There was recently a long analysis of various statistics on those who have seperated from membership with the LDS Church. Rather than rehash much of it, I’m going to note three interesting things that surfaced.
- Conservatives were more likely to leave than liberals.
- Outside of Utah, Professionals were less likely to leave than other groups.
- A co-factor for most who left was some degree of social isolation.
The first factor was surprising. I constantly read in the bloggernacle about liberals leaving. It just turns out that liberals are more likely to blog about the process. As a corollary, on social media liberals also seem more likely to suggest that conservatives should be booted out the door and that conservatives want liberals booted out the door.
Many conservatives remain conservatives when leaving, others become moderates.
Many conservatives who leave feel or felt isolated when part of the Church. Many liberals feel isolated when part of the Church. Isolation seems to be a universal feeling regardless of political outlook.
As to who leaves, and that it doesn’t change on geography, I’ve noted that outside of Utah I’ve observed a number of professionals who left the Church and whose careers have taken off and a number of professionals who did not and who have had negative inputs on their careers as a result. That doesn’t seem to impact who leaves, regardless of the incentives.
Finally, the lack or a loss of “the fellowship of the saints” (as it used to be called), the fraying or disintegration of the social network connections that richly affect and enrich the lives of the upper church leaders but not others in the Church, seems very significant.
The existence or not of those connections is very important in how people deal with a number of things. I refer to the lack of belonging or being a party of the fellowship of the saints as a co-factor, but the constantly reduced society of the gospel appears to be having a significant impact on retention. Every road show cancelled, every shortened meeting schedule, reduces the social interaction and cohesiveness of the gospel.
The social, the community, appears to be important, not only as to the Church as it is recorded in the New Testament, but for us today.
(On the general topic, two good links from LDS.org on that topic are here [note D&C 88:133] and here [” Limiting or withholding our fellowship seems to me to be contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.”])
It seems that the third factor really comes down to the existence or lack of fellowship and friendship — one of the three meanings of priesthood that John Taylor emphasized. To quote a more modern speaker about how that speaker learned about the core of the gospel:
It seems that if we are missing friendship, fellowship, and communion with each other, we are missing a vital factor. A factor that should draw us together whether we are liberals or conservatives, regardless of our professional or educational attainments.
And a factor that reflects if we are following Christ in our love and our walk or not.
What do you think?
Wheat & Tares 
Side note: your graphs are so tiny that even when I enlarge my screen I can’t see them.
Do you have a link to the original research? Super interesting and unexpected work.
ReTex. I’ve fixed the graphics. Thanks for the heads up.
Here is a link to the essay that has been going around:
Click to access 58-1-cranneywhoisleavingsecured%20leaving%20the%20church.pdf
I am one of those who has left (though as I still attend on average about once a month I’m probably still considered active). As a Mormon, I was a fairly conservative professional outside of UT. I’ve definitely become more liberal as I’ve left. I don’t know how much of that is due to leaving my religion and how much results from the current corrupt state of conservatism in America generally.
Regarding the correlation between sociality and activity, two notes:
1.) Since leaving Mormonism, I have attended many other local denominations. Almost every one has some sort of linger longer every week after their main congregational service. Mormons have linger longers only once in a blue moon. They should change that
2.) I’d be down with the Church bringing back road shows, even if they are just a once every four year extravaganza
Trivia pursuit: The upper right graph is the trajectory of a ball (or pretty much anything else) thrown up and out, a parabola and the distance between markers represents the instantaneous velocity along its path.
Another side note: Now the graphs are large, but there’s no legend so Michael 2 is right. It’s just orange dots on a context-less line. 🙂
Interesting post, Stephen. I certainly agree with those who would preach the universal value of fellowship and its potential to be a source of inspiration and nourishment for individuals. But here I run into the same old dilemma that will make me sound like an anti-Mormon the longer I keep typing. I will not seek full fellowship from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because the institution–at the highest levels–insists on far too much intellectual loyalty to doctrines/theology that I simply do not believe to be literally true, let alone enlightened. I run into the same problem with Roman Catholicism, even though I truly enjoy the contemplative experience of the Mass. These organizations require a declaration of belief in ancient/modern supernatural events which, in addition to sounding far-fetched, are steeped in old-school patriarchy with its attendant sexism and racism. Yes these organizations have come along way, but they still expect a buy-in to belief systems I just cannot get on board with.
