An interesting discussion happened on our backlist a few days ago. [Every group blog has a supersecret private group or email list where perms talk about things like rumors overheard in Sunday School, bad jokes heard at family reunions, and diets that actually work.] The topic du jour was the surprising and credible report that core membership statistics — things like temple attendance, temple recommend holders, and payment of tithing — are up, contrasted with more general membership difficulties like the constant stream of faith crisis discussions (even in LDS publications), the Gospel Topics Essays as damage control, and lots and lots of reports of regular active members who choose inactivity or complete exit from the Church. So what’s going on?
Here was my comment in the discussion:
So in practice it is becoming an up or out church, although the rhetoric tells an everybody-is-welcome-here story.
Unpacking this a bit, up or out systems are seen in elite institutions like big law firms or university departments or the foreign service, where after an initial period of employment and experience, say five to seven years, you either get promoted or terminated. In the LDS Church, if one chooses not to move up the standard path of LDS life achievements (seminary, mission, temple marriage, accepting callings) … well, you don’t get terminated, you just get a lot of pressure to “do the right thing,” and if you don’t then you may never quite be welcomed into the clubhouse anymore.
The subtle but persistent pressure to make those standard choices has gone up over the last few decades, creating the up or out sense I referred to. The broadly welcoming rhetoric is still what is preached. Once you’re in, the up or out pressure is what is practiced. Some marginal Mormons do get back in the game, so the core membership statistics are up. But the campaign to make that happen also pushes some marginal members completely out the door and maybe out of the Church. So the reports of people leaving are up as well. The up or out pressure explains both increased core statistics and overall declines. At least that was my take on the issue.
There were insightful thoughts offered by other contributors to the backlist discussion: (1) The decline in overall participation is also observed (and in fact is generally worse) in other denominations. (2) The decline of religion that has been evident in Europe for more than a century is only now happening in America. (3) The Church has always used a sense of elitism (as in “you are the chosen generation”) to strengthen commitment. (4) The leadership is very aware that the age of growth by missionary conversion is drawing to a close, so they are stressing families and retention to foster more internal growth. These are all great points. I’m sure readers have a few more ideas to add. No doubt some will reject the idea tout court and, in view of the continued building of new temples and the impressive growth in the LDS financial portfolio, tell us that all is well in Zion.
As I’ve kicked this discussion around in my head the last couple of days, I focused on one big change that seems to support a shift in LDS leadership perspective and strategy: lowering the missionary age for young men to 18. It certainly hasn’t produced better prepared or more mature missionaries. It seems quite evident now that the change hasn’t improved the missionary program or the quality of the convert pool at all. But it has moved more young LDS into missionary service, although even that is a mixed result given the larger percentage of missionaries who return home early, a fairly traumatic event within LDS culture, although it shouldn’t be. If the program most dedicated to producing external conversions gets shifted in order to increase and strengthen *internal* conversions (the missionaries themselves), that is strong evidence supporting #4 above. The great age of Mormon conversion is over.
But wait, there’s more. An alternative view of the age change move also occurred to me. Few people have talked about the impact of the age change for women, who can now serve at age 19 rather than 21. Suddenly a lot more young women are electing to serve missions and they are thrilled to do so. We might wring our hands about sending out 18 year olds, but that’s just the young men who serve. The impact on young women seems to be much more positive. The young women I have seen leave to serve missions from my ward and the sister missionaries serving in my area are just top notch. I don’t know how that relates to the larger issue outlined above, but if we are going to comment on the change to 18 as, at best, a mixed blessing, we ought to also note how positive the change to 19 for young women has been. As Alice Cooper once sang, “Well I’m 19 and I can do what I want, and I want to serve a mission.” Something like that.
Wheat & Tares 
It looks to me as a possible foundation for female empowerment in the next inflection. I hadn’t thought of it until your comment.
The Lord Jesus Christ invites all who will to come unto Him. We start small and grow larger, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. As we accept what He offers, He offers more. It’s a beautiful pattern, isn’t it?
Interesting perspective. Makes me wonder at the long-term changes to the perspectives of women of the church. Especially in terms of women working outside the home and number of children. If our young women are feeling more empowered, what are they more empowered to do after that mission?
Yes. The sisters can now go on missions at age 19 and then come home and STILL get married very young and have lots of children. This is big for the women in the Church. Or at least for the growth of the Church.
The last statistic I saw indicates that a typical two-year mission results in 4 baptisms. There must be other reasons for sending out young people than the numerical results. One might think retention rates, but the a sizable percent of returned missionaries quit attending services on a regular basis. Ideas anyone?
