Today we have a guest post from a Wheat & Tares reader who wishes to remain anonymous.
Two friends of mine received official Church surveys in 2022 and took screenshots of some of the questions. The surveys addressed quite different topics, but the last multiple-choice questions were very similar as they invited respondents to categorize themselves as one of five types of Latter-day Saints. The options were slightly modified between February and October, and the changes are interesting, as is the entire exercise itself.
The final question attempts to determine the respondent’s level of commitment to the Church, but the statements are not directly comparable or internally consistent. That is to say, the second and third sentences do not always follow from the first. The spectrum of religiosity offered, however, seems to be the way that Church leaders think about and categorize members. It’s their Overton window, as it were.
Original version – Feb. 2022; Revised version (with changes in bold) – Oct. 2022
Members of the Church have a variety of life circumstances and perspectives. Below are five statements from different members about their religious and spiritual mindset. Even though your perspective might not match perfectly with any of these descriptions, which one do you feel currently represents you the best?
● I am committed to the gospel, but personal spirituality is more important to me than being institutionally religious. I may attend worship services regularly, but I don’t feel obligated to attend every week meeting. As a Christian, I value being open-minded, fair, and tolerant.
● I am committed to the gospel, and the Church plays a central role in my life.
Participating in Church programs and activities is an important way to support the ChurchI believe all of its teachings. I usually read my scriptures daily. I think members should be strictly obedient to the counsel they receive from their priesthood leaders.● I primarily belong to the Church because of family, tradition, culture, or community. I usually enjoy participating in the Church socially,
but don’t feel a strong desire to attend worship services every weekand feel that God rules more by love than by fear.● I am generally less interested in religion and/or spirituality. Even though I may believe some Church teachings, they don’t play a large role in my life. I don’t attend church as often as other people do. Sometimes I have been frustrated by the impact of religion on society.
● I am committed to the gospel, and the Church is important to me I try to
focus on the practical ways that the Church can help me grow. Members should choose whether to participate in Church programs and activities based on their needs and circumstancesfollow its teachings and do the things I’m supposed to, balancing with life’s other priorities. I tend to focus on practical applications of the gospel that are most relevant to my current life and family situation.
A few discussion questions:
· Why does the Church feel a need to present these options as if they were statements by actual, individual Church members, when they are clearly not?
· Why has there been a shift away from the criteria of attending and participating in Church meetings?
· Why does only one option include self-identifying as “a Christian”?
· Are any of these options an accurate reflection of your own “religious and spiritual mindset”?
· If you were to write a description of equivalent length that represented you more fully, what would you say?
Wheat & Tares 
How interesting. Mulling over the five descriptions, I think the second one (“I think members should be strictly obedient …”) is leadership’s idea of an Ideally Obedient Mormon, sort of a fully active Iron Rodder. The other four descriptions capture leadership’s view of why someone who is connected to the Church but not Ideally Obedient strays from that ideal: they are one of those spiritual but not religious types (#1), they’re a Cultural Mormon (#3), they are somehow not receptive to The Spirit or in some way Not Valiant (#4), or they are just too busy with other activities or priorities (#5, the confused or lazy Mormon).
The change I find most interesting is tacking on “I feel that God rules more by love than by fear” to how a Cultural Mormon probably thinks (#3). They think that’s a flaw. The Ideally Obedient Mormon understands God rules by fear.
If I was forced to pick one, maybe I’d go with #4, but I would want to add about three paragraphs of explanation. Maybe three pages.
I wonder how much scrutiny these questions get from the Q15. Does somebody come in and show them the questions, and then try to explain the psychology behind wording them like this? Do you think individual members of the Q15 though out suggestions? Or is this too down in the weed for them?
“Why does the Church feel a need to present these options as if they were statements by actual, individual Church members, when they are clearly not?”