Not too long ago my parents, who are devout members of the restored Church, were in town the same weekend the local ward was putting on a talent show. It was a no-brainer. I suggested we attend the ward activity even though I am inactive. We had a wonderful time. But it would have taken very little preaching about the Church’s truth claims for me to instantly start feeling out of place, uncomfortable, and eager to leave. I’d say everyone with sincere beliefs is in a tough place with this topic.
I read the study that was referenced. I had come across it before, but with the paywall, so first time reading it all the way through. I would be curious to know more about the methodology of the Pew study. Did it ask if people previously identified as Mormon, or if they currently identified as Mormon? Because many ex-Mormons simply do not identify as Mormon at all. The Pew Study found that 191 with LDS background had left vs. 379 who stayed. That would suggest a 66% activity rate, which I find highly dubious. If you look at censuses around the world that measure religious identity, self-identifying Mormons tend to be about 20-25% of the reported LDS church numbers of baptized members. This percentage if probably higher in the US, but I find it hard to believe that 66% of the church’s reported statistics on membership in the US would actually identify as Mormon in a larger US census.
The findings were that ex-Mormons tended to have fewer children, were divorced, cohabitating, poorer, less educated, and (what I found most interesting) racial minorities. I wonder if this might be due to the fact that converts to the LDS church in the US tend to fit these criteria and are likely not to stay in the church as long? I went to Brazil on my mission and found that poor young folks convert relatively easily and leave quickly. I wonder if there is a similar phenomenon in the US, particularly among Hispanics, that would explain Cranney’s findings. Also, younger folks, who are poorer and less educated, tend to be in an easier position to leave the LDS Church, not having as many social constraints, and appear to be leaving faster than older folks.
I note this, because there is a larger correlation between education, wealth, and irreligiosity not only in the US, but on a world scale, and I am skeptical that the Mormon church is not affected by this larger trend. Plus, I have been hearing from apologist communities over the past few years a sort of gloat about how the more wealthy and educated one is, the more likely they are to be active in the Mormon church, which is often said as a sort of backhanded way of dismissing ex-Mormons as idiots, and idiots who are poor at that. So I remain skeptical of Cranney’s reading of the statistics.
On politics, it could be that ex-Mormons tend conservative, because, well, Mormons are extremely conservative. And shifts in politics don’t appear to correspond too much (albeit stances on gay rights and a few other social issues do tend to change significantly) with shifts in religious points of view.
The graph at the top is Anscombe’s Quartet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anscombe%27s_quartet
“All four sets are identical when examined using simple summary statistics, but vary considerably when graphed”
If there’s a purpose for it, is that statistics isn’t always (or even very often) useful.
Another thought. I think that when we in the Mormon blogosphere (active and ex-Mormon alike) think of the Mormon community, we tend mostly to envision a more limited Mormon world consisting mostly of white people born and raised in the LDS church who are mostly from the Mormon belt or at least have social ties to it. In reality, the Mormon community consists of a good number of converts from all sorts of different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. The Mormon church has long been a convert-heavy church. This makes it different from Judaism, Catholicism and Islam, which, although they too have converts, are hugely composed of people who identify culturally and traditionally with those religions even if they don’t practice them. By contrast Mormons who stop practicing tend to stop identifying as Mormon. This phenomenon has to have had some effect on the Pew results that make the Mormon church appear to be what I think is quite different from the Mormon world that the bloggernacle’s more limited conceptualization of the Mormon community.
What I would be curious to see is a poll that looks only at Mormons and ex-Mormons who are white and born and raised in the Mormon church. I think the findings would be quite different.
John says “a poll that looks only at Mormons and ex-Mormons who are white and born and raised in the Mormon church. I think the findings would be quite different.”