I’m not sure about the in or out dichotomy. I followed the recommended path, and was on bishoprics in my 30s and 40s. I am still active and hold a TR, but have had a TR refused twice, but then overruled by stake pres. Since the first bishop was overruled I have not held a ward position or given a talk(could there be a blacklist?) Last time I went for a TR the bishop (in his 30s) was no longer confrontational.
So I am in a category where I am tolerated, but not really included. This will do for now. I am now 70 and have a different understanding of how to live the gospel than I did at 40, but until that understanding is expressed by church leadership it is not valued. The deemphasis on obedience, and emphasis on love are moving towards my understanding, but although the love is being recieved, the obedience is not being deemphasised at the local level yet.
So I am not in or out but tolerated.
I still really disagree with the “up or out” description. I think there probably are some members who desire to rise up in the ranks, so to speak, but it’s a minority. The vast majority just care about belonging and serving in their wards/communities. In my elderly ward, the 70+ crowd (half the members of the ward) are content to sit and take a backseat. It’s more about fostering connections at that point, not caring about how orthodox you appear to others.
An up or out model may explain it, there may be others as well. I’m of the opinion – although without data to support it – that the LDS church may enter a static period. Without adapting to new social norms I fear that the church will grow slower than the world’s population, thereby slowly becoming less mainstream and less relevant.
I’ll throw out another comparison. It’s possible for a company to be profitable but still go out of business because of poor cash flow. While the church isn’t poor financially, and maybe even excels in some measures, other metrics may more accurately represent the strength and long term viability.
Some interesting thoughts. I also tend to disagree with the up or out model. If I was asked what conference talk members have embraced the most in the last ten years I would say Uchtdorf’s “Lift Where You Stand” without hesitation. Rarely does two months go by in my ward without it getting mentioned in some form, by people of all callings. I think most members are content to serve wherever and however. I can see there being an aspiring minority though.
Having said that, when I served as a ward missionary, I had a hard time finding members of the ward on what you might call “neutral ground.” Those who were inactive usually had their reasons, and with few exceptions, nothing we did was going to change that. At the same time, I was surprised at how some of them managed to teeter on the line between member and leaving.
As far as losing membership, I tend to think that although the exit numbers may be underestimated by general membership and certain levels of leadership, it’s likely exaggerated by the bloggernacle, at least in my own experience. That doesn’t make it any less important to address, however.
As Greatest, Silent, and Boomer Generation members pass away, I’ll be interested to see if the Church will be willing to pivot to hold onto to more members. I can only guess what that pivot might be, but I can’t help thinking that a more rigorous path for converts to baptism would help. I’ve spent my life in wards outside the Mormon Corridor so I’ve never been in a ward that had more than about 40% activity (and that was quite high) and a significant portion of those inactives were people who were quickly taught, baptized, and then lost. I’m not saying we need a 5-year initiation period, but wouldn’t six or even three months of consistent church attendance, Word of Wisdom observance, and chastity (I’m just talking no sex outside of marriage – and who knows whether that will include same sex marriage in the future) be reasonable? (I left tithing out intentionally. Ultimately, I feel like our missionary program is set up to fail most people with whom it comes in contact.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
“Lift Where You Stand” is a nice alternative view to the “up or out” view. But consider that, in the Church, lots of people are not really allowed to lift where they stand. Quite often people who aren’t temple married and hold a TR are not even considered (that is, they are un-considered) not just as bishop or RS Pres but even from teaching youth Sunday School or serving in YM or YW. “No, I’m just not interested in renewing my TR, bishop,” generally means the bishop sees you as a project, a “needs to get a TR” project. There’s even a printout report for it in MLS listing everyone who doesn’t have a current TR. There really is no category in a bishop’s mind for “active, believing, faithful, non-TR member.” You’re a Temple Mormon or you’re a marginal Mormon.
That’s one example (there are others) of the sort of the up or out sense I’m talking about. We talk about converting the world and we put 80,000 full-time missionaries out there, but the actual practices within the Church are a lot more like the Marines (the few, the proud, the Marines) than the Army, which in time of war swells to millions or even tens of millions. “The few, the proud, the Mormons” is what the high-investment, high-demand Church is. Period. And the rhetoric doesn’t fit the practice. I’m not even sure the leadership recognizes the gulf between the practice and the rhetoric. First we push or hound people out of activity, then we spend lots and lots of time trying to reactivate them with The Rescue. What a bizarre system.
If the ‘up or out’ model is relevant, it seems to me it’s more about social mobility rather than bureaucratic. I also wonder at the effect of the feeling many members have of being under attack by the ‘world.’ This mentality seems common on my local level and at GC. I can see it possibly producing a circle the wagons effect.
“Up or Out” might not be a perfect analogy, but I agree with Dave B. that there seems to be an increasingly higher concentration of “orthodox’ Mormons to less orthodox Mormons in our congregations. Could be it was always thus; a teacher told me of all the people mentioned in the Doctrine & Covenants about half wound up leaving the church.