Your question assumes a dishonesty where no dishonesty is required. They never said that they were from individual members. What they said was “Below are five statements from different members about their religious and spiritual mindset.” “Five statements from different members” could also easily cover composite statements built from asking a lot of people for their input and then combining their answers into the different categories, which is a common practice in similar surveys.
I’m glad they do surveys. One of the biggest concerns of the Q12 is that they are isolated. They go to a stake conference and everyone puts on their best face. Some of the see right through it. The lament that the really cant attend anonymously to get a fee how things are in the pews. I doubt the Q15 get so far into the weeds to review and approve the language of the questions and leave it to experts in the field. Not a big deal. I have had 35 years of deep interfaith engagement and don’t know another church that does this. So I applaud the effort.
I took this survey back in April. For me, at least, it was initially suggested that me answering the survey might lead to my participation in a focus group on “Religious Perceptions.” The initial survey had a huge range of questions: from things like how I felt about Climate Change to questions on how different (if at all) Buddhism was from Hinduism (and a strange one from how different, if at all, Islam was from Muslim). I also received the question mentioned in this OP, though I think the options have been slightly different than even these. I wish I had taken screenshots.
Of more relevance for me, however, was that I did get invited to participate in the focus group and it was . . . terrible. It started with a question like this: I (the moderator)will say something and I want you write down the first three words that you think of. Then he said, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” We wrote down our words and then shared them. The conversation among the participants then turned to President Nelson and his language in presenting this focus on the name of the church. After this exchange, I was feeling good about where this was going, but then everything shifted. For the next 45 minutes, we were presented with a variety of images and we were supposed to respond to them in regards to how much we felt the spirit by looking at it, would be willing to share the image, how much it make it happy, etc. These were stocks images of Jesus (ranging from very white and ‘Evangelical’ to more Middle Eastern; people doing service; the Christus symbol; etc. That’s it. Look at a set of images and rank them, followed by brief vocal comments about why we responded the way we did.
And then it ended. That was it. No real attempt to discern how we felt about other religions or even our own. I and others felt quite mislead about the whole thing, as we had been under the impression it about be about Religious Perceptions. I mean, sure, I guess technically that could be one way to interpret what happened, but it felt like a lot of time, effort, and money for the Church when we could have participated in the same response session via an online questionnaire. Now, I realize the brief conversations we had about each question are probably the real meat of the matter, and perhaps the Church is listening when we all gave some rationale for our responses, but it felt very shallow.
Then, it got fiery. We had 15 minutes at the end of the questions, and I, being who I am, started the conversation by venting my frustration that clearly almost all of us participants clearly had some issues with aspects of our relationship to the Church and that this focus group seemed to suggest the thing that they really cared about was how we felt about a picture of some people doing service. I explicitly stated that it was frustrating that such things were what the Church was focused on. I and other left dejected.
All in all, an eye-opening and disorienting process. It definitely caused me to distant myself even further from the Church.
I appreciate knowing these discussions are happening as it signals to me that the important work many of us are doing voting with our feet and money and time is getting some level of attention.
People are complex. None of these descriptors will be perfect. I suppose #1 seems good to me. I really struggle with the notion that spirituality=attending church meetings.
I suppose we all read these questions with our own filters. But the Church here seems to want to define spirituality as attending your meetings, being obedient to the leaders, and maybe sometimes making the world a better place if there’s time for such things after attending our meetings and being obedient to the leaders.
I know several people who have told me they hate church but they attend because they think God wants them to. Which is a foreign concept to me. Of all the things I think God wants me to do, attending church is not in the top five. But it can be a hard habit to break if you have attended your whole life. COVID, as we all know, helped some break the cycle. I attend about once a month because I choose to attend once a month, not because I have to or feel like I should attend once a month.
I wouldn’t know where to begin to create my own set of descriptors here. I think the question should be open ended with a text box and then let the nice folks at Qualtrics and Church HQ aggregate the data.
Methodists “have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty to believe as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.” (History of the Church, v. 5, p. 340)
–Joseph Smith, Jr.
