At work the other day, I was in a management meeting where we discussed the possibility of having exit interviews with everybody that left our place of employment. The idea was we could learn why they left, and then work on fixing the problems that caused them to leave.
During the meeting, I wondered if the LDS Church has “Exit Interviews” with formal feedback to Salt Lake. I know John Dehlin has a video where he explores why people leave the church. But I highly doubt that the church would use this.
The normal way the church wants somebody to formally leave the church is to meet with their Bishop. This meeting is not to find out why they are leaving, but to try to talk them out of it, and to make sure they know the consequences of having their name removed. They also probably talk about why the person is leaving, but there is no form the bishop fills out to pass that information back to Salt Lake.
While some people would not want to talk to somebody about why they no longer beleive, I think that there would be many that would do a phone interview from somebody from Salt Lake. For example, with the letter they receive telling them that they are no longer members, there could be a 1-800 number the person could call to leave the reasons they are leaving.
It seems that if the church truly wanted to know why people are leaving, they would make a concerted effort to get to the bottom of the reasons. I know they do surveys of members, and that these lead to changes, but I’ve never heard of exit interviews.
Does anybody know of a formal program in the church to compile the reasons for leaving, or is John Dehlin the only one to do this? What ways can you think of conducting the interview (besides the 1-800 number) that would get people to open up?
Wheat & Tares 
If only we had a free platform where members and former members could post their gripes publicly and anonymously, with some light moderation to safeguard against the kind of recrimination and shaming that comes with being too honest in a Mormon context.
“The idea was we could learn why they left, and then work on fixing the problems that caused them to leave.”
I don’t think that is a primary concern of the leadership steeped in the doctrine that “strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
In a BYU church history course I learned that about half of the people who are named in the Doctrine and Covenants left the church. The church has a long history of people leaving – to the point it is just part of the culture. In the October 1984 General Conference, Bruce R., McConkie said:
“The Church is like a great caravan—organized, prepared, following an appointed course, with its captains of tens and captains of hundreds all in place.
What does it matter if a few barking dogs snap at the heels of the weary travelers? Or that predators claim those few who fall by the way? The caravan moves on”
1984 was a time of remarkable church growth, so perhaps one could arrogantly proclaim good riddance then. What makes McConkie’s quote still relevant is Elder Bednar repeated it just last year in a talk in Houston Texas. It acknowledges people leaving, but it doesn’t reveal any desire to change.
But the church does change when faced with existential threats. Two past threats were polygamy and the priesthood ban. The US opposition to polygamy and the power to back up its laws by taking church assets and jailing church leaders was a crisis. A continued priesthood ban would make growth of a world – wide church extremely difficult.
There are two growing threats that may profoundly effect the health of the church’s future existence and compel the church to future change: it’s treatment of women and LGBQ concerns. The church already knows about these problems. What exit surveys may do in these cases, however, would gauge how deep or profound the problems may be. Greg Prince recently remarked on a Radio West Podcast promoting his book “Gay Rights and the Mormon Church: Intended Actions, Unintended Consequences” that a significant factor for the Church in taking the unprecedented step to quickly overturn a “revelation” ( the POX) was the significant flow of members heading towards the exits that resulted from said revelation.
I can tell you are also a manager. This just makes so much sense. I do think they get some feedback as to why people are leaving. The essays are example #1. Of course one could argue if this in the end was the trigger for more people leaving, but it was more for an investment in inoculation of future generations (and a bit of, “We were not hiding this” victim blaming for the future)..
I like what I heard from a city mayor. His motto was, “In God I trust, all others bring me data.”
I think the interviews would have to be carried out by a trusted third party. Otherwise, I expect the sample would be heavily biased by people finally feeling like they can unload on an organization they feel utterly betrayed by. It seems that the members who resign are those who want to make a statement, and those for whom every form of Mormon identity has become a source of pain.
There might be unintended consequences. I would resign tomorrow if I knew it would get me a phone call with someone who would pass my feedback to church leaders.
FWIW, the faith crisis narratives on this page are probably the closest thing we have to exit interviews:
https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/2013-faith-crisis-study/
Maybe not as systematic or scientific as you’d like, but this map of “Why I Left” has over 9,000 responses: https://whyileft.herokuapp.com/
The Church doesn’t have the slightest interest in hearing accurate exit stories, which is why there is nothing in place to hear them or transmit them to leadership. It is so much more useful to simply depict any exit as the result of laziness, the desire to sin, or being fooled or duped by Satan. Instructively, these three categories reflect the suppressed anxieties of many active Mormons: they feel burned out, they are tempted by sin, and they constantly fear they are being fooled by Satan. That’s what gives standard depictions of the reasons for exits such credibility in mainstream Mormon eyes. True reasons for exit are uniformly unwelcome to Mormon ears.