When I say I’m less orthodox, I mean I don’t believe leaders of the church are infallible. I don’t find any doctrinal basis for women not to hold the priesthood. There were Neanderthals and we have some of their DNA. I have my doubts polygamy was inspired (see thoughts on leader infallibility). I’m not a Republican. “But wait Dave C. – all these things aren’t really incompatible with being a Mormon – except maybe that polygamy thingy, we’re not sure…”. Well, yeah, and I’m still LDS. But try mentioning any of those views in Priesthood, Relief Society, or Sunday School. It gets taxing for some. My wife left the church because of it. Not only did she not feel accepted, she started questioning her sanity that maybe there was something wrong with her because she did not fit in.
So from my perspective, there is a “force”, intentional or not, that is driving/pushing less orthodox Mormons away.
“The topic du jour was the surprising and credible report that core membership statistics — things like temple attendance, temple recommend holders, and payment of tithing — are up…”
I am very much out of the know of the LDS world. What report is this referencing?
holden, friend of a friend. That’s the only way any but the most basic info wends its way to the membership.
Having no friends in high or low places, guess it won’t make its way to my door. Haha. Thanks.
I remember in my youth/young adult years (which roughly coincide with the presidency of GBH) often hearing enthusiastic, optimistic rhetoric about missionary work, the gospel “filling the whole earth”, reaching across all nations in all languages, news about unprecedented worldwide growth of the Church, more temples being built around the world, and hopeful-sounding stuff like that. Not so much anymore. In a recent elders quorum lesson, when somehow the discussion came to the problems of the modern Church (young people leaving, reduced growth rates, abysmal retention) the older men remarked about it just being part of the Lord’s process of winnowing out all but the most righteous and committed members, which by their smugness presumably included them. I’ve seen rhetoric like that crop up again and again over the last couple years. I personally find such attitudes offensive, as it contradicts the expansive Christlike, inclusive version of the gospel I embraced as a youth and still do today. “Move up or move out” spiritual elitism seems to be more prevalent today than I remember growing up with, but perhaps it was always there, just latent or dormant. There is a certain vocal minority of older members in my ward who it seems will only be satisfied when the only people left in the entire Church (and by extension, the Celestial Kingdom) are them and the few others who share their narrow worldviews. If the Celestial Kingdom is actually a country club for the most hypocritical, self-righteous, self-important pricks in the LDS church, I want no part in it. I’ll take my chances in the lower kingdoms rather than spend the eternities associating with people like that.
Or maybe the “up or out” approach is just a social by-product of how we hedge our faith to make ourselves feel better; when the Church is doing well, we take it as validating its truthfulness and our commitment to it. When the Church is not doing so well, we tell ourselves its “just part of the Lord’s plan”, fulfilling prophecy and all that, also to validate our commitment to the institution.
Though it does mean that Holland on membership (if you mean the members who actually show up rather than are on the books somewhere ) is actually right.
Dave C, RE: “So from my perspective, there is a “force”, intentional or not, that is driving/pushing less orthodox Mormons away.”
10+ years ago it occurred to me that the “great and spacious building” of the Iron Rod dream also can be used as allegory of the groupthink, closed-mindset, etc. of the “true believing Mormon” majority within the church. We are taught not to question (after all, God inspires everything the Q15 does). And, in keeping with most people’s innate lack of interest in studying, researching, seeking out new information, or reading widely (not just Mormons), the majority are silent, or attack (subtly or not so subtly) those that express questions. One cannot even engage them in a productive discussion, new evidence, etc., they are too ignorant AND comfortable in their mindset (“testimony”). So we stop attending and subscribe to RSS feeds of multiple LDS blogs to get and participate in discussions of actual truth.
Not a Cougar – I would hate to see requirements for baptism, such as the ones you mention, instituted. It would only increase Mormonism’s insistence on obedience and living a certain way if you want to be part of the exalted club. I’m not saying the church should drop the Word of Wisdom (though it does need to be reconsidered) or the law of chastity as lifestyles that define the faith, but requiring 6 months of adherence to these lifestyles diminishes the nature of conversion. What should conversion be? A walk with Jesus as their newly claimed Savior or a lifetime of commitment to no coffee? I argue that it should be the latter and if a person decides to have a bit of coffee now and then, it doesn’t affect his/her walk with Christ. In short, the church needs to make it more comfortable for non-orthodox folk to fit in with the Mormon crowd.
Troy, I don’t dispute that things such as the Word of Wisdom can have an in/out effect. If the Church gets rid of such requirements then sure, there’s no reason to have proselytes obey discarded rules either. However, if you’re going to have such rules (and I’m willing to bet the Church will have the WoW and chastity requirements many decades from now), why don’t we encourage proselytes to live them prior to making what is supposed to be a life-long commitment? I hate baptizing people into inactivity.
