Are people leaving the church at a higher rate than in the past?

[sansfoy]

Official church statistics don't show that on the surface, but the number of converts is down, the number of missionaries is stagnant, and the number of new children of record is pretty low and stagnant considering the nominal 17M members. There seems to be a feeling among both former and current members that something is different over the past few years.

Someone posted this in a private discussion I was recently involved in. True stuff, or just this one person's anecdote?

I’ve seen people leave the church at a rate unlike anything I’ve seen prior to 8-10 years ago. Many people that I thought would never fall away have fallen. Again, your post is comforting, reassuring and provides reason for hope but I’d be very surprised if this were true.

Todays world is quite shameless, when I was growing up there was still some degree of social shame if you left the church — this doesn’t exist anymore at all which I’m sure plays a role in making the process easier for many to leave. Again, I wish what you’re saying is true but it definitely doesn’t look that way in my community and among my family and friends. My mom’s side of the family alone who have left in large numbers would nearly skew the stats all on their own due to how many have left so it’s tough to imagine it’s the same rate as before. What I’ve been seeing in recent years seems absolutely unprecedented.

Not to mention, every single report on declining religious participation alone would confirm that members are in fact leaving at a higher rate than before, like those of other faiths.

[drumdude]

Someone on the ex-Mormon Reddit said the church is considering that this might have been self inflicted.

3 hour church cut, eliminating home teaching, no roadshows, no dances, no Boy Scouts, no money for youth programs…

It’s almost as if the church wants people to leave. And none of that has anything to do with doctrine or history caused faith crisis issues.

[JohnW]

Talking about internet-savvy members:

I don't think people are leaving at a higher rate, at least in my part of California. From my (admittedly biased) perspective, the early 2000s was when we had an uptick in members leaving the church. We have since leveled off, and it seems to me fewer people are leaving in the last few years. In the early 2000s, the internet made information available about the church that wasn't commonly known. It also connected people who were struggling with their testimony in ways that wouldn't have happed in the past. The church adjusted, and most people who care deeply about specific doctrines or policy usually have heard about the uncomfortable things long ago and the sense of shock isn't there anymore. The focus of the church has shifted slightly, which, in my opinion, makes maintaining a testimony easier in the Information Age.

I have heard rumors about an uptick in people leaving the church because of overtly political issues. They tend to be highly conservative. If what I've heard is true (who knows for sure) this seems to be more pronounced in Utah or other homogeneously conservative parts of the US. This doesn't really happen in my part of California. Church members here have become accustomed to prominent people in local leadership who are on both sides of the political spectrum. Politics just doesn't really enter church spaces that much, at least not since Proposition 8.

Talking about the general membership as a whole:

People leave the church for all sorts of reasons, and the vast majority don't leave for doctrine or policy issues. They tend to leave because life is too hard, the culture is too foreign, or they just loose interest and sort of drift away. I don't think this has changed all that much since 1830. People drift away from the church, and a good chunk of them drift back in at some point.

Talking about California members specifically:

Wards and stakes in California are being discontinued lately because California members tend to move out of the state. Large(r) families and a bias toward single paycheck households just doesn't mix well in some parts of California. This is made up in part from missionary efforts, but apparently not completely.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

> I don't think people are leaving at a higher rate, at least in my part of California.

On average, how many Priests, Teachers, and Deacons attend your Ward any given Sunday?

> Wards and stakes in California are being discontinued lately because California members tend to move out of the state.

Any close in your neck of the woods? Any idea where they tend to go?

> bias toward single paycheck households just doesn't mix well in some parts of California.

What does that mean?

[Marcus]

...Talking about the general membership as a whole:

People leave the church for all sorts of reasons, and the vast majority don't leave for doctrine or policy issues. They tend to leave because life is too hard, the culture is too foreign, or they just loose interest and sort of drift away. I don't think this has changed all that much since 1830. People drift away from the church, and a good chunk of them drift back in at some point.

oh please. I don't believe that is true at all, but I can certainly imagine it's comforting for church members to hear. Do you have any data to back that up?

Talking about California members specifically:

Wards and stakes in California are being discontinued lately because California members tend to move out of the state....

Yes, there has been quite a bit of discussion about this excuse. It doesn't seem to hold up.

Again, any data to back that up?

[JohnW]

> I don't think people are leaving at a higher rate, at least in my part of California.

On average, how many Priests, Teachers, and Deacons attend your Ward any given Sunday?

In our particular town, the demographic is that we have large primary groups and small youth groups. Families tend to move out when they start to have teens. We average about 15-20 youth (males and females) in our ward. Females tend to outnumber the males, but the last few years in our ward we have way more males - around 15 young men and 5 young women. Priest, teachers and deacons are pretty evenly mixed. For context, overall ward size is around 150-200 active members.

> Wards and stakes in California are being discontinued lately because California members tend to move out of the state.

Any close in your neck of the woods? Any idea where they tend to go?

No discontinuing units in our stake. In fact, we started a new Spanish-speaking branch a few years ago. Utah is probably the biggest recipient of members moving out, but other western states are common as well, Arizona, Washington, Texas, Oregon, Idaho, etc. Some move to the midwest or back East, but it is less common.

> bias toward single paycheck households just doesn't mix well in some parts of California.

What does that mean?