No doubt. I look forward to polling beige colored convert Mormons.
Jake Christensen—my thoughts exactly.
Jake. Your critique dates to before Socrates so it is venerable.
Michael2–you are right.
The graph illustrates the weakness of statistics.
The study and the analysis of it both have a fair number of critics as to the crunchy bits. Which made the illustration even more appropriate.
John W: “I have been hearing from apologist communities over the past few years a sort of gloat about how the more wealthy and educated one is, the more likely they are to be active in the Mormon church, which is often said as a sort of backhanded way of dismissing ex-Mormons as idiots, and idiots who are poor at that.” Yes, I’ve been hearing that slur as well. It’s frustrating, too, because in my mission experience, there was a sense that joining the church would better one’s station in life (as Hinckley or was it Kimball said “We don’t take them out of the slums; we give them the gospel, and they take themselves out of the slums.”) So if we then turn around and say only the rich white ones are staying, clearly we aren’t really accomplishing that end goal (even though I believe the church to be sincere in its wishes to help the poor help themselves). When our local wards are more like highly networked country clubs of rich white folks congratulating themselves on their prosperity (or so it can seem to one who is struggling), that’s not really a recipe for helping the poor, particularly when we then say the poor are to blame for their departure, not the fact that they were never welcomed.
Got it on the graph.
The linked article says that the survey group was sorted for people who were born/raised LDS. Recent converts aren’t included in the 66. It also states that the survey was weighted to match US demographics though, which is problematic.
A couple of other things… The survey didn’t ask when the person left the church, so someone who left 40 years ago is equally weighted with someone who left last year. That skews how useful the survey is for today’s issues.
Even more, the essay doesn’t say how the survey defines ‘having left’ the church. If it was a simple question: “Are you still a member of the LDS church?” Then quite a few people who haven’t been to church in years would still say Yes, because they do identify Mormon and/or never had their records removed. If it was more of a ‘Have you attended LDS church services in the last 24 months’ then we get a more accurate number of people who have left.
I also wonder how this all corresponds to Jana Reiss’s work.
Fun stuff. Thanks for sharing!
I’ve thought about why studies like this one from Pew or from Jana Riess seem to differ so much from my lived experience. One conclusion I have to that question is that my experience is largely limited to those I interact with on-line. These studies sample across a much larger swarth of mormonism, whereas those who actively participate on-line represent a much more limited group.
My on-line interactions would lead me to conclude that those who undergo a faith transition are thoughtful and well educated. People who have gone from completely orthodox believers to something different, whatever that different ends up being, are those who engage in on-line communities.
There are many who simply leave religion, either out of disinterest, never having really believed to begin with, or just slip away for a myriad of reasons. Many of these individuals probably are not active in niche on-line communities like this one, but probably better represent the wide of variety of individuals who leave mormonism.
If it true that the wealthy and educated tend to remain active more then it would seem to be true that the church would attract the wealthy and educated as converts. But I just don’t see that. Converts tend to be poorer and less educated, and have a hard time integrating into the larger LDS community.
My theory of why some studies might yield results of Mormons being wealth and educated. Mormonism is a unique phenomenon where you had poorer less educated communities in the Mormon belt 1930s-1970s clamoring to educate their children, of which there were many, and building their wealth with the rapid post-WWII economic growth of the US. In Utah, earlier landowners enriched themselves as well and passed this onto their children. Their children built networks of Mormon communities throughout the US. Mormons tended to marry young, have lots of kids starting at an early age, and rely heavily on these Mormon networks for employment and social support. Hence the white, born-in-church Mormons are probably disproportionately active and rooted in Mormonism and Mormon culture, thus giving Mormonism a distinct and unique socioeconomic situation in the US that we continue to see in part to today.