I also personally have no problem with the Church pivoting to a lower-commitment model such as you suggest, however, I also don’t think that such a model is necessarily going to keep people from leaving or get people to come back any less/more than the current model does. Liberal Christianity is laudable, but it seems to be more novelty than movement right now, at least in my kinda slightly-researched opinion.
From Troy: ” In short, the church needs to make it more comfortable for non-orthodox folk to fit in with the Mormon crowd.”
yes..this…and I think the church will move to accommodate. I think people have a lot of options nowadays, and so brick and mortar church attendance and service is going to naturally slow. It won’t necessarily go away, but I don’t think they are making it “up or out” but just more that people have lots of options and you get a lot more luke warm folks content with the zealots going up for leadership positions and let them have it. Those who don’t go up don’t have to go out, they can just hang.
And hopefully the church accommodates more and more to make things comfortable for non-orthodox folks.
I don’t think they will continue to feed the idea that you either strive to go up or get shamed. Shaming is not christ-like. It isn’t a sustainable model. The leaders are smart enough to see that.
The way to stop the rush to baptism and then to inactivity without creating additional barriers is simple. Have missionaries teach the lessons, invite investigators to church/activities/baptisms, explain baptism as a principle/promise, but refrain from pushing investigators into baptism. Let the investigators be the ones to want (crave) baptism because they are so full of the spirit. The only baptisms in our ward that have ‘stuck’ are those where the investigators refused to be baptized when the missionaries pressured them and then took 6 months to a year investigating before they declared they felt the time was right.
One of the reasons so many people get baptized without being fully committed is because we use some pretty strong salesmanship techniques on them. So let’s stop doing that…
However, if we decide to turn the control over to the individual and the spirit, our baptism numbers would plummet.
I agree with the past generally, but it does need to be taken into account that since the age changes, the converts per missionary radio is at a dispensation-low.
Dave B.
I think all “lifting” requires proper positioning and, to a lesser extent, some conditioning. Additionally, if the goal is to move the piano and you’ve got people positioned at a chair in the next room or even in a whole other building, I think that although those people may mean well, they still missed out on the satisfaction of having moved the piano.
While I honestly feel like I understand where you are coming from, I do feel like the Gospel (and to a slightly lesser extent the Church that facilitates it) is, with few exceptions, one size fits all. I will go out of my way to understand why someone feels like they don’t belong and understand what problems they may have with membership. I will do my absolute best to put myself in their shoes. I think it’s vital to being Christ-like. However, at some point, if I don’t also ask myself and them (where appropriate) why they aren’t experiencing the same things I’m experiencing, then I feel like I’m being disingenuous to both of us. Technically, I’m still trying to understand where they come from at that point.
Although I am sure there are plenty of members without a recommend and as you describe, I think there are a large number of them who take full responsibility for their inactivity and know full well how to get back. I have seen a fear in them in which many feel they’ll be judged as they try to return. Maybe I’ve lucked out and just grew up in all the right wards, but I have yet to see a ward fail to embrace these individuals with open arms. I know these situations exist and need to stop on a number of levels, but I refuse to believe the problem is inherent to the Church as a whole.
Why is nobody asking the most important question here: how does one get into the super-secret underground W&T group? I would like to join the secret combination!
I love this post, narrative and comments! My compliments to you for creating the dialogue, Dave.
Please forgive the length of my comments – this is a letter which I wrote to my Stake President; just over a year ago. It’s interesting to note what has changed since then ie. Home Teaching.
I No Longer Need You (In the Kindest Possible Way)
After years of life experience (some bad – and others joyful) combined with extensive, careful reading and study (and yes, combined with prayer and a seeking for the divine) I reached the life changing conclusion that I no longer need you. Now please don’t misunderstand me, I think you’re a good man (and I could most likely enjoy your friendship) but I simply don’t need you – or anyone else like you – telling me what God’s word means to me and how I should live my life.
To put it more concisely, I don’t need (and I certainly do not want) anything further to do with the “corporate church”. I’ve come to abhor the corporate bureaucracy and all of its resulting programs, assignments, meetings and endless busy work. I’ve come to understand that I don’t need any of this nonsense in order to worship Christ; and I do not need any white middle aged men in business suits acting as intermediaries between myself and God. In fact, I find most of modern Mormon cultural and doctrinal “add ons” to the teachings of Christ to be an abject distraction and a monumental waste of time. Mormonism has become a burden – not a help. And, it’s simply getting worse!
You know, I really do (generally) enjoy my neighbors, friends and members of my Ward family. And, I’d like to continue worshipping Christ with them. However, I’m starting to think that there really is no longer a place for people like me in the LDS Church.
