Is the LDS Church actually shrinking? We’re talking about LDS disaffiliation with Jeff Strong, author of the new book Torn: Why People We Love Are Leaving the Church and What We Can Learn from Them. While official membership records show steady growth, the reality of active participation tells a much more complex story. In this episode, I’ll sit down with Jeff to break down the startling data behind modern disaffiliation.
Jeff Strong brings a unique perspective to this issue, drawing on a 28-year career in the consumer products industry, including time as a global president at Johnson & Johnson. Having “cut his research teeth” at companies like Procter & Gamble—which spends hundreds of millions on research annually—Jeff applied that same corporate-level rigor to studying LDS membership trends. His research team consists of 12 people, nine of whom hold PhDs, including former church researchers with decades of experience.
The 40% Statistic: Reality or Hyperbole?
The centerpiece of the conversation is the claim that roughly 40% of members have disaffiliated from the church over the last 25 years. Jeff explains that while his study landed on this conservative estimate, several major national studies support this range:
- The Pew Religious Landscape Study pegs the number at 46%.
- The Harvard Cooperative Election Study consistently shows numbers in the mid-40% range.
- The General Social Survey (GSS) suggests disaffiliation could be as high as 50%.
The “Leaky Bucket” and the Ward Growth Paradox
To understand how the church can still report growth while losing so many members, Jeff uses a “leaky bucket” analogy. In the United States, approximately 160,000 new members (converts and children of record) “enter the bucket” each year, while roughly 40,000 “leak out” through disaffiliation.
The most striking evidence of this trend lies in the disparity between membership and ward growth: since the year 2000, members of record have increased by 60%, yet the number of actual wards has only grown by about 11%. This suggests that while more names are being added to the records, the number of active, participating congregations is not keeping pace.
“Not Since Kirtland”
We discussed the famous quote by former church historian Marlin Jensen, who noted that the Church has not seen this level of disaffiliation since the 1830s in Kirtland, Ohio. While Jeff clarifies that the “sky is not falling” and the church is still experiencing modest real growth, the data indicates that growth is slowing and may have even hit a point of slight decline in the U.S. recently.
Rise of the “Church History” Wave
One of the most striking findings in Jeff’s research is that 42% of respondents identified Church history as their primary reason for leaving. This represents a significant shift from older research, like Jana Riess’s The Next Mormons, which found that social and lifestyle factors were more prominent.
Jeff acknowledges that these reasons are often complex and personal, but the magnitude is undeniable. He compares the situation to a forest fire: “You don’t need an average mean temperature. You just need to know—is it hot enough to kill you?” For thousands of Latter-day Saints, the “fire” of Church history has reached that critical temperature.
Big Data Meets Artificial Intelligence
To capture these insights, Jeff’s team conducted a massive 71-question survey that reached 15,000 people across the full belief spectrum—from hyper-orthodox members to those who are “hard out.” The engagement was unprecedented: 11,000 participants spent an average of 90 minutes sharing their stories.
This resulted in over 10,000 pages of personal “verbatim” responses. To analyze this mountain of data, Jeff’s team utilized AI to query the data set, allowing them to identify patterns and nuances in the “heartache” of faith loss that traditional statistics might miss.
Methodology: Beyond the “Snowball Sample”
Jeff addresses common criticisms of internet-based research, clarifying that his study was not a simple “snowball sample” thrown randomly onto the web. Instead, it was a stratified convenience sample that specifically targeted diverse groups on Reddit (such as the ex-Mormon and LDS subreddits), Facebook, and through organizations like Scripture Central and Faith Matters. This approach ensured a broad Foothold in different demographics and levels of devotion.
What do you think of Jeff’s research? Is 40% too high or too low?
In posting this information, I was surprised to see some stereotypical “angry ex-Mormons” piling on the Church in the Youtube comments. While I understand the sentiment, why would they take this opportunity to rail against the Church when Jeff’s whole point of the project iis to validate their experiences and try to help the Church become more hospitable?
Wheat & Tares 
The research stands for itself.
Jeff is, unfortunately, struggling with his own faith journey. Somehow he believes that the culture of this massive organization does not emanate from its leadership. His solutions to the exodus, therefore, are rose colored. After that long at J&J and P&G, he already knows the culture starts with the ‘tone at the top.’
Maybe the exodus will take 40 more years and in 3,000 years a Sunday School class will ask “how did it take 40 years for an exodus that only required sending a notarized letter?”
“While I understand the sentiment, why would they take this opportunity to rail against the Church when Jeff’s whole point of the project iis to validate their experiences and try to help the Church become more hospitable?”
Because if the problem is so obvious that someone like Jeff can bring the obvious to the forefront and speak compassionately and wholeheartedly about it, why isn’t the church itself doing so? I think there genuinely is this fear in church leadership of disrupting the orthodox. Are they making their bet on Africa being big enough that the decline in American members (or other places) won’t matter? I, like Jeff, want the church to be better. But better does start with being honest with ones self and others. And they have yet to take that first step in any real sense.
It’s a trend that’s affecting pretty-much all religions in the West. At least we can be grateful that the restored church is doing better than most other faiths at retaining its membership–though, of course, it’s terribly sad to be losing so many.