I think they do know. They have even been briefed on all the reasons and approximate percentages. They have volunteers who follow the Mormon blogs and discussions both to figure out identities of apostates, and the reasons people are unhappy. It wasn’t a coincident that as the feminist blogs started talking about how women never pray in general conference, then started organizing to agitate for women to be allowed, oh shock, the church said she had been asked long before the agitation started and it had nothing to do with the women agitating, because it actually had something to do with the fact that the general authorities got a briefing on what the feminist blogs were discussing. It wasn’t a coincident that the temple changes that we are not supposed to talk about were the exact problems that the feminist blogs discuss as making women’s temple experience something painful as if God doesn’t love his daughters. It wasn’t coincident that the POX was rolled back.
Somebody is reading this blog and checking a box. Probably a box marked “members feel like they cannot get feedback to the top church leaders.”
Hi! Church office building.
From paragraph 4 of the OP:
While some people would not want to talk to somebody about why they no longer beleive, I think that there would be many that would do a phone interview from somebody from Salt Lake.
I suspect that not all who leave no longer believe.
John Dehlin shared his research with the brethren while he was still a member. I interviewed Jana Riess a few days ago to discuss her research of ex-Mormons and she found some differences with John’s findings. I will publish her comments in about a month (after i finish my Mel Johnson and Greg Prince interviews.) Jana had some interesting comments. John’s sample was not randomized, while Jana’s was.
The Right Trousers said
“I think the interviews would have to be carried out by a trusted third party. Otherwise, I expect the sample would be heavily biased by people finally feeling like they can unload on an organization they feel utterly betrayed by.”
I brought up this exact same thing at our management meeting. I suggested somebody in our company, but not in the same division. Maybe an HR person from a different division.
The church could hire an outside firm to conduct the interviews and compile the data, somebody that would have no vested interest in the results.
Pres Nelson met Jacinda Adhern a couple of weeks ago. She left because of LGBT, and womens treatment. He praised her leadership. He got to meet someone who left for those reasons.
Otherwise Jana Riess is a reliable sourse.
I recently left a job and was offered an exit interview in person or online. I took an exit questionnaire and refused to answer most questions. I had very specific reasons for leaving, specifically bad management practices and some other personal conflicts. But I didn’t utter a word about them because my comments would have produced no change whatsoever. The higher level supervisor I had problems with unexpectedly left several weeks after I did, and the immediate supervisor continues to work in her role. Neither persons behavior or interaction with policy would have changed if I’d said anything. No karma bombs would have detonated. It wouldn’t have made my new job any different, or put more money in my pocket.
I expect most people would feel similar about a church exit interview.
People leave when no one cares about them.
p.s. It isn’t that they don’t believe. It’s that they aren’t missed when they’re not there.
You go onto the ex-Mormon forums and the resounding reasons for leaving are social issues (treatment of LGBTQ, women, and others) and historical issues (CES Letter, etc.). But the problem is that if leaders acknowledge that those are the issues that people are leaving, they indirectly validate those reasons and also call attention to those issues. Leaders have no reason to acknowledge that those are the reasons why people leave. Instead they will continue to push this narrative that people leave because they got offended, lost the spirit, had a bee in their bonnet, etc. They will continue to paint those who fall away as shallow and unintelligent.
I wonder who the leaders are that “push this narrative that people leave because they got offended, lost the spirit, [etc. or who] paint those who fall away as shallow and unintelligent.” That was not the tone or content of President Uchtdorf’s October 2013 general conference talk. Though he acknowledged that “[s]ometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful,” he made it clear that that was wrong. If I knew who such leaders were, I might be tempted to paint them as shallow and unintelligent, but it might be more useful to point to President Uchtdorf’s talk (even despite the difficulties with the pithy “doubt your doubts” comment).
And you don’t think, JR, that the fact that the one member of the First Presidency who ever reflected or represented the issues of membership has been rather publicly marginalized is of enormous significance?
As to the question of exit interviews, I believe the fact is that people don’t leave primarily because of belief or lack thereof or because of social difficulty with other members but because of administrative and structural matters. The lack of financial transparency and failures of charitable outreach. The authoritarian, insulated, patriarchal and out of touch leadership. The ambiguity of the responsibilities shared by the First Presidency and other parts of the COB. The sexism and homophobia that are baked in, callous and stubbornly resistant to self-inspection. The choice to protect the reputation of the church before vulnerable members as reflected in the widespread failures to report sexual abuse.
If leadership has chosen to persist in all of this then what is their interest in hearing about it from disaffected members? They’ve already disclosed their attitude about upward bound communication when they issued their dicta that members could write to their bishops and they could appeal to SPs but that was the limit of their recourse. Is there any reason to suspect that they’re willing to be more responsive now?