This is fading. I strongly believe just based on my personal experiences and interactions that what are beginning to see today is what has been affecting Catholic, Jewish, and mainstream Protestant communities for decades. The more educated, wealthy, and politically liberal (college graduates tend more liberal than conservative increasingly since the mid-1990s according to recent Pew research) a white, born-in-church Mormon is, the more likely they are to leave. Although, I just don’t have the polling data, nor the infrastructure or know-how, to back it up. But then again, no poll has yet surveyed just this group of Mormons. I just can’t imagine that political liberalism (with its strong advocacy of gay and women’s rights) is not giving Mormons who become liberal or liberal-leaning a reason not to feel welcome at church. Furthermore, I just can’t imagine how Mormons who seek higher education, thus learning more about evolution, history, and biology, would not experience friction with traditional Mormon teachings. I predict that the next generation of wealthy, educated Mormons are going to tend more politically liberal and will leave Mormonism at faster rates than their less educated and poorer coreligionists.
DoubtingTom observes: “My on-line interactions would lead me to conclude that those who undergo a faith transition are thoughtful and well educated.”
You rightly observe the possibility that it is the thoughtful and well-educated that are online for any reason.
“People who have gone from completely orthodox believers to something different, whatever that different ends up being, are those who engage in on-line communities.”
Imagine a destination that’s desirable, and a road to get there, presumably only one road to it. Many other destinations exist, each with a road, possibly many roads to some of those destinations. Now if I decide that the best map (church) I have is unreliable then the destination might not exist, the road might not go there, and the other maps and their roads are no better. Toss the lot into the bin.
I think that Ms Reiss’s book will have much better and granular data—at least I hope so.
Otherwise I agree this data set has real limitations. As a result there are a lot of things I did not feel comfortable citing.
I am a more progressive member who is active, I get support and sharing from the progressive blogs I read(like this). The only conservative blog I watch is millenial star, to see what conservative members are thinking. There would be no support there for a doubting conservative. Are there conservative blogs that help questioning conservatives?
Could this be why conservatives feel so isolated and leave?
What do I think? I think everyone needs to realize that the online world of social media and blogs they interact with is not the reality they think it is. It is not representative of the world or the world-wide church in any way. It is merely a myopic representation of a niche reality they’ve chosen to interact with. We all have the potential to use the internet to expand our understanding and worldview but more often than not, we find our way into our own comfortable corners and cracks of the web and interact with other like minded individuals and thus convince ourselves that our own views must represent a much much larger percentage of the population than they actually do.
DB, yes you’re right. But was a fuller reality more correctly captured before the internet? I don’t think it was. People still lived in their own bubbles, and understanding the larger word of Mormonism usually required a leadership position to take people different places to meet different people, or maybe an academic position in which people had the time and means to meet different people and study different Mormon worlds. The internet, while still limiting, in its defense has opened up aspects of Mormonism that we never heard about before. It has, for one, enabled people to engage deeply in many discussions that they didn’t used to have and that social norms in the chapel wouldn’t permit.
I think there are two types of leaving the church. This is going to be overly simplistic and hard to demonstrate, but I really think there’s something valid to it.
One type leaves due to boredom, not feeling accepted, not wanting to live the lifestyle, feeling judged, church isn’t doing much for them, socially feel outcast, etc. Thirty years ago, when someone left the church or went inactive, this was the main reason by far. I would guess this group leaves more quietly and this group is most likely less educated and less professional as a whole.
There is another type that leaves due to intellectual faith crisis type issues or political type issues like LGBT, female equality. This is a newer phenomenon, at least in terms of scale. This is the category we usually think of that is leaving the church today and fills the Exmormon forums and online activity. This group is probably more educated and professional as a whole. And probably more liberal on average. I don’t think this group is surpassing the first group yet in terms of numbers, but it’s the most noticeable because it’s new and growing and totally throwing things off balance for the church.
I agree with churchistrue. While overall numbers might still indicate conservatives are more likely to leave the church, I’d be interested in seeing the trend. It seems other studies indicate that more and more people are leaving over liberal reasons, such as gender, race, sexuality, church history and so forth, even if they are still in the minority. The Church has undergone a lot of major changes recently, such as more equality for women and removing the baptism ban for LGBT children. It will be interesting to see how that affects the demographics. Will more conservatives be upset at the changes and leave, or will it not be enough and more liberals leave? I personally think the only thing that matters is to seek God’s will and do what He would have us do. Reading the New Testament this year, I have a hard time seeing Jesus as anything but a liberal.