“There is too much of a sameness in this community. . . . I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint and do not believe in the doctrine . . . away with stereotyped Mormons!”
— Brigham Young
I’m probably an outlier here, but my self-description would be something like:
“I am committed to the gospel and the covenants I have made, and the Church plays a central role in my life, but I am dismayed when senior Church leaders act in un-Christian ways or espouse policies that seem to be in opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ.”
By “un-Christian ways” I mean speaking dishonestly, fawning over their superiors and expecting the same from others, grasping for power, promoting a functional infallibility, refusing to apologize for mistakes, and elevating loyalty above all other values.
The un-Christ-like policies I have in mind include hoarding vast sums of money (relying on the arm of flesh instead of using such resources to aid the poor and the needy), refusing any form of transparency and accountability, mindlessly adopting the talking points of American conservatives, discriminating against women and LGBTQ people, and quashing dissent.
I am a very active Latter-day Saint and I have a strong testimony. Fortunately, I live in a great ward, so the Church works well at the local level where I feel respected, supported, and loved. Most of the members that I serve with and worship with are admirable people and I enjoy their company, even when we have differences of opinion. The Church-induced trauma in my life mostly comes from Salt Lake City.
Based on the brief profiles, I’d conclude the institution has no finger on the pulse of the patient. Seems like data-gathering for the purpose of promoting an internal agenda, like somebody has a “program,” and the survey represents pre-engineered “evidence” to support the agenda for the program. Bednar comes to mind.
I would like to have read the whole survey. I identify mostly with the Fifth profile.
@Brian, In your study group (the program), the institution aimed to “fix” your perceptions by triggering “spiritual” associations with imagery—arguably a neurocognitive method for binding “spiritual” feeling, or perception of spiritual feeling, to the institution (which stands to represent the Church). It’s a method for the ordinance of the washing of the brain. It’s manipulative psychological sorcery. Bummer that the institution has sunk to cheap “reprogramming” experiments.
Sometimes I worry that the Lord may have to tear down the church like with Herod’s corrupt Jerusalem temple—level it to ruins—in order to rebuild it once again.
“The other four descriptions capture leadership’s view of why someone who is connected to the Church but not Ideally Obedient strays from that ideal”
Interesting observation Dave B.
It would similarly be interesting to see what action item(s) this question would generate. Hypothetical, let’s say the spirituality but not religious comes back as the option with the most votes. Would leaders come up with a plan to better minister to saints in that camp or would they only use the results to know which specific nail to take their hammers to as they tour the stakes of Zion and as they prepare their firesides?
Is it seeking ways to improve the institution or seeking ways to mold members to better fit the institution? I suppose it could be neither or both.
Travis put it well. This reminds me of the types of diagnoses you hear in movies that show medieval doctors discussing what’s wrong with a patient. It feels like we are talking about vitreous humors, oblivious to the concept of germ theory.
I don’t really know that I see a huge difference between these five statements. Any or none of them could apply to me at a given moment.
#1 – the only thing here that feels weird to me is inserting “as a Christian” into it. Given the current political climate, touting Christianity feels performative like putting an American flag (or worse) on your pickup truck. Even with that off-the-wall addition, though, this statement could work for me.
#2 – This one doesn’t apply to me, but I suspect it doesn’t *really* apply to anyone, even if they think it does. Church teaching change over time, and people understand them imperfectly.
#3 – I’m not sure why this one is so different from #1. It could theoretically apply to me as well.
#4 – This one probably applies to me most of all, and the part about not liking how much religion infringes on public life is 100% me and always has been because I grew up where Mormons were a mostly unknown minority with absolutely no political power. Why wouldn’t I feel religions had no business creating public policy? It wasn’t my religion! (And it still isn’t) I am a huge believer in the separation of church & state and creating a pluralistic society in which people’s values aren’t forced down their throat by other people’s churches. If it’s not a choice, it’s not right. And yet, even though this statement resonates, I do in fact attend church nearly every week unless I’m traveling.
