Greg Prince. Nov Policy. 10% of entire Stakes resigned.

[_Tuna_Surprise]

I'll point out what I pointed out there:

Difference between year previous and current year after Converts and children of record are added:

2012            53,476      .36%
2013            98,876       .66%
2014           122,903      .8%
2015            110,090     .7%
2016            101,159     .64%

60,000 in the year between 2015 and 16 doesn't fit this. The 2012 number is an anomaly (low). I figure there was something wrong with the reported numbers at the end of the year (some overlap).

These are important numbers. I think some people don't think there is an "impact" until most of the 5-10 million inactives get their names off the rolls, but based on the numbers you posted - if we can just get 10-20k per year removing their names (assuming converts remains steady), it hurts their numbers. Mormons have always loved their tag of "fastest growing religion" but a relatively small impact can push them into flat or declining growth.

One other thing to point out, I think the policy will have an impact on the number of children of record created and child baptisms (including the 9 year olds that count as converts). Before the policy, I was apathetic to the church but it meant a lot to my parents. If I had kids, I would've let my dad bless/baptize. Now? No way. I think there are many more like me.

[_Stem]

I'll point out what I pointed out there:

Difference between year previous and current year after Converts and children of record are added:

2012            53,476      .36%
2013            98,876       .66%
2014           122,903      .8%
2015            110,090     .7%
2016            101,159     .64%

60,000 in the year between 2015 and 16 doesn't fit this. The 2012 number is an anomaly (low). I figure there was something wrong with the reported numbers at the end of the year (some overlap).

These are important numbers. I think some people don't think there is an "impact" until most of the 5-10 million inactives get their names off the rolls, but based on the numbers you posted - if we can just get 10-20k per year removing their names (assuming converts remains steady), it hurts their numbers. Mormons have always loved their tag of "fastest growing religion" but a relatively small impact can push them into flat or declining growth.

One other thing to point out, I think the policy will have an impact on the number of children of record created and child baptisms (including the 9 year olds that count as converts). Before the policy, I was apathetic to the church but it meant a lot to my parents. If I had kids, I would've let my dad bless/baptize. Now? No way. I think there are many more like me.

Excellent point. As Greg points out, the nov 2015 policy, was a response to the Obergfell case. In essence, then, the Church said, with this policy, they want to push people out. Of course when the Church was caught with their pants down (the policy was leaked and then criticizes) the Church walked back it's policy for the most part--saying in essence, if a local leader feels it's ok to baptize a kid in such a situation, then they can, we suppose. Also, as Greg pointed out, the policy change was a big surprise, retrenchment effort, in light of what the Church had been saying and doing in the couple years previously.

The policy then came out less about love, as they wanted to claim, but more as retribution. That is absolutely disgusting. "we got hurt with this courts decision; therefore, we're going to send a huge slap in the face of our families who have family and friends who are gay". dicks.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG, I didn’t read your link, but I did want to chime in on this exchange. There is measurable statistics we are actually living in one of the most peaceful times in human history. I know it often doesn’t feel that way when bad news is instantaneous and visual (videos of shootings, etc.).

I think it’s interesting because religion (not unique to Mormonism) tends to view these events as “sign of the times” and end day prophecies. The “secular” community sees hope, Love, peace and a bright future for the human race.

It’s an interesting thought because prior to my disbelief in religion, I was firmly in the “end days” camp and now with a lack of faith I’m firmly in the “bright hope for humanity” camp. A complete 180 if you will.

I don’t really have a point other than I think I understand both sides of the story having believed in both versions at one point or another. For the sake of humanity, I’m rooting for Star Trek over Armageddon.

I realize your point and I'm right there with you. In a number of ways the world, as a whole, has been evolving towards greater understanding, etc. My point was that as far as the church is concerned we would expect a drop in numbers as people lose their faith and/or decide that the church...commandments, doctrine, etc., isn't for them. This thread is simply applying statistical evidence/value to that. The scriptures/parables I linked to provide a background to what we observe.

Regards,
MG

[_Craig Paxton]

I'm glad to see that a lot of people viewed the November policy as unChristian and left. It speaks well of them that they did so. What does one's Christianity really mean if it includes denying otherwise eligible children baptism because their parents don't keep the Mormon commandments?

Agreed. Unchristian at best. Even if we don't have solid numbers how many members resigned because of the November policy, it is clear that it was not well received by many. One indicator of the magnitude of the this is the back lash that followed the release of this leaked policy. I believe it really surprised and rattled the top brethren. They started back peddling immediately. They even changed the wording of the policy to try and soften it. When that and their other PR attempts didn't work, they went with the nuclear option, and declared it a revelation after the fact.

I don't think any of this really helped. From my limited interaction with colleagues, friends and my students, I believe that besides the PR disaster this caused, there was also a loss of credibility of the Q15 with many members.