The deteriorization of LDS social fabric has come through cancelling the following:
-road shows
-dinner/discussion parties
-cooking in ward kitchens (and to a large degree- communal eating)
-RS enrichment activities
-Primary activities
-pageants
-ward/Stake sports, music, theater
-Sunday meetings
-many weeknight activities
-scouts
-community craftsmanship (temple/tabernacle building)
-RS welfare activities (everything goes through the main church/humanitarian channels)
-member/ward -run church farms
-stake and ward schools (from the pioneer era)
-anything that isn’t “on message”
Many of our GAs are intense introverts (Eyring!), which many people don’t realize because they give personable talks. Keep in mind that our leaders are people who spend hours a day in personal scripture study, prayer, and personal disciplines (exercise mainly). Brother Joseph was an extrovert and we’ve had precious few leaders over time with tha attribute. Our introvert leaders are further challenged in communicating with the rank and file as they are from the upper class not the middle or poverty classes.(seriously, how many academics or lawyers do we have that essentially talk over the people with theory? And the corporate formalities of the church further alienate the poor and restrict community action.)
President Monson gave a conference talk about a woman who served a struggling sister by baking a loaf of bread (a three hour long activity) to deliver it (for two minutes). Wouldn’t a lonely homesick person have benefitted more by making a friend? Baking bread together? It’s an introvert’s story and idea of service- not of oneself, but of ones’ secondary effects. An introvert would have enjoyed time alone- doing something they liked- such as baking or crafting a card, or growing flowers in a garden, rather than spending an afternoon with someone. Is that really service to another or convenience for ones’ self?
– our YW leaders developed a curriculum (personal progress) that was completely based on inward “personal” reflection (not community service, sisterhood, etc.) but developing the self. (There are a few service activities, but the focus of the program is introspection.) I repeat. A complete curriculum by and for introverts.
-Our RS leaders later copied the program developing “personal” home and family enrichment. Notice the absence of the word “community” or “ward” or “neighbor” or “charity”. (Evidently, it does “faileth”.)
-The rationale for cancelling LDS meetings was to direct members to spend more time with family, acknowledging the busy lives everyone leads. So soccer, marathon training (a popular, but time consuming hobby in the church), school, extra-curricular activities, are more important than our socialization.
– is it any wonder our social fabric is suffering?
For those who want to dig deeper in Jana Riess’ book, I will be posting her interview, along with Co-author Ben Knoll in about 2 weeks. They have a lot to say concerning Ex-Mormons and why people leave. They have the largest representative sample of Mormons and ex-Mormons ever. The largest reason teens leave is simply lack of interest.
John W: “I have been hearing from apologist communities over the past few years a sort of gloat about how the more wealthy and educated one is, the more likely they are to be active in the Mormon church, which is often said as a sort of backhanded way of dismissing ex-Mormons as idiots, and idiots who are poor at that.” Having been in the apologetic community for decades, that was a response, supported by research, to the insult that smart people left, a not so backhanded way of dismissing active members as stupid. Bad behavior rarely exists in a vacuum. The world would be a better place if we could all seek to understand rather than accuse.
On the arguments that the church should bring back roadshows and all the activities it once had in the past. We should consider some reasons why they were taken away.
1) Heavy time commitment. With that came the expectation that people commit their vacation time, free time, family time, and about 20 hours a week, plus extra money and resources to church activities. These activities were fun for kids, but incredibly stressful for the planners. And if you weren’t giving a lot of time toward your calling, well, something was wrong with you.
2) Overcompetitiveness often killed whatever feelings of camaraderie were brought about by the events. People compared themselves to others over everything. Be it cooking, sports skills, singing, etc. I remember the days of churchball. I used to play and I remember that 95% of it was great fun, but then 5% of it was bad. But that 5% could really kill feelings of togetherness. To this day after over a decade I still remember the individuals on the court who rubbed me wrong. I hold no ill-will to them, but I remember them and what happened to cause me to feel that way. Too much togetherness can have unintended negative consequences.