#5 – This one kind of also applies to me, although I’m not sure about “the church is important to me.” I would say the gospel is in my bones. That’s not the same thing. But still, the rest of the statement sounds more or less consistent with #1, #3, and #4.
Basically, what is the difference between these groups? Only #2 seems like the weirdo bucket, so yeah, I’m sure that’s the bucket they want everyone to be in.
I’m hearing about these surveys the Church puts out to members, and wondering why I’ve never been invited to participate. If asked, I would respond with enthusiasm and candor.
I wonder if the Brethren will look at these results, not just as a way of tailoring their messages to encourage the wayward to get “back in the boat” of orthodoxy, but also to determine what groups of members they are willing to cut loose and cast aside, so they can focus their time and resources on the more traditionally faithful. There is already a feeling that Church leaders have pretty much given up on trying to retain my generation (late GenX/early Millenial) to better focus on retaining my kids and their peers.
I’m in the same boat as Angela. I can see myself a bit in 1, 3, 4 and 5, but not 2. My composite description would look like this.
I am committed to the gospel. As a Christian, I value being open-minded, fair, and tolerant. I primarily belong to the Church because of family, tradition, and community. I often enjoy participating in the Church socially. Even though I may believe some Church teachings, they don’t play a large role in my life. Sometimes I have been frustrated by the impact of religion on society and feel that God rules more by love than by fear. Members should choose whether to participate in Church programs and activities based on their needs and circumstances, balancing with life’s other priorities. I tend to focus on practical applications of the gospel that are most relevant to my current life and family situation.
First of all, I’m not a surveyor so I cannot say what is the “ideal” way to frame survey questions, but in my day job as a consultant, it is EXTREMELY common to create “user personas” and statements that represent the voice of those personas from a first person perspective. This is not intended to imply that a specific person is actually making those statements. So to me, it is not particularly unusual that the church would present these options “as if they were statements by actual, individual Church members, when they are clearly not?” That’s not an issue. It’s very standard and I would expect any business to do it. (Should a church be that much like a business? That’s a different question.)
I do find it interesting how often institutional activity and personal activities belief were conflated — at least, implicitly based on the changes in the two surveys.
So, for example:
vs
The original wording makes me think of Mark 2:27: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”. Like, why is it about supporting *the church*? Shouldn’t Church programs be made for people, rather than people made for the Church? In contrast, the latter isn’t really about that at all. It’s much more personal. It seems very clear to me that the church would like personal to be connected to institutional, but it would be very easy for me to imagine someone saying, “I am committed to the church, I believe all of its teachings, I read my scriptures daily, and I do not participate in any church programs.” which I don’t think is what the church is trying to go for.
but then there is…
vs.
These pairings are really telling to me. Like, is “feeling God rules more by love than by fear” really associated with “not feeling a strong desire to attend worship services every week”? What does that say about the state of worship services? Is that telling about how the LDS church really view God rules by?
Again, since they are trying to contrast personas, it makes sense that the personas “believe” different things. But it’s very interesting that they acknowledge that *this* persona may be less engaged with the church *because* they believe that God rules by love, not fear (so that implies that such a belief is not compatible with strict adherence.)
Andrews’s experience with surveys is much like my own.
I’ll note that these days I take about 2-3 surveys a month for very modest compensation.
The other thing that comes up with questions about how someone would describe themselves is that the descriptions often reflect how they would like to be viewed or communicated with.
Do you want to be communicated with by being told God is love, or would you rather be told to attend all your meetings?
I find it intetesting that the survey uses the ‘gospel’ as compared to the ‘restored gospel.’ Seems to me that in modern usages, they are not the same thing.
I’m strongly a #1 although with the ‘gospel’ representing the teachings of the NT Jesus rather than ‘gospel’ equating to restored Mormon practices/doctrine.
Thanks for sharing this survey question. The discussion here has been very interesting.
