA, how many of them do we know personally?
I don’t know any of the 55% in my ward personally. I have no idea why they are IA.
That said, the people offline that I DO know personally who are IA, are overwhelmingly so due to doctrinal/historical issues.
So what I am really doing is extrapolating the background of people offline to the IA in my and other’s wards.
My “shocking human behavior” is conditioned by my own experience. I tend to put that ahead of someone’s best guess, extrapolated to faulty statistics.
Joe:
No crisis of faith is unimportant if it’s your own. I spend a lot of time working out my own issues of faith — Mormon cosmology is nuts, but so is mainstream Christian cosmology — but my issues probably bother few people without my particular background.
Anyway, perhaps my post Saturday morning can help with some of the magic seer stone issues, since it concerns a very liberal Bible scholar who is convinced that Jesus was first seen as a magician (in the sorcerer sense).
And thanks for your kind words about my previous work on W&T.
Bishop Rick, do you live in Utah? I ask because I think the experiences people have with this question dramatically changes depending on where you live. For instance, I’m in the EQP of my ward here in Colorado, and have met quite a few on the LA lists (we have about 60% inactivity), and I can think of exactly one of those people who has even hinted of having doctrinal/historical issues. I also think its a false dichotomy to say that people either leave for doctrinal/historical reasons, or for WoW or chastity reasons, because the overwhelming majority of people I meet just don’t care to come to church. They simply have other things going on in their lives and church is not a priority. Most of these people just don’t feel being active participants in any church is worth their time. They simply have other priorities.
Because of the trend of inactivity due to apathy that I’ve experienced, I would tend to agree with Jeff that the disaffection rate among the la/ia crowd is often exaggerated in the bloggernacle. I wonder, though, if the disparity of experience is due to reasons for la/ia in Utah vs reasons for la/ia everywhere else.
Do others think that in utah/outside of utah dynamic could play a significant role in the perspectives people have on whether or not the disaffection rate is a major problem?
James:
I do think that the in Utah/outside Utah dynamic does play some role. I grew up in Florida where there were just a handful of LDS folks in my school. It didn’t really matter socially whether someone was LDS or not, because most of my family’s peers weren’t LDS anyway.
In Utah, where I live now, there is a much different effect because the LDS Church is predominant. The social pressures to maintain a relationship with the church are much different, and increased.
How this affects the rates given above – I don’t really know. I do think that there is more peer pressure to maintain the appearance of “TBM” regardless of whatever one’s beliefs actually are.
I actually enjoyed this. Sort of reminds me of this article I read today about the “Gullible Mind” – and, NO, I’m not applying it to Church (though that could be done), but just that it’s quite pertinent to this conversation.
From that article:
“…The Gullible Mind. It is a psychological processing malfunction that filters out information based on its sourcerather than its integrity. People who operate from The Gullible Mind tend to have misplaced trust in governments, institutions, mainstream news networks,doctors, scientists or anyone who wears the garb of apparent authority.
Whereas a normal, intelligent person would raise commonsense questions about information they receive from all sources, the Gullible Mind wholly accepts virtually any information from sources that occupy the role of apparent authority in society…”
As for the post, after reading through several of the posts/threads on the whole John Dehlin thing and the other guy on StayLDS called in by his SP because his brother was concerned about his “middle way” beliefs, I’ve come to think the divide is not only large, but increasing in its largeness. The amount of rash judgment, cynicism and self-righteousness I read was a bit over the top… and this from seemingly “mild” threads, or so I was told.
I think it comes down, as Mike S has stated a few times, to orthodoxy. Orthodoxy unfortunately leaves precious little room for tolerance of diverging views.
A friend of mine stated it this way:
Religion, unfortunately, turns a lot of people off. While I have some issues with the LDS penchant for suppressing info, I have more issues with how religion in general suppresses individuals and gives morally average individuals license to act in morally repugnant ways, all in the name of God.
James,
I think your Utah vs non-Utah point has merit. At the same time, I find it hard to believe that someone that once had a testimony simply goes inactive due to apathy.
How many of the 60% IA in your ward do you know personally? Do you know all of them? Do you know all of them to be IA simply due to apathy?
I can’t help but feel you are exaggerating your numbers a bit.
Another thing we need to consider here is WHEN they went IA. I would tend to believe that the more recent IA are more due to doctrine/history than longtime IAs – due mainly to the unfettered access to LDS history via the internet.
Bishop Rick,
“I can’t help but feel you are exaggerating your numbers a bit.”
You could be right on that one, but your comment made me realize something I should add. While I don’t know most of the people personally, besides visits on doorsteps and the like, I would say that very few were ever very active to begin with. Most of them come from those raised in IA families, new converts that didn’t stick, and quite a few who emigrated from south east asian countries and therefore don’t feel much community with the church. Many of the last group don’t speak much English, so we haven’t been able to get a good sense of what is happening with that demographic.