On reasons why people are leaving:
Yes, it is complex, and no not everyone leaves because of the internet. But I keep hearing arguments that desperately try not to attribute leaving the church to history/doctrinal issues. Just browse the testimonials on the ex-Mormon subreddit page. Nearly every last one attributes their decision to leave to discovering some crazy thing about Joseph Smith or what have you. The impact of the internet in making seemingly damning information about the church more accessible and available can’t be overstated. It really is a thing. I would go as far as saying that among white, born-in-church Mormons with deep Mormon roots, history/doctrinal issues are leading causes of inactivity.
JNR, your comment doesn’t make too much sense. Please elaborate.
1) Smart people are leaving, and at rather rapid paces. Just look at the younger generation of smart folks throughout the US. The more educated someone is, the more likely they are to support gay rights and the more likely they are to be non-religious. Plus, they are more likely to earn more income over their lifetimes. I strongly doubt that Mormonism is a magical exception to the trend. I will say, however, that a generation ago, you had a groundswell of smart active Mormons who married young, and began having kids young, who went on to get PhDs in subjects to defend the church. They then got employment at BYU, a university on which they strongly relied (as getting academic employment after finishing a PhD is extremely difficult), where they were surrounded by an apologist culture and felt strong pressure to write in defense of the LDS church. To leave the LDS church for these people, let alone to write anything that could be construed as critical of LDS leaders, would be to their massive detriment in terms of their careers and even their families. With the rise of the internet and social media, this phenomenon will not be repeated. There will be no new generation of apologists (the younger ones such as Neal Rappleye and Stephen Smoot are merely regurgitating what the older generation found, and their writings, unlike Nibley’s of the past, have extremely little impact on the mood of collective discourse). It is a dying phenomenon.
2) How could you possibly infer from my comment that I meant that apologists were insulting active members??? I did write ex-Mormons.
John W,
Well, your have a point- church sports (especially basketball) got to be ridiculous. On the other hand, co-ed church softball and volleyball always seemed like civil city-league ball our neck of the woods. Pity, I know Brother Joseph had stick ball (early baseball) games, wrestling and foot races. It kinda says something about us if we can’t prticipate in festive sportsmanship, doesn’t it? (Not blaming you, I’ve both seen and witnessed the ward blood ball stories too.)
We left behind something core to our culture when we ceased creating music, fine arts/crafts, and theater together. It’s not something that can be corporately outsourced to the Mormon Tab Choir or to the Y, it needs to be part of every ward- every branch, every quorum. This is our (not their, but our) expression of faith, worship, and fellowship. Art is the heartbeat of a culture, of a community, and it was ripped out- still beating.
I mourn the loss of time with the saints. The fact of the matter is that people still engage in hobbies, arts, sports, service, outdoorsman ship, etc., they are just saying that they don’t want or feel a need to do it with the saints. If the message of church is- “we’re here to serve you- everything is about you and your “personal” growth” then sure- people are going to cherry pick where THEY go to get what THEY want to get out of it. If the message returns to “we’re here to end world sufferingand welcome back the savior through charity and love” well, then all the sudden we have a purpose and something bigger than improving one’s backhand in tennis, to do together and to make our association with one another meaningful.
I no longer need to be in a quilting bee to bitch and stitch, figure out which young woman just became a plural wife, or make a quilt to keep someone alive during a winter. I no longer need to help my neighbor pull their conastoga wagon out of the mud. I evidently don’t need to do anything to help the church’s welfare program except write regular checks (everything else is handled by LDS Inc. ). We don’t seem to want to and are incapable of working with one another, and I don’t see how we’re getting any closer to ushering in the millennium this way.