I agree with Andrew S. I have worked for companies that have devoted a great deal of effort to develop personas of their clients/customers to help better understand how to get new business and how to better serve existing customers. It doesn’t bother me much that the Church presents these as “statements from 5 different members” although I suppose it could have worded it a little better so that people knew these weren’t actual members–maybe “statement from 5 different hypothetical members”? It is possible that the Church has spent a lot of time and money developing the 5 personas and that these personas are based on actual data. However, the significant changes to the personas that occurred in such a short amount of time is suspicious, so maybe someone did just kind of pull these personas out of thin air (or, with an agenda in mind as .Travis mentioned).
I like Dave B’s categorization of the personas. I agree that the combinations of characteristics are…interesting. Another way to label them might be:
1. Liahona Mormon.
2. Iron Rod Mormon
3. Cultural/Social Mormon
4. Jack Mormon (though I usually think of Jack Mormons as being even less engaged than the given description)
5. Practical Mormon (the Church works for them, but they don’t think a whole lot about it)
Other than knowing that I’m definitely not a #2, it’s hard to say which category I would choose for myself. Probably #1 followed by #5 (though I, like Angela C, would also remove “the Church is important to me” wording from #5), but there are aspects of #3 and #4 that also apply to me.
One sure way to tell that someone is living in a “bubble” or “out of touch” is when they have to try to convince you that they aren’t living in a bubble or out of touch as Ballard did in a 2016 Facebook post (and I believe I recall watching him say something very similar at some sort of devotional or Face to Face): “I have heard that some people think the Church leaders live in a ‘bubble.’ What they forget is that we are men and women of experience, and we have lived our lives in so many places and worked with many people from different backgrounds. Although we have visited the White House in Washington, D.C., and leaders of nations throughout the world, we have also visited the most humble homes on earth, where we have met and ministered to the poor. There is something about the individual and combined wisdom of the Brethren that should provide some comfort. We have experienced it all, including the consequences of different public laws and policies, disappointments, tragedies, and deaths in our own families. We are not out of touch with your lives.” (https://www.facebook.com/mrussell.ballard/photos/a.167096673479082/552986471556765/?type=3) I do think there was a time in each one of these men’s lives when they really did understand what the Church was like for rank and file members because they were a rank and file member themselves. For many of these men, though, that time was a very long time ago, and they have, indeed, been living in a bubble for decades. Everyone puts on their best face when they visit, and they are separated from the rank and file membership by 4, 5, 6? levels of yes-men in the Church hierarchy. They simply have no idea what it’s like to be a rank and file member of the Church these days.
In Dave B.’s recent post (“The End of History”), he asked people to discuss how the Church might be more open to public discussion without fear of repercussions. I don’t think many people addressed this in the comments, but it occurs to me that these surveys are one way that information is getting from rank and file members to the Q15. I think that the more the Q15 can be informed about what rank and file members are thinking and experiencing the better for the Church, so I personally think that the Church doing these surveys is one way to potentially help to break down the (very thick) bubble around the Q15 at least a little bit. I’d like to see the Church open up other avenues for Church members to express their thoughts, frustrations, and ideas–especially ones that are driven by members instead of just surveys that are controlled by the institution–but I still think surveys like these have the potential to help.
The shift away from meeting attendance noted in the questions is interesting. I would say that it’s because they don’t want Covid non-participation to skew people’s answers, but timing-wise that doesn’t make sense.
I certainly don’t think it’s because leadership cares less about participation because we seem to be getting the hard sell on attending church meetings, the temple, and callings every stake and regional meeting.
I am too much a lawyer to answer which describes me because the terms are too vague and undefined :-).
I know some people who’ve done research for the church and I actually do think there is meddling from higher ups, sometimes to the researcher’s dismay because meddling is done in ways that compromise the validity of the research.