That said, Nephi had an interesting perspective on why the church’s numbers are few: 1 Nephi 14:12:
“And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.”
“Is 40% too high or too low?”
It’s my understanding that the statistic is 40% of active members going inactive over the last 25 years. Numbers may help paint a picture.
Assume that 25 years ago a ward with 500 members had an activity rate of 50%. That’s 250 people showing up.
Over the next 25 years, 40% of the attending 50% go inactive. That’s a reduction of 100 people, or 150 people showing up.
The 40% reduction statistic stated differently:
* A ward that had an activity rate of 50% has an activity rate of 30% today
* A ward that had an activity rate of 40% has an activity rate of 24% today
* A ward that had an activity rate of 30% has an activity rate of 18% today
* A ward that had an activity rate of 20% has an activity rate of 12% today
I can only say what appears to be going on in my ward and those numbers don’t appear to be that far off.
“In posting this information, I was surprised to see some stereotypical “angry ex-Mormons” piling on the Church in the Youtube comments. While I understand the sentiment, why would they take this opportunity to rail against the Church when Jeff’s whole point of the project iis to validate their experiences and try to help the Church become more hospitable?”
I can only assume it’s because they still don’t feel heard. Even with this study.
@Jack: While it is true that there is a significant level of disaffiliation from all religions in the West, I doubt that people leaving Catholicism or the SBC are doing so because latter-day saints practiced polygamy in the 19th century.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it feels a bit reductive or dismissive (or someone help me find a better word) to simply say that people disaffiliating from the LDS church is merely a part of the broader trend of people disaffiliating from religion writ large. At some level, I’m sure that is a part of the broader trend, but I also think there is real value in trying to understand the LDS specific dynamics that are at play.
The one thing I really like about Strong’s approach is his attempts to suggest pastoral responses to the trends and dynamics he sees in the data. All too often, it seems like the, “every church is losing adherents” is that it projects a sense of defeatism (or similar). A sense that there is nothing that religious people can do about it, so we shouldn’t even bother trying to understand it, let along try to help people through the process. I’m reminded here of a podcast with Dr. Lisa Diamond about LGBTQ+ LDS — many who end up leaving, where Dr. Diamond asked if the church would/could consider any pastoral responses that might help some of these people who choose to leave the church to leave on a better note. One of Strong’s big pushes (I’m assuming he makes it somewhere in his interview with Rick, since I haven’t yet listened to this particular interview) is that the right pastoral response to people who are struggling with the question of disaffiliation might actually choose to stay affiliated if we have a better pastoral response to their wrestling. I struggle to understand why so many devout LDS (as Strong calls them) seem uninterested in understanding if/how they can help people stay affiliated using a more effective pastoral response.
Jack,
Respectfully, the scriptures have no bearing on the why, we humans do. The church can choose to make different choices any time it wants to address the underlying concerns any time they want. Christians in general have this sad, “oh well, this was prophesied, there is nothing we can do.” BS!!! We can make different choices to effect a change in weather patterns, we can apologize and acknowledge current and past church harm–there is so much that can be done, that isn’t being done either out of fear or lack of convenience. I’m so tired of this Christian defeatist, victim, complete lack of personal responsibility for the world attitude. It’s time to grow-up and engage with the here and now.
“I struggle to understand why so many devout LDS (as Strong calls them) seem uninterested in understanding if/how they can help people stay affiliated using a more effective pastoral response.”
I think because the experiences and testimonies of the people that leave can feel invalidating to the people that remain. It’s more comfortable to cut them loose (or even run them off) than it is to wrestle with the changes that would be required to create a space for them within the flock.
I am so tired of conversations about why people choose to leave being dismissed with a shrug and the words “wheat and tares”!
I am not a tare!
Institutions, nations, civilizations, and churches often fail for the same reasons individual relationships do: not because mistakes were made, but because those mistakes are hidden, minimized, rationalized, or denied.
I recently read an interesting observation from Tom Kauffman regarding the troubling stories preserved in the Old Testament:
“Are we willing to read our own history with a dose of humility, as I’m sure the Israelites had to do in exile as they pondered their storied past, with both the successes and failures of faithfulness? Do we seek to expunge the uncomfortable parts of our past, or like Israel, be willing to record and remember both the good and the bad, to read the unvarnished truth of our heritage and learn from it—all of it?”
That resonates deeply with me. For the past five years I’ve sat in 12-step circles, working through the steps repeatedly. The 12 Steps are not a program one graduates from; they are a practical process of healing, restoration, and ongoing self-examination. In LDS language, they embody the very principles of atonement. Atonement assumes that something has been broken and must be repaired.
What strikes me is that the Church asks individuals to engage in this process while often appearing reluctant to apply those same principles institutionally. Systems frequently exempt themselves from the standards they impose on individuals, as though organizations somehow operate above the level of ordinary human weakness. But institutions are simply collections of people. They are no less susceptible to denial, self-deception, rationalization, or ego than any individual.
Several of the steps seem particularly relevant:
Step 2 & 3: Surrender the need to control appearances and outcomes. Trust that truth is ultimately safer than image management.