Often the underlying message in our church is that we are better than everyone else and if one isn’t feeling the “spirit” Or doesn’t agree with church “policies” there is something wrong with you. The “path/rod” is narrowly defined: mission, BYU etc. Sometimes we more resemble the Pharisees.
I don’t think people are shallow when they stop coming to church because they are offended. If the church culture is hostile to people with differences, shame on us.
When was the last time you heard a talk on being kind? Or not judging others?
Alice, it is at least questionable whether Uchtdorf has been “publicly marginalized”. There are significant probable reasons for the constitution of the current FP other than “marginalizing” him. I’m also not convinced he’s “the one member” of the FP who raised such issues, though I know of none others doing it so clearly and publicly in general conference. Your second paragraph proposes a rejection of belief/lack of belief and social difficulty as reasons for leaving. The fact is some people do leave for exactly those reasons. That is not to say that others don’t leave for the reasons you quite accurately identify. I wonder sometimes why so many are so anxious to generalize their experience to all others — and what their motivations are or are not.
I think both John W and JR make good points. It’s a mistake to generalize about everyone’s experiences. I also take John W’s point about the church not acknowledging certain things because to do so would put the church itself in a precarious position. I think leadership does care both about the people who are leaving and why they are leaving; I just think they care more about maintaining the status quo.
A few thoughts. First, exit interviews are not exactly reliable either. All this stuff is subjective, even the work done by researchers like John and Jana presupposes that people themselves understand their own beliefs and motives. Belief is largely a mystery–why we believe a thing and why we stop believing a thing. It’s very hard for someone to accurately portray what would have made a difference to them. Also, people do leave for a wide variety of reasons, but those asking the questions usually focus on a limited range of reasons (that they try to get right). What you ask is what you get.
That doesn’t mean that I think it’s a fruitless exercise. Exit interviews often reveal bad actors in an organization, and that alone is useful. They also reveal harmful policies and weak narratives and various hidden abuses. People leaving have no need to hide their feelings (although in person exit interviews may curb some of the honesty). All of those things are good information to have, even though knowing them may not stem the tide.
Ultimately, though, the church does have a lot of this information already if they want it.
Did I generalize? It’s hard not to without gathering a whole lot of data and I wonder who here has done that. Rather I think we’ve all made sincere assessments from our personal experiences and observations. What I had to say does, indeed, reflect my personal feelings but a lot of reading and surveying what a broad spectrum of the Mormon online community has to say as well.
If we disagree, we disagree. If I generalized I’m not so sure I did any more than anyone else. Perhaps I’m wrong. Others will have to decide.
JR, Elder Uchtdorf’s 2013 Conference talk is a rare exception where a leader has validated doubt (of course, then, he proceeded to tell people to “doubt their doubts”). Consider a January 2019 youth devotional in which Elder Renlund showed a cartoon of a fisherman saving a man whose boat had capsized. The latter, once saved, proceeds to complain about the quality of the food and water he is given and shows no appreciation for the act of the fisherman. The talk clearly portrays inactives as these unappreciative fools. Also consider how frequently leaders mention Thomas B. Marsh and the milk strippings story in talks and articles. They love that story, because it lampoons Marsh as this shallow, faithless, easily offended man who typifies the inactives of today. The Uchtdorf talk was a rarity. And I imagine it was because of such words that showed sympathy to defectors that Russell Nelson eventually demoted him from the First Presidency, thus lessening his voice in conference and church publications.
John W, Yes, I expect I simply sidelined Elder Renlund’s devotional talk (which I heard of, but did not hear) as patent nonsense and then forgot about it. Perhaps he’s one of those I failed to identify.
I have heard other reasons for the repeated use of the Marsh milk strippings story (which has seemed to be decreasing in frequency as it becomes more commonly known that it is at best a caricature of Marsh and the events around his departure). The most common reason in my limited experience is not to lampoon Marsh as shallow and easily offended,typifying today’s inactives, but as a warning not to let little things of a personal nature get in the way of more important things. I expect from your comment and others’ that your experience with uses of that story is different. Lousy, false story anyway — at least by significant, material incompleteness. I hope it disappears someday along with other things that have disappeared from general Mormon consciousness of its own history.
I imagine that whatever sympathy Uchtdorf showed defectors was at most a small part of the reason for the “demotion”. I think it was driven by the decision to include Oaks, the next likely president of the Church. That decision compelled a choice between Eyring and Uchtdorf if any were to be retained for the sake of continuity. That choice have gone either way, but I think Eyring has a longer history in the upper echelons of the Church and perhaps more institutional memory.
Thanks for pointing out what I missed or forgot about Renlund. I’m sure he’s not unique.