Maybe that was a poorly worded sentence. We just tend to have more single paycheck homes in the church. In the past, the church heavily encouraged the wife to stay home and take care of the children. I would say the teaching isn't as emphasized as much today, but you will still hear it occasionally. On average, the membership still tends to follow that pattern. The mother tends to stay home more often than the average for our town. In larger cities in California, the cost of living makes that difficult. I have a good friend in San Diego who is not a member. In her situation the husband stays home to take care of the kids. They only have two kids, but she periodically complains about financing being tight in a single-paycheck household, especially when it comes to housing.

[JohnW]

...Talking about the general membership as a whole:

People leave the church for all sorts of reasons, and the vast majority don't leave for doctrine or policy issues. They tend to leave because life is too hard, the culture is too foreign, or they just loose interest and sort of drift away. I don't think this has changed all that much since 1830. People drift away from the church, and a good chunk of them drift back in at some point.

oh please. I don't believe that is true at all, but i can certainly imagine it's comforting for church members to hear. Do you have any data to back that up?

Only the data from my ward specifically. It is only one data point, but I don't think it is an outlier. I served as the bishop of our ward for six years (released about a year ago or so). During that time, we had a fair amount of people stop attending. We also had a fair amount of people start attending after a period of inactivity. My rough estimate would be that only about 10% of those who stopped attending did so because of issues with doctrine or church policy. Actually removing their names from the church is a different story. Out of the people who went to the trouble to actually remove their names, I would say around half were because of doctrine or policy. In our ward most people don't go to the trouble to remove their names from the records. A good number of people who stop attending are recent converts who just didn't quite make it through the rather difficult culture change. Those easily outnumber the people with doctrinal issues.

Talking about California members specifically:

Wards and stakes in California are being discontinued lately because California members tend to move out of the state....

Yes, there has been quite a bit of discussion about this excuse. It doesn't seem to hold up.

Again, any data to back that up?

I only know it holds up in my neck of the woods. The vast majority of people who go missing from our ranks are people who move out. We also get quite a few people who move in, so we tend to be relatively stable. I've talked to a few bishops or stake presidents in some of the larger cities, and they say the same thing, only they don't get as many to replace the move-outs. I guess I'm just taking their word for it.

[Marcus]

oh please. I don't believe that is true at all, but i can certainly imagine it's comforting for church members to hear. Do you have any data to back that up?

Only the data from my ward specifically. It is only one data point, but I don't think it is an outlier. I served as the bishop of our ward for six years (released about a year ago or so). During that time, we had a fair amount of people stop attending. We also had a fair amount of people start attending after a period of inactivity. My rough estimate would be that only about 10% of those who stopped attending did so because of issues with doctrine or church policy. Actually removing their names from the church is a different story. Out of the people who went to the trouble to actually remove their names, I would say around half were because of doctrine or policy. In our ward most people don't go to the trouble to remove their names from the records. A good number of people who stop attending are recent converts who just didn't quite make it through the rather difficult culture change. Those easily outnumber the people with doctrinal issues.

Yes, there has been quite a bit of discussion about this excuse. It doesn't seem to hold up.

Again, any data to back that up?

I only know it holds up in my neck of the woods. The vast majority of people who go missing from our ranks are people who move out. We also get quite a few people who move in, so we tend to be relatively stable. I've talked to a few bishops or stake presidents in some of the larger cities, and they say the same thing, only they don't get as many to replace the move-outs. I guess I'm just taking their word for it.

So, when you say "People leave the church for all sorts of reasons, and the vast majority don't leave for doctrine or policy issues" you don't really mean 'people,' you mean your observations of a few people in your very small geographical area, based solely on your interpretation of your anecdotal evidence. Got it.

[msnobody]

I attended sacrament service today and the church was pretty packed, even about back to half-court.

What I have noticed over last few years is no missionaries out tracting. The two I’ve met with over the past couple of weeks are now driving an SUV, rather than the compact car they used to ride around in a couple of decades ago. Haven’t seen any bicycles either. Where I live, one ward is 13 miles from my home which would not be my assigned ward if I were a member. The ward that would be my ward if I were a member is 15 miles away. So, if the missionaries can only put 40 miles on the car per day without special permission, this really cuts down on their ability to visit with investigators. I had to go to them.

[JohnW]

Only the data from my ward specifically. It is only one data point, but I don't think it is an outlier. I served as the bishop of our ward for six years (released about a year ago or so). During that time, we had a fair amount of people stop attending. We also had a fair amount of people start attending after a period of inactivity. My rough estimate would be that only about 10% of those who stopped attending did so because of issues with doctrine or church policy. Actually removing their names from the church is a different story. Out of the people who went to the trouble to actually remove their names, I would say around half were because of doctrine or policy. In our ward most people don't go to the trouble to remove their names from the records. A good number of people who stop attending are recent converts who just didn't quite make it through the rather difficult culture change. Those easily outnumber the people with doctrinal issues.

I only know it holds up in my neck of the woods. The vast majority of people who go missing from our ranks are people who move out. We also get quite a few people who move in, so we tend to be relatively stable. I've talked to a few bishops or stake presidents in some of the larger cities, and they say the same thing, only they don't get as many to replace the move-outs. I guess I'm just taking their word for it.

So, when you say "People leave the church for all sorts of reasons, and the vast majority don't leave for doctrine or policy issues" you don't really mean 'people,' you mean your observations of a few people in your very small geographical area, based solely on your interpretation of your anecdotal evidence. Got it.

Yes, that is correct, except for the anecdotal part. I thought I made that clear in the beginning of my statement. I apologize if I didn't.

Out of curiosity, Is it any different for your objection to my statement? I don't think either of us have access to good, representative data in this regard.