“If the message of church is ‘we’re here to serve you, everything is about you and your ‘personal’ growth’ then sure- people are going to cherry pick where THEY go to get what THEY want to get out of it”
I hear this argument a lot. Clearly people have to derive some personal benefit out of the church, otherwise there is no point to it, right? There is nothing inherently wrong with expecting some return on a personal investment of time and money. It is simply human nature. Plus, church leaders have to be attuned to what is most likely to generate the best possible outcomes. If making too demands is causing massive strains within wards and bitter feelings, it is time to scale back. This is still a demanding church (missions, seminary, etc.)
A third reason that activities were discontinued is likely changes the ward budget structure. Wards and stakes used to have greater control over their budgeting. Consequently wealthier stakes had more activities and the poorer ones didn’t. There should be some semblance of ward equality throughout the church. Wards should have equal access to funds, and this means that the wards that generate more tithing revenue should distribute more of that revenue to the wards that have not. This would be in line with your reasoning that everything can’t be about the ward that generates the most revenue. Let’s distribute to the have-nots, even if it means sacrificing the road show. Plus, the idea is that one should be able to go an LDS ward anywhere and see similar functions and activities. Overly lavish activities created an imbalance.
Mortimer, speaking both as an introvert (ahem), and someone living in Britain, where the church is very much a minority so ward boundaries very large), and also with large extended church member family (one of those large families the church encourages, though I gather by Utah standards it is small, I have 6 siblings and over 30 nieces and nephews) I can see huge benefits as well as the downsides you mention.
First, the church doesn’t really feel like something designed for introverts. Especially the old HT/VT program (now ministering). The plus with the new program is I get to minister with my husband. But the folks on our list all like regular visits and can talk for hours, and apparently I’m a good listener, but by golly it’s exhausting. So in a recent interview with a member of the EQP I was trying to explain that just because we’re doing a good job with the folks we have on our list that doesn’t mean we can continue doing a good job if you put more on our list. There’s only so many people I can cope with having to be so concerned about, and spend time listening to. Though for the record, I also don’t like baking bread…
Second, the demands of the old programs did indeed mean that ones social life revolved around the church. To the exclusion of everything else in fact. So that when missionaries asked referrals we had to say that well actually we didn’t really know anyone, or have friends outside the church, because church stuff was quite literally taking up all our spare time and more. Sure we had acquaintances at work, or school, but no energy or head space to take those any further.
And finally, as the generations develop keeping up with family, especially extended family, and having to dash around the country attending niece and nephew baby blessings, baptisms and now moving into mission farewells and weddings phase, all of this is time consuming. In my lifetime the church has been putting massive emphasis on the importance of family, and some family members would be very upset if we didn’t make the effort to attend these things, make it an obligation, such that family holidays have to be arranged around them. Other family members have begun to recognise this is a problem.
But we cannot do everything. Socialise madly at church. Support large extended family milestones. And cultivate strong friendships outside a church and family setting.
I have been reading (lurking?) this site for year and throughly enjoy it. I have never commented before bc I do feel intellectually inferior to many of the entertaining and brilliant posters . My parents are converts, missionaries knocked on their door in Virginia in 1981 and I was 2 months old when they were baptized , in 1982. For anyone slow at math, like me, that makes me (almost!) 37. I was very active my entire life, even after I “accidentally” got pregnant in HS at 16 ( I kept my son, who is now 19). I never had a break in church attendance, even when I had to awkwardly and abruptly transition from YW to RS as soon as my pregnancy was discovered. . When my son was 3 I married my husband, an RM, in a singles branch also in Virginia . We went on to have 2 more kids. I spent most of the last 16 years in the RS or YW presidencies. A few years ago I went through a major faith crisis/transition and went virtually inactive for a year though supported my husband and kids going to church. One of the last straws for my activity was complete and utter exhaustion at church activities. We have always lived outside the Mormon corridor, with relatively low membership numbers in many areas and even lower members who were willing or able to serve in church callings that require substantial time and energy. My husband worked 6 (and still does !) days a week, usually 12-13 hours/day so that I could stay home with the kids. We have never lived an extravagant lifestyle though we are blessed and comfortable (we both drive