A very off the top of my head persona would be:
I care deeply about the gospel and mission of Jesus Christ, which I view primarily as a call to love one another and a challenge to purity codes that put laws over love. I view the “restoration” of the gospel as the ever-expanding circle of inclusion of people no matter their ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, nationality, educational level, into the body of Christ and a commitment to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the poor and needy. I value religious institutions to the extent they facilitate community and provide opportunities to pursue these Christian ideals. I do not value them to the extent they place intermediaries between me and God or when they replicate and reinforce cultural prejudices and hierarchies.
Also, I am allergic to narcissistic old men.
@Elisa, I love how your wrote your persona. It truly resonates with me. I was thinking of how I might write my own persona, but gave up because I was thinking it would take pages. I love how you managed to include so much of what I feel is important into just those few sentences. Bravo!
If the Church is what the leaders and the most devout claim it to be—led personally by Christ—and if the Q15 lead by revelation, these surveys would be irrelevant. They reveal the lie.
This is the effort of a church that claims it teaches unchanging truth to actually define the gospel, understand its meaning, find relevance, and adapt.
For years, I tried to be #1. I was all in but despite my earnest efforts, I never gained a testimony. I thought I was broken. I felt alone and wondered what was wrong with me. I tried then to be #3, but American life post 2016 and the pandemic revealed I don’t fit on culturally or socially, particularly since politics played a more prominent role in church life.
Now I am in my own category: Hurt by the truth claims, angry that the church is not a place where I can fit in, embarrassed by the time and money I gave to a harmful, racist, sexist, and homophobic organization. At the same time I recognize how the church shaped me and brought good things to my life, even though I will never step foot into a building again.
Adding an addendum to my description of my current category. I am also lonely because my albeit superficial friendships were largely church based and I am disappointed by the general silence from the church since I left.
Once again, LDS.Inc conflates religion and business. This business “persona” survey approach might be a way to understand a consumer’s purchase patterns (questionably), but utterly fails in understanding belief, action and social behavior.
I thought the church hired PhDs in psych, social science, etc. to do research? The construction of these questions makes me wonder whether people in SLC remember that they could create pivot tables with single variables.
It would be interesting to survey members in our faith language to ascertain what percent of saints fall in the various stages of faith (Fowler). It would also be interesting to identify problems and general attitudes. And (radical idea here) maybe survey how the church could improve or identify problems (e.g. services can be as boring and unfulfilling.)
Great post, thank you, anonymous.
Like a few of you, I also got a version of this survey several months ago, but unlike Brian above, I didn’t make the cut to the focus group stage. Probably just as well, given his description.
For me, I think I went with #5, but parts of #4 would also apply, even though I attend services regularly. In my best moments, I’d like to think I am consistent with Elisa’s description.
This survey and post raises great questions about what do the Q15 think and understand about regular church members and why many struggle to stay engaged and, in particular, why so many formerly “Iron-Rodders” bleed away.
I don’t think the Q15 really appreciate what is happening. As noted by mountainclimber479 and others, I also believe the Q15 (and probably many Q70 members) are mostly in a bubble that they no longer recognize. They are constantly honored and praised wherever they go and have been for many decades. My goodness, everybody hushes and stands when you enter a chapel. (I’d like to see a prophet — and it clearly won’t be the current one — have the courage to end this remarkably un-Christlike practice.) Of course the church and gospel are wonderful, look how well it works for them and their families and treats them. Why change anything? I doubt they are reading very much W&T, BCC, Reddit, and other platforms out there and getting insights into the problems people have about the church.
In my opinion, as has been alluded above, the Q15 have decided, perhaps correctly, that many of over 30 folks who have distanced themselves from the LDS Church are a lost cause. That group is weak, lazy, too antagonistic, whatever. In truth, that cohort feels that the church hid truth from them and that the church continues to hide and obfuscate and that none of this is consistent with what the Q15 proclaims as God’s one true church. Now, if the church acknowledged the obvious missteps and apologized and made some fundamental changes regarding women and LGBQT, that might help bring back some of these folks. But a forthright admission and apology and change won’t happen because if you are the true church, you can’t admit you were wrong and the Q15 can’t bear to take this step.