Now, before I proceed I’d like to convey the reality that I’ve already completed much of the traditional Mormon “Checklist”.
• Priesthood Ordinations
• Full Time Missionary Service
• Temple Marriage
• Family Born in the Covenant; and all Married in the Temple
• Full Tithe Payer; all of my life
• Historically Accepted All Church Callings
At this stage of my life, I only want ONE THING from Mormonism and that is a spiritual, enjoyable and positive Sacrament Service. Period! I want to take the Sacrament, think of the Savior and listen to some beautiful music; along with an uplifting, timely message for today.
What I no longer want any part of:
• Worship of Joseph Smith. Man oh man, have I ever had a belly-full of this. Yes, even from you.
• Worship of General Authorities. They’re people just like everyone else. They are not some kind of “higher beings”, deserving of adulation. The
only difference between “us and them” is that they are being paid (quite handsomely) through a stipend and other church provided, lifetime,
benefits; which the common lay member will never see.
• Either we’re a church of Christ or we’re the Church of Joseph Smith. Personally, I want no part of the latter.
• Home Teaching – both giving and receiving is a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME. This program is a relic from the past (long gone) and has become just
another way to shame and control people. The reporting requirements for Home Teaching alone are just like some used by the most onerous
sales organizations in the country!
• Meetings, Meetings, Meetings. For the love of Heaven, if this is a mirror image of the Celestial Kingdom – I’d “rather be with the sinner’s than
the saints”.
• I will never again clean buildings owned by the LDS Corporation. This practice DOES NOT represent service; but servitude. The LDS
Corporation has plenty of money and resources to have their buildings professionally cleaned. If necessary, they can certainly pull monies from
their Real Estate division. I will simply focus on being a good neighbor and friend!
• Any talk, lesson, article or commentary which attempts to cover up, whitewash, sweeten, or obfuscate the remarkably messy (and sometimes
ugly and cruel) true Mormon history – I’m walking away from; even if this kind of “pretty lie” comes from our rock stars in SLC.
President_____, the LDS Church is contracting and hundreds of people are walking away every day; you know this, I know it and even Elder Oaks knows it; as per his declaration during the most recent Mission President’s Seminar at the MTC. The dike is breaking and the flow of information and truth is literally blowing the old church away. The tighter LDS Leadership (including you) squeeze, shame, preach down too and the pound on members – the smaller and less significant the church will become; as it is already becoming as we speak.
So, I suppose to underscore the point in a closing summary – I really don’t need you or the Corporate Church in my ongoing worship of Christ. As for the “saving ordinances of the Temple….I’ve started to ask myself “Is the great creator of heaven and the earth REALLY going to ask us to use some ancient, “secret” Masonic handshakes in order to be embraced by him?” The thought of this truly “makes reason stare”!
So what to do:
Well, I’ve pretty much resigned myself to the reality that the LDS Church is not going to change to better meet the needs (emotional and physical) of its’ members; the culture (and benefits to the leadership) are just too ingrained. So, I’ve just decided to “worship according to the dictates of my own heart” and if the local powerheads don’t like it – I really don’t much care.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts and for reading my narrative. I have, and continue to wish you well from a personal standpoint.
Eli writes “Although I am sure there are plenty of members without a recommend and as you describe, I think there are a large number of them who take full responsibility for their inactivity and know full well how to get back. I have seen a fear in them in which many feel they’ll be judged as they try to return… I have yet to see a ward fail to embrace these individuals with open arms. I know these situations exist and need to stop on a number of levels, but I refuse to believe the problem is inherent to the Church as a whole.”
I agree most wards are willing to embrace returning individual’s with open arms, or think they are doing that, but I want to address the assumption that people who don’t have temple recommends don’t have them because of worthiness issues. Recommend question #3 “Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?” is not a worthiness question. Neither are the next set of questions dealing with belief in the prophets, seers, and revelators. At first glance, the questions makes sense, who would want a temple recommend if they didn’t have faith in the ordinances taking place there anyway? But there is one aspect of the temple that can matter to someone who doesn’t believe the Church is true – when their own son or daughter is getting married there.
I think denying a parent the ability to witness their children’s marriage because they don’t believe the faith claims of the church is a problem, and it is inherent to the Church. Why should it even matter if a parent couldn’t pass the worthiness part of a temple recommend? In these cases the recommend amounts to a form of extortion, regardless if that was not the intent in the first place. In my own extended family, a non-member parent was excluded from his child’s wedding while the other parent, a temple recommend holding member, who happened to have a mistress, attended. Of course no one else knew about the mistress until after the wedding. But why should that be grounds to exclude him from a child’s wedding anyway?