really modest drive 8-15 year old cars and mine is the real clunker!) as has been suggested by some members when my husband works so much. The insinuation was that he has been choosing worldly things over more activity in the church , even though he is far more enthusiastic than I about church and hasn’t missed a Sunday in years . The last year I went back to work for the health insurance benefits. I took on the majority of the leadership positions in church simply bc my husband was unable to attend many meetings/ activities especially in the youth program though he was EQ president several times. Between the travel time to and from church and other members homes (our ward boundaries can stretch up to an hour each way from one end to the other) weeknight activities, early morning seminary, teens who have to work to save for a mission ,in addition to AP classes, any sports they might be involved in, and callings for youth and their parents, I consistently felt as if I was barely holding onto sanity trying to hold down the fort at home, and be involved in any school or sports endeavors , when my husband was traveling or working so much. Are sports and school or community more important than the Gospel? No. Are they more important than the Church? For some people who don’t enjoy the theater arts or crafting, they just might be . I find some older people are nostalgic for the more insulated days (for lack of a better term) of the church, whereas I have a stronger support system in and out of church and I prefer it! I do not feel it has impacted most service or charity opportunities at all as I observe many feeling very comfortable calling, texting or emailing when they have a need, or one can reach out in a myriad of ways when someone is on their mind or observed to have a need. I have actually made more time to get together for play dates or informally for lunch with other women from my ward. I have loved the emphasis of more family and personal time and it has enhanced my testimony to know the Lord understands the tough and changing times younger families are living in . I think the church’s programs have times and seasons and I’m enjoying the pruning of some of them . . Hopefully I haven’t offended anyone I just wanted to voice some support and maybe I am
Outlier that the dearth of church activities / time commitment actually brought me BACK to near full fellowship . I look forward to 4 day a week early morning serminary.. just kidding ..
“2) How could you possibly infer from my comment that I meant that apologists were insulting active members??? I did write ex-Mormons.”
How could you possibly infer that is remotely close to what I said? Your statement, “I have been hearing from apologist communities over the past few years a sort of gloat about how the more wealthy and educated one is, the more likely they are to be active in the Mormon church, which is often said as a sort of backhanded way of dismissing ex-Mormons as idiots, and idiots who are poor at that.”
Again, it was and is still somewhat common for ex-Mormons to declare or imply that those who do not leave the church are the “idiots.” The defense against this was to use the research which does indeed show that Mormons tend to be more educated not less. This is not a statement about apologetics or its future. It is a plain explanation of why you may have been hearing what you call “gloating” from apologists. Thus, my call (which you met with insults) for more civility from all.
“research which does indeed show that Mormons tend to be more educated not less”
A 2009 Pew study shows that Mormons are on par with the national average in terms of education: https://www.pewforum.org/2009/07/24/a-portrait-of-mormons-in-the-us/#4
Here is the Pew Study that you are probably thinking of: https://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/26/in-america-does-more-education-equal-less-religion/
Here is the relevant quote:
“Among Mormons, those who are more highly educated are not simply as religious as those with less education – Mormons with college experience are more religiously observant, on average, than Mormons with less education. Fully 92% of college-educated Mormons are highly religious, as are 91% of Mormons with some college. Among Mormons whose education topped out with high school, however, just 78% score high on the index of religious observance.”
I suspect a flaw in this particular study, which is that it is only measuring self-identified Mormons (92% of college-educated Mormons are highly religious, I find that highly dubious). Unlike Catholics and Jews who are more likely to continue to self-identify as members of the group even though they do not fully practice, Mormons who discontinue practice of the religion are much less likely to continue to identify as Mormons. Sometimes the Pew polls seem to catch this, and sometimes they don’t. There are other Pew polls that show Mormons to be much more likely to stay in the church, with levels above 50%. I strongly doubt that since comparisons of census data that measures religious affiliation in different countries with LDS church statistics reveal about a 20-25% activity rate. The US census doesn’t measure religious affiliation. Yet I can’t imagine that activity rates are too much higher than they are around the world (with obvious exceptions for Utah County and other Mormon-thick areas).
“Thus, my call (which you met with insults)”
I insulted you? You are a very thin-skinned person.