So, again, my opinion, this survey is designed to try and figure out ways to hang on to the younger generation and other folks who are still open to attending through modified messaging and marketing. I don’t think it will make much difference. Too many people, both inside and outside the church, no longer want what the church is selling and incremental changes won’t alter that. That said, the church isn’t going anywhere — a few million “Iron Rodders” and several billion dollars is more than sufficient to keep things running. And, in the end, I think the Q15 will be, and perhaps already are, just fine with that.
S: Ugh. I feel a lot of pain and hurt from your comment. I totally agree that if the Church was led personally by Christ on a day to day basis as the Q15 claims that there would be no need for surveys. I gradually came to the conclusion that the Church wasn’t being run on a day to day basis directly by Christ decades ago in my college and mission days. Even so, I still see a lot of potential value in having a community of people trying to follow Christ even if Christ isn’t constantly directing His Church. Unfortunately, I don’t feel that a lot of this potential is currently being realized right now. Just as God is allowing individuals to fumble around and make mistakes and learn from those mistakes, I think God is also allowing the Church to fumble around, and He’d like the Church to learn from those mistakes as well. I know the Q15 isn’t really asking for help from rank and file members on how to run the Church better, but I think that’s the only way it’s going to get better. This is why I think surveys like these have the potential to help–and I’d like to see more avenues for members to voice their thoughts and opinions. I’d even like to see at least some of the decision making power in the Church removed from the Q15 down to rank of file members somehow. But, yeah, I get it–it is super disappointing to realize that Christ isn’t guiding the Q15 in every decision they make since that is certainly how Mormons are told that things work.
I also hear you about losing “friends” when stepping away from the Church. I suppose I’m kind of fortunate in this area, too. I’ve had a great career, and even though I live in the Mormon Corridor, somehow I’ve worked at companies where Mormons were very much in the minority (founders were not Mormons, and Mormons were definitely underrepresented compared with the community at large). This pool of people is where most of my friends have come from. I consider many of them to be better people than may in many ways even though most of them have no organized religion in their lives at all (I do have a couple of really close Mormon friends I’ve made this way, too, though). I’ve lived in the same house here for over 20 years. Over a dozen ward splits haven’t helped things, but over all those years I really haven’t made a single true friend in my ward myself. Sure, I have acquaintances and *maybe* a few very shallow “friendships”, but nothing that even comes close to the relationships I’ve made through work. This isn’t because I have revealed my unorthodox feelings about the Church to ward members, either–everyone in my ward knows me, and I think they would probably say I’m a #2 if they were asked about me. I just keep my rogue ideas to myself in hopes of finding some community at Church, but I unfortunately really haven’t gotten much of that (even though I think the potential is there, but the Church isn’t really setup to leverage that potential right now). I am admittedly a pretty big introvert, so I think that if I made more of an effort that I could have more ward friends. That said, I am an introvert at work, too, but after working with people for a few years, I always seem to form some strong relationships with people, yet after over 20 years of weekly Church attendance and participation I can’t say that I’ve formed one single similar relationship in my ward. In any case, I do hope that you will be able to find some meaningful relationships to replace the “friendships” you seem to have lost when you stepped away from your ward.
I have been sent a handful of surveys to complete over the last few years, most recently about garments, and before that one with questions about both cleaning the church building and service missions. I certainly take the opportunity to give my full and frank opinion, and make the most of the additional comments boxes every time. Not least to express my feelings that paid custodians should be reintroduced, and that I felt the church was exploiting the experience of the ward member currently in charge of looking after the building, that I was appalled that of the choices given for the reasons for someone to serve a service mission, providing service to / helping others was not one of the options (very telling I thought about the church attitude to serving others)!!! And finally suggested folks be allowed to buy underwear that fits locally and add the marks themselves, if we’re persisting with the underwear route. Pointed out the original garments were not underwear, and that there were more comfortable ways to be reminded of covenants.. such as wearing a cross.