Paying tithing? Smoking, coffee, tea? Wearing garments? These are also faith issues, not ones of morality. In fact, they didn’t keep one away from attending the temple in the first several decades after the church was restored. The fact that the church maintains the recommend system, though, means they are part owners of the problems inherent with it, including the judgments that follow. For the moment, other than the wedding issue above, I’m ambivalent about doing away with the temple recommend system, but as long as we have it we should recognize the negative aspects involved and ask if the good outweighs the negative.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. This is obviously a topic that many of you have thought about before.
Jack Hughes, it certainly does seem like the stories of amazing missionary success or the stone rolling down the hill don’t get told so much anymore. As you note, new stories seem to pop up to fit the new facts — the Lord is testing his people or winnowing the flock. Kind of like when NFL teams drop from 90 players to 53 players at the end of training camp. We’re all trying to make the team. That’s the Mormon view of salvation in a nutshell.
Troy and Not a Cougar and ReTx, baptism and activity/inactivity are not quite where I was going with the post, but it does illustrate how in an up or out system there is encouragement and incentives to move up. For convert baptisms it is missionaries who do the hard sell and friendly members who do encouragement. With Primary kids it is more of a soft sell, but what Primary kid wants to be an unbaptized 9 year old? The same incentives (both positive and negative) get played out for getting the priesthood at 12 (and 14 and 16) and going on a mission and getting married in the temple as opposed to anywhere else. I think the Church as a whole is trying to become more welcoming and less judgmental toward those who don’t follow the script — say missionaries who come home early. But it is just very difficult to get the system and the culture and the people to change for the better. It still seems like too many members think “Judge your neighbor” is one of the Ten Commandments.
Lefthandloafer, that’s quite a letter. Hope it’s working for you.
Dave C., I think we’re on the same frequency. We just need to find a Dave A. to round out the team.
Really interesting post. A few thoughts. I think the decrease in age certainly has made conversion by missionaries worse. The statistics IMO are undeniable. There has been though, I’ve noticed, a shift in how people coming home early are viewed and even how not going on a mission is viewed. Perhaps not as big a shift as some would wish, but it seems there. Especially compared to how things were in the 90’s.
Your point that the Church doesn’t really value half measures is a good one. There’s a lot of pressure to fit into the either active (which includes temple worship, garment wearing, tithe paying, calling accepting actions) or inactive. I think there is a lot of effort in reactivation but you’re completely right that comes with a lot of baggage. Other faiths tend to have a lot more “half way” members. That’s just hard in Mormonism. It happens of course. But the pressures tend to push such members out I suspect.
What I think has been happening though is that most of those leaving religion and joining the Nones are those who in previous generations would have been “half members.” There’s not really good reason for it and I think the evidence is that those are those leaving most Protestantism for instance. (Although the categories are aggregates with people moving back and forth) The bigger difference is the young just making choices pushing themselves out of religion. That really started in earnest in the 90’s but more and more are like that with each successive decade.
Dave B, I confess I don’t see that shift in rhetoric. If anything I think there was much more of a siege mentality in the 70’s and 80’s. Then the rapid growth of the 70’s through mid 90’s changed that. (The rhetoric took a bit to catch up with facts on the ground) Now I suspect we’re in a somewhat slower growth pattern, but I just don’t see a return to a seige mentality with testing rather than growth emphasized. I should also note that I think this decrease, while tied to large societal trends, is also very much a product of changes we’ve made to the missionary program. Those could be reversed in future or new programs found. For instance with the drop in marriage and rise in single members, a move to allow single men and women in their 30’s to do missions would be quite interesting. Such missionaries, while having their own unique issues compared to 18-21 year old near youth, would also likely be much more effective missionaries. So I think we have to be cautious reading too much into the trends of the last 5 years.
As you note judgement can be tricky. This especially is the case with more overt signs such as clothes that smell of tobacco smoke, or in smaller geographic regions rumors about actions such as sex, alcohol or drugs. Often you end up with some members being judgmental and others being welcoming.
Clark, the age limit for women to serve proselytizing missions is 39 according to Handbook 1 (25 for men). I’ve yet to meet any sister missionaries who were in their 30s, but would love to hear from or about them.
There is an ambivalence built in to Mormonism about whether it should be an exclusive religion or a big-tent religion. In the past fifty years this ambivalence has become a practical problem, as opposed to a theoretical problem, and we haven’t come close to resolving it yet.
Being a millenarian faith, the church has always relied on beliefs about the Second Coming and the gathering of Israel. These beliefs emphasize spreading the gospel throughout the world, but they also depict the church as an elite refuge against end-of-days wickedness. For about its first 140 years, the church thrived only in relatively isolated, confined places where Mormons dominated the population and largely defined the culture. In those circumstances, we could preach the idea of taking the gospel throughout the world without having to worry about the actual challenges that would pose. Our urgent practical problem was how to make a Mormon-dominated community succeed.