I agree with both of you...The other thing that I believe the policy did was expose the church. It lay bare exactly how its sausage is made...and demonstrated for all who cared to take a look that it's sausage making process a.k.a. revelation is a very man made process.

[_candygal]

Craig, I just have to say that I so admire that you and your wife have let love triumph through all the highs and lows of Mormonism. Wow. Miss you over there!!

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm glad to see that a lot of people viewed the November policy as unChristian and left. It speaks well of them that they did so. What does one's Christianity really mean if it includes denying otherwise eligible children baptism because their parents don't keep the Mormon commandments?

Agreed. Unchristian at best. Even if we don't have solid numbers how many members resigned because of the November policy, it is clear that it was not well received by many. One indicator of the magnitude of the this is the back lash that followed the release of this leaked policy. I believe it really surprised and rattled the top brethren. They started back peddling immediately. They even changed the wording of the policy to try and soften it. When that and their other PR attempts didn't work, they went with the nuclear option, and declared it a revelation after the fact.

I don't think any of this really helped. From my limited interaction with colleagues, friends and my students, I believe that besides the PR disaster this caused, there was also a loss of credibility of the Q15 with many members.

I agree with both of you...The other thing that I believe the policy did was expose the church. It lay bare exactly how its sausage is made...and demonstrated for all who cared to take a look that it's sausage making process a.k.a. revelation is a very man made process.

It doesn't surprise me that the November policy change resulted in a number of people leaving the church. It was a hard thing to bear and to watch/see. It was a 'hard thing'. And you're right, the process of policy change was laid bare for all to see. From the perspective of faithful members that believe in the Restoration it brought to light...for those that hadn't already noticed and/or figured it out...that revelation is often a messy two way process with speed bumps along the way. To 'get it right' may be a tortuous path for those that may bring in their own biases and then have to do the "sausage making" together as a group of independent minds and perspectives. My guess is that Elder Christofferson had different views than Elder Oaks, for example.

And God has to collaborate among the group and gently guide them towards the outcome that will work best for the furtherance of the 'kingdom'. That outcome impacts individuals in the here and now. It's GOT to be tough to wrestle with an issue such as this and come up with something that DOESN'T have negative consequences somewhere/somehow. One can only hope that the Savior's atonement and the doctrine of eternal progression will help alleviate the temporary sufferings and what even appear to be injustices that occur in a fallen world where all is not as it would be in a perfect Shangri-La.

One thing this policy change did was expose and/or bring out to the forefront the necessity of looking at the foundational claims of the church/gospel, brush things off...and after the dust settles...ask, "Is it true?"

For some, that question is asked more frequently than for others. And at times there are going to be casualties along the way where people say, "No."

It is a hard thing. The way I look at it though is is referring back to Christ's words, "Will ye also go away?"

John 6:64, “But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Regards,
MG

[_fetchface]

MG has once again inadvertently constructed a beautiful argument for why the Catholic Church is where we should all be.

[_fetchface]

I don't think any of this really helped. From my limited interaction with colleagues, friends and my students, I believe that besides the PR disaster this caused, there was also a loss of credibility of the Q15 with many members.

I have noticed a big change with my TBM wife in the past few years. A few years ago she defended any action or statement by the Q15 as God's will (even if she couldn't understand the mysterious reasons behind it all). Now she freely admits that they are biased and their worldview is colored by their upbringing. She has hinted that she expects there to be 1978-like changes in the future.

These are the types of behind-the-scenes changes that build up to a watershed moment.

[_SteelHead]

I don't know about watershed. The abandonment of polygamy after so many apostolic proclamations that it was eternal and would never be abandoned. The abandonment of the racial ban and it's associated pre existence doctrinal underpinnings.

If those didn't cause the majority of tbms to leave, why would a change in the policy around ssm prove more consequentlial?

There seems to be a large core that will believe and accept whatever drivel the 15 spout.

[_fetchface]

If those didn't cause the majority of tbms to leave, why would a change in the policy around ssm prove more consequentlial?

There seems to be a large core that will believe and accept whatever drivel the 15 spout.

Do you attend church regularly? I have been and I have been noticing a big change in attitude in my generation (tail end of GenX, older millennials).

Of course, I live in California so things may be way different in Utah but I am seeing a big erosion of the church's power in individuals here. The church is outwardly healthy but the 15 don't have the power over the young that they used to. I think the right kind of misstep on the part of the brethren could cause a lot more people my age to take a hike. The large core that will do anything are generally older and will be stepping out of local leadership in the next couple of decades. Already where I live, stake presidency and bishopric are all young guys like me. Bishop here admitted to me recently that he agrees with much of my apostate thinking but feels drawn to have faith.

Of course, if the brethren maintain the status quo and only make small and slow changes then there will probably be no watershed moment, only a slow bleed out over the next century or two.