I’m not sure how they decide which surveys to send me, but the initial survey seemed to be designed to assess orthodoxy / orthopraxy, and asked if I would be willing to be sent surveys from time to time. I said yes. Of course. If this is the only opportunity I get for my perspective to have a chance of getting to the top I am going to use it.
I’m not sure I wholly understand the upset of those who think surveys should be unnecessary, because led by Jesus. It was drilled into us in seminary all that stuff about studying things out before asking. So I kind of imagine Jesus saying well do you know what the ordinary members think about that? Not that I think that literally happens, but I don’t think the Q15 get to skip the work part. It’s s pity the whole common consent thing has become a rubber stamp. I think CofChrist do much better at that.
S: Your experience resonates with me as well. My lifelong relationship with the church and its people is so complex. But it hurts to think no one cares when you leave after giving so much. Thank you for sharing.
Now that I’m looking at the phrasing, a few things are jumping out to me. There’s a subtle pressure to see things a certain way that Andrew S was pointing out. Consider how “but” and “and” are used in the following sentences, and how differently they read if you switch out the but/and:
#1: “I am committed to the gospel, BUT personal spirituality is more important to me than being institutionally religious. I may attend worship services regularly, BUT I don’t feel obligated to attend every week meeting.” The use of “BUT” puts the emphasis on what follows the but. If instead they used “AND” it makes both halves of the statement equal. It modifies, rather than negates, the first part of the sentence. In the first sentence, the use of “BUT” makes it clear that Church leaders equate the gospel with the institutional church, NOT with personal spirituality. Personal spirituality is in implied conflict with fealty to the institutional church. In the second sentence, the focus is on not feeling obligated to attend weekly, not on being a regular church attender.
#2: “I am committed to the gospel, and the Church plays a central role in my life.” See how differently this reads if you change to BUT: “I am committed to the gospel, but the Church plays a central role in my life.” I mean, LOL, that’s the honest to god truth right there, isn’t it?
S, thank you for expressing thoughts similar to my own. It is saddening and maddening when your own ward or branch completely forgets you. Because of stage 4 arthritis throughout my entire spine which makes sitting on wooden benches and metal chairs agony (even with cushions) and because I’ve been a Covid Longhauler for 29 months in a ward where the bishop refuses to believe that Covid is serious and therefore does nothing to make it safe for those of us with chronic health issues I have quit attending church. Not once in the time since our ward was formed back in 2005 have I received a call or a visit from either the bishop or RS president in my ward to see how I’m doing. In my previous ward we had leaders who cared very much about ALL of the members and kept in touch with ward members frequently.
When my parents served as the bishop and the RS president I remember them checking in frequently with the members who couldn’t attend church by phone or by visiting them. They also befriended the inactive members and non-members who lived in the ward boundaries not to reactivate or convert these individuals but to get to know them and let those people know that someone genuinely cared for them and was ready to help them in any event. In past wards that I’ve attended that was also the case. We have had no home teachers or visiting teachers after the current ward was formed. Seventeen years. Zip. Zero. Zilch. A couple of weeks ago I received an email from the RS secretary asking me to personally report on my ministering. I’ve never been a minister! That’s how out of touch my ward is. Even after years of serving my present ward and the one before the big boundary changes in 2005 I have now been completely forgotten. Out of sight, out of mind seems to be the ward’s motto.
Brian: “The initial survey had a huge range of questions: from things like how I felt about Climate Change to questions on how different (if at all) Buddhism was from Hinduism (and a strange one from how different, if at all, Islam was from Muslim).”
(a) Say, do Utahns have enough water? And how’s the Great Salt Lake doing?
(b) There must be a big percentage of Mormons who, if they were something else, might go with Buddhism (because Utah is America’s Tibet? the buried-scripture tradition? praying for the dead?) or Islam (because polygamy). Seriously,,why are they asking about this stuff?