(Interestingly, in places where Mormonism was dominant, it was easy for Mormons to tolerate various levels of commitment to the church. You could be a half-Mormon, or a jack Mormon, or an inactive Mormon because everyone understood that you were still a Mormon–you were still part of the community.)
During the past fifty years or so, the church has emerged from its isolation. On one hand, we have spread in large numbers to many parts of the world, and on the other hand, the old strongholds are no longer dominated so exclusively by Mormons. For people on the fringe it’s easier to separate from the church, and for people in the core it’s not so easy anymore to discern who is in the group. Now we have to face the contradiction: are we going to open the doors wide, or are we going to be an insular elite?
Increasingly, as Dave B. points out, it seems that we are preaching the rhetoric of open doors while we are emphasizing practices that make us an insular elite. I think what’s really happening is that we’re continuing to do what we’ve always done: preach and live the way we did when circumstances made us an insular people. It just hasn’t occurred to us yet that this doesn’t work very well in our new circumstances.
Interesting post. By the title, I was somewhat expecting some thoughts on the GC talks that address the idea from Nephi that actually the church might be small in number but across the whole earth. Elder Packer made this point (somewhere), and Elder Anderson has as well:
Anderson, April 2009
Nephi saw that those of the Church of the Lamb would not be many in number but would be in every land and nation (see 1 Nephi 14:12, 14).
It’s not the growth-o-mania talk of prior years.
As to the increased number (?) of sister missionaries, from crossing paths with many of them recently, it seems like there are a lot of good things happening with these young women and that their influence will be felt in years to come. It would be interesting to know how the gender numbers have changed recently among missionaries.
Loursat:
“For about its first 140 years, the church thrived only in relatively isolated, confined places where Mormons dominated the population and largely defined the culture………Interestingly, in places where Mormonism was dominant, it was easy for Mormons to tolerate various levels of commitment to the church. You could be a half-Mormon, or a jack Mormon, or an inactive Mormon because everyone understood that you were still a Mormon–you were still part of the community.)”
Interesting observation and relates to a recent podcast I heard about the development of religion in an evolutionary sense. The theory is that as the human population expanded beyond smaller, more insular communities something was needed to control/punish errant behavior–enter the idea of a “supernatural punisher” ie. God.
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/16/628792048/creating-god
I think a question that has remained in the back of my mind throughout this conversation is at what point do we cross the line from seeing the Church as overbearing and creating a dichotomy of members, to essentially diminishing the power and scope of the atonement?
On one hand, I know that a Church led by the Lord but made up of mortal men and women is bound to make some small mistakes now and then. I do think the Lord corrects these, but with mortal men and women this is bound to take time. On the other hand, I’ve seen converts make some huge cultural and lifestyle stages and embrace every Church doctrine, practice, and policy with a zeal that makes me question my own activity and access to the atonement. At some point I’ve got to ask what I’m missing.
I think finding and discerning that balance between collective mortal weakness and need for individual growth and sanctification is something I’ll struggle with my entire life. I know distinguishing between the two may be obvious to some, but I’ve found myself wrong on both sides a couple of times. I do grow slightly suspicious of those who think they have it figured out.
Eli – That’s an interesting question you bring up. I’m far from feeling I’ve got it figured out as well. My path of trying has led me in the direction of people seeing/experiencing life differently and God ‘parenting’ us each differently because of it. I suppose at the end of the day, I see growth and sanctification as being an individual process (although I’ve heard the arguments for the collective and can see the power, it just doesn’t work that way for me) where for some people the organizational church assists and with some it hinders. The hard thing is accepting that some people need the very thing that is the greatest obstacle for me personally.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Clark, it’s hard to generalize about the tone or direction of LDS discourse, even just in General Conference. My sense is that it has shifted. One hears more talk about how great missions are for missionaries and less talk about missionaries baptizing dozens of converts (does this happen anymore?). The publication of the Gospel Topics Essays and the frequent (and very recent!) talks and articles on faith crises and dealing with doubts likewise testify to institutional retrenchment.
Loursat, that is an interesting argument. On the one hand, growth outside the Mormon Corridor has brought the Church into more contact and interaction with “the World,” including participating in interfaith programs and projects. But somehow this hasn’t resulted in a broader or more open-minded LDS view of the World. Instead the leadership seems to be retreating into the time-tested “we are being persecuted” view by way of the religious freedom push. But this is a largely self-inflicted problem, given all the external backlash to Prop 8 and the internal backlash to the November Policy. It’s like the leadership learned absolutely nothing from how the Priesthood Ban destroyed the public image of the Church in the 60s and 70s.