Step 4: Make a searching and fearless moral inventory. As Carl Jung observed, what is not acknowledged does not disappear—it goes underground and is projected elsewhere.
Step 5: Admit the exact nature of our wrongs. Healing begins when uncomfortable truths can be spoken aloud.
Step 6 & 7: Become willing to acknowledge shortcomings and humbly seek to overcome them.
Step 8 & 9: Identify those who have been harmed and seek to make amends where possible. Relationships are restored not merely through explanations but through accountability.
Step 10: Continue taking inventory and promptly admit when wrong.
Broken trust is rarely repaired by defending the past. It is repaired through honesty about the past. The relationships that survive injury—whether between spouses, families, friends, or institutions and their members—are usually those where both parties are willing to acknowledge their part in the damage and engage in the difficult work of repair.
The irony is that the gospel’s theology of repentance and reconciliation offers a powerful framework for healing. The question is whether those principles are only for individuals, or whether institutions should be willing to practice them as well.
I read an interesting article on the current Evangelical exodus. It claimed that huge numbers of evangelicals are currently abandoning the evangelical churches. The reasons the article gave is disillusionment with far right politics and abandoning religion that promotes a very unchristian man and his followers. One person quoted was abandoning their carefully neutral congregation because they felt real Christians can no longer be silent about the portion of Supposed Christians who have no or very warped morals.
It made me wonder if we Mormons are going to face another wave of leaving over the right-leaning-pretend-neutrality stand the church seems to take. They are not actually neutral when they cosy up to LGBT hating rightwingers.
So, as Mormons become more disillusioned with the direction Trump is taking our country, will Mormons have a rise in people exiting over right wing politics. So, another wave of political leaving. I have heard more than one person say they will never vote Republican ever again as the whole party has become corrupt and that MAGA is not at all conservative, just wrapped up in culture wars. Where when Trump first ran for office, most Mormons were opposed to him, but then he got the nomination and most LDS promptly fell in line because they were so staunchly Republican they couldn’t see past voting along party lines. Now those same people are feeling betrayed by the Republican Party which is no longer a Conservative Party, but MAGA and corrupt. As more Mormons question their church supported Republican voting, will they also question the church?
Interesting comments, everyone.
Here’s a thought: Often people don’t really know why they leave (formal exit) or just go 100% inactive. We are all complicated beings with a lot of thoughts and emotions running around inside our head. Even when people think they know why they leave (and sure they could be correct), they might be mistaken. Think of why people go in for psychoanalysis or deep therapy: often because they just don’t understand themselves anymore or they just can’t understand why they do the dumb or self-destructive things they do.
Furthermore, in a survey response situation — or just a conversation with a relative trying to explain it — it’s a lot easier to say “there is church history stuff that really bothers me, like polygamy …” than to give other reasonable answers that trigger immediate judgment or condemnation for the average Mormon. “Tithing just hurts too much: I need the money” triggers “Oh, you’re just selfish.” If you say, “I just got burned out, maybe I’ll come back someday” triggers the “Oh, you’re just lazy” response. If you say, “The bishop’s a real jerk and I just don’t want to deal with it anymore” triggers “Oh, you were offended.” So no, I don’t necessarily trust survey responses. It’s a lot more complicated than a survey response can generally capture.
I like that this kind of research is being done, but I’m wondering how it’s different from David Ostler’s previous work that he published in Bridges. Full disclosure: I’ve read neither book, but I’ve heard both of them discuss their work in podcasts. I’d like to know what differentiates this project. Maybe there are meaningful differences. Mostly, I wonder if the church’s lack of adaptability is going to mean some former mission president who is more thoughtful and innovative than his peers who were called to be general authorities is going to keep doing this every few years until the church hierarchy starts responding meaningfully and making changes.
When I served as a Bishop, our activity rate was about 35 per cent. The SEC scandal drove some of our members right out of the church. They could not understand how the Church at the highest level engaged in dishonest financial reporting practices in order to conceal its vast wealth from us.
I currently live in a quite conservative ward in the heart of Utah County. We *might* have five total homes in the ward boundaries that are owned by non-members. We have people whose families have lived in the ward for 140 years, we have former area seventies and mission presidents, at least a dozen people who have been bishops, and roughly 390 people of record in the ward.
Our *average* sacrament meeting attendance this year is right at 48%. It would be about 42-45% for the year if not for a couple of large missionary farewells & departures.
I know–both factually and anecdotally– that this ward is not an anomaly, even in the area…let alone elsewhere.
I appreciate Jeff Strong’s research and inquiry into the matter. He seems to have a very fair-minded view. His book is a very welcome invitation to believers to stop judging the departers as offended and wanting to sin, or as blindsided by “something in the internet” with rushed and overly hasty decisions to leave.
IMO, the vast majority of those who formally resigned, walked away or limited attendance have done so to send messages. Jeff is one of the few to attempt to hear those messages, and he has the gravitas to get the message delivered. The next big question is: Will the leaders and cultural elites in the LDS community listen to one of their own? Or will those messages fall again on deaf ears?