So I think you might be right that I was inadvertently exaggerating, but I think that is due to the dynamic you pointed out, that many of those I’ve encountered were likely to have every been active in the TBM sense.
I would be interested to see numbers that show long-term inactivity verses those who went from fully active to inactive. The latter, I suspect, would present a pretty picture of the disaffection problem. The only way I can think of off the top of my head for the church to statistically assess the problem would be through variation and cessation of temple recommend holders and tithe payments. If they do calculate the exit rate of previously active members, I would be interested to know if there has been an increase of the active to exit group throughout the US and internationally as well.
Oops.
many of those I’ve encountered were UNlikely to have ever
ybeen active in the TBM sensere 57,
James,
I wanted to fully agree here.
In fact, that was actually a conclusion we came to at my post at MSP.
I haven’t thought about the interplay of Utah/non-Utah. I think it could maybe have a role, but not in the way you think. The saturation of Mormons in Utah, perhaps, create pressure to go? Whereas elsewhere, you can certainly find other things to spend your time with and most of your circle of friends won’t even bat an eye.
When we use the term “left because of doctrinal issues” it is in the context of those who would be classified as true believers, fully active at one point who soured on something they discovered that they did not know that had a very negative affect on their testimony.
those who were never fully active, might have very little real knowledge of the Church or what it teaches would not be lumped into the same category, IMO.
This former group is the one I claim is not that large. The latter group is very large by comparison.
Jeff, i dont think anyone would disagree with what you said in #64, but thats not how i read the initial post.
Jeff,
your guess/hunch/intuition that those that were once very active, TBM, that have “left” because of doctrinal/historical/contemporary church policy issues are a fairly small group may very well be accurate.
I would suggest another category. I am a big fan of zombie movies/lore. The latest series that came out is called the “Walking Dead.” Spoiler alert: the comic book that it is based on suggests (as did the first season) that even those that appear not to be infected are infected with the zombie virus but they do not know that they are and it does not manifest itself until they are bitten or until they die and then they also become a zombie.
I wonder how many of us are infected with doubt and know deep down that some false narratives and claims are being protected even at the expense of honest and good people in our faith, and perhaps many of us only manifest it in a slight cough now and then publicly or at church? And that it may only take some “offense” or even one more piece of evidence to light up a full blown case of disaffection for this fairly large group of the partially disaffected?
and to stretch this metaphor a little more, perhaps our church, if it was wise. and really cared for the collective mental and spiritual health of its adherents would administer some serious inoculations of truth, candor and maturity by addressing honestly our latent infections before they become irreversible.
For example we could start with a simple one, do we not all know that our past racial policy and the doctrines that grew out of it were fabricated? So why not issue a statement and pre-emptively eradicate that virus that still thrives even in my HP quorum today? Or other such things that know we were wrong about? Why not? Because of fear that we would expose the nonsense of the 14 fundamentals and other such heresies? And be forced to individually and collectively rely on more and more personal revelation and not just institutional obedience?. Honestly confess we have been wrong, will be wrong, and that a real “true” faith must be organic and evolve by repenting and adapting. But why not? Let’s get healthy and let somethings die so that somethings greater can take its’ place. Otherwise, imo we are letting the virus/disease of disaffection fester which if not attacked with the antibiotics of truth/candor and a maturing faith then I believe we will find a sixth category growing larger and larger, ie, the seeming active who are really just the “walking dead”…
The problem imo is not continuing revelation but a dearth of continuing revelation/change and the dogmatic retrenchment that leads to the very lack of progress and even reversal that I believe is occurring as a faith community as Mike S has often pointed out so well (see Alma 4; 3 Nephi 16, Mormon 8)—
Ron,
I think you have something there with the walking spiritually dead.
I know people that are just kind of there at Church, but not really…..
I really did not mean to infer that the “walking dead” are “spiritually” dead. If I understand correctly, this is a post about relationship to the “church” and not to God. I do not personally see it as the same. One only exists to facilitate the other and is “true” only to the extent it works in individual lives. Many are “just kind of there at church–walking dead” but alive in their spiritual quest. They just zone out at church and their relationship to it—finding only a form of godliness there but no well spring of revelation/life nor further light and knowledge. Disaffected zombies going through the motions.
I see both
It appears the world, and particularly the USA,are on the verge of economic chaos. It is most likely not a question of if, but when.
When this does occur many, probably most, of those who left the Lord will again find Him.
Prosperity is a death knell for the faith of many, but when the devourer comes out of necessity those who left the Lord will seek Him again.
They will plead with the Lord, and though He will be slow to hear their cries, in the day of wrath He will remember mercy.
Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power…
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 19:20)
We need Ziff to provide some real number crunching.