Let me restate all this a little more clearly. Armand Mauss developed the assimilation versus retrenchment paradigm, but that was sort of an autonomous cyclical institutional dynamic. I’m suggesting the external and internal backlash to the leadership’s campaign against gay marriage (and everything else gay) has reinforced if not caused the current retrenchment moves. We dug our own hole, then jumped in. The religious freedom talk isn’t so much to complain that we don’t have religious freedom (because we obviously do) but to celebrate the antagonism the gay marriage campaign has sparked as some sort of sign validating LDS faith claims. It’s just a very convoluted line of thinking and action that is accomplishing almost nothing for the Church as a whole.
“The religious freedom talk isn’t so much to complain that we don’t have religious freedom (because we obviously do) but to celebrate the antagonism the gay marriage campaign has sparked as some sort of sign validating LDS faith claims. It’s just a very convoluted line of thinking and action that is accomplishing almost nothing for the Church as a whole.”
Bingo. This is insightful. I need to commit this line to memory to have on hand for future discussions.
Clark:
“Other faiths tend to have a lot more “half way” members. That’s just hard in Mormonism. It happens of course. But the pressures tend to push such members out I suspect.”
I heartily agree. We are a “one size fits all” church and can’t refrain from looking at people as projects to “fix” if they don’t fit the mold.
Why can’t we just get to know people and meet them where they are—give them room to be individuals? And, recognize that we also can learn from those who don’t fit the mold?
Dave B., I think my comment is not inconsistent with what you’re saying. I’m suggesting that we, as a church, have not fully recognized how our emergence from isolation changes what is possible (and not possible) for the church. The choice to wade into politics on the issues you mention comes from the same view of things that we developed when we were alone in our Rocky Mountain bastion and a few other strongholds. We have not yet examined that worldview to ask whether it will produce the kind of church we want–and the kind of church that God wants us to be–as we spread throughout the world.
DaveB The kind of members who are 100% on board with the anti Gay stuff, because it comes from the prophet/God, also see the freedom of religion must be under threat because the same people say so. I saw an interview with souther baptists who were convinced Trump had saveed christians from Obama who was trying to replace christianity with muslem law. Do right wing mormons live in that world too?
In Australia we had a vote on gay marriage last year, and it was observed that mormons were vocal in no camp. The extreme right is now recruiting mormons. We are associating the church with anti immigration, anti muslim, anti climate change, freedom of religion,anti common sense stuff.
Back the comparison of the church to the up-or-out culture at universities or professional service companies… I just don’t see the comparisons. It’s a bad one. Those social institutions with an up-or-out culture operate as meritocracies. Publish enough and you’ll gain tenure; really know your stuff or bring in new business, you’ll get promoted to partner. And those who fail to do so, are actively counseled-out. They’re not wanted on the payroll. In the church, by contrast, no one activity counsels anyone out (unless in the rare case you’ve horrifically violated club rules). In the church, if one does the near minimum, if one just shows up with a desire to be a part of the club, no one’s going to counsel you out. In fact, if one dares show a modicum of energy, they’ll quickly ruin it by promoting you to Bear den leader. 🙂
Now, if you mean that there’s pressure to conform to church standards and “do the right thing.” Yea, well, that’s different. That’s how social institutions work–including church ones. By definition, such groups (be it churches, corporations, schools, and even countries) exist as collections of people with a common purpose, set of assumptions, and culture. And past some threshold, if an individual communicates their dislike for enough of what defines that institution, it’s often not so much that they’re unwelcome in the clubhouse. (They can turn around and re-adopt the clubhouse rules at any time). It’s more like the existing members just start to wonder why such individuals still desire hanging out in the clubhouse doorway.
“no one activity counsels anyone out”
Well, my ward has a particularly loud member who about once a year stands at the pulpit, points his fingers to the back of the chapel and loudly proclaims that if you don’t sustain the brethern (in the way he does), there’s the door. It makes the rest of the ward members deeply uncomfortable, of course. It seems like less of this line of thinking is showing up in the bloggernacle in the last year or two, which is interesting though.
“And past some threshold, if an individual communicates their dislike for enough of what defines that institution, it’s often not so much that they’re unwelcome in the clubhouse”
Too often it is members of the institution-lay members and leadership-passing judgement on people who don’t adhere to a superficial schedule of when and how things are accomplished. Say, instead of attending BYU they choose a different—more liberal but higher ranked university. Or, they decide to marry a non-Mormon (who happens to possess many Christ-like qualities) and instead of making them feel welcome the local leaders try to break them up.
Is that what you would consider communicating “dislike for what defines the institution?” Or are you referring to people who pointedly, specifically and publically criticize the institution?
Maybe we should stop acting like the brother of the prodigal son and simply welcome people at all stages of life’s faith journey.