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

[Gadianton]

I find the comfort in "most people aren't leaving for doctrinal reasons" fascinating. My guess is that it's true. If I think of all the people I know from wards I lived in while growing up and also extended family members who fell away or went inactive, I can't think of a single person other than myself who did so (that I can tell) for "doctrinal reasons". If you want to count rejecting stories about farm boys meeting angels and obviously fabricated afterlife revelations "doctrinal issues," then I'm totally alone in my real life, everyone I know who went this route I've met online. Well...there could be more to this, but let's say that's my answer for now.

But that's because most people have very low interest in digging into their religious backdrop. Most people are interested in day-to-day life concerns or they have a very superficial 'deep' interests. I probably only ended up where I did because my parents had a pretty solid LDS library and a friend got me interested in church books. So sure, most people don't leave because of doctrine because doctrine really doesn't matter to most people except in the most superficial ways.

Now when I say there could be more to this, I think an underrated source of dropping out are people who don't buy it, but they aren't dramatic about it, and never had much invested in it in the first place. A great example I can think of is the girlfriend of a former roommate. On the surface, I would have said she fell away because she dated guys that weren't active, was more interested in sex and hanging out with friends, and probably not incredibly reflective about her religious background. Well, I got to know her really well. And it turns out, she was downright brilliant, way undershot in life based on what she could have done, but yeah, she was a brain. She was just way too bright and savvy to ever really believe any of it, from the time she was a little girl. The idea of Joseph Smith seeing God and angels was just downright ridiculous. She never bought it for two minutes. And so there was no drama behind it, she just quietly excused herself from the table and moved on with life, and never really thought about any of it. But someone like her would be categorized as leaving because she liked to party etc.

[Marcus]

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.

What do you mean "correct, except for the anecdotal part"?

My point was that all of the information you presented was based on anecdotal evidence.

And yes, if you are presenting a conclusion on the basis of only anecdotal evidence, then objecting to that use of only anecdotal evidence is entirely valid.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

For context, overall ward size is around 150-200 active members.

Interesting. What’s the number of members of record for the Ward?

- Doc

[JohnW]

I find the comfort in "most people aren't leaving for doctrinal reasons" fascinating. My guess is that it's true. If I think of all the people I know from wards I lived in while growing up and also extended family members who fell away or went inactive, I can't think of a single person other than myself who did so (that I can tell) for "doctrinal reasons". If you want to count rejecting stories about farm boys meeting angels and obviously fabricated afterlife revelations "doctrinal issues," then I'm totally alone in my real life, everyone I know who went this route I've met online. Well...there could be more to this, but let's say that's my answer for now.

But that's because most people have very low interest in digging into their religious backdrop. Most people are interested in day-to-day life concerns or they have a very superficial 'deep' interests. I probably only ended up where I did because my parents had a pretty solid LDS library and a friend got me interested in church books. So sure, most people don't leave because of doctrine because doctrine really doesn't matter to most people except in the most superficial ways.

Now when I say there could be more to this, I think an underrated source of dropping out are people who don't buy it, but they aren't dramatic about it, and never had much invested in it in the first place. A great example I can think of is the girlfriend of a former roommate. On the surface, I would have said she fell away because she dated guys that weren't active, was more interested in sex and hanging out with friends, and probably not incredibly reflective about her religious background. Well, I got to know her really well. And it turns out, she was downright brilliant, way undershot in life based on what she could have done, but yeah, she was a brain. She was just way too bright and savvy to ever really believe any of it, from the time she was a little girl. The idea of Joseph Smith seeing God and angels was just downright ridiculous. She never bought it for two minutes. And so there was no drama behind it, she just quietly excused herself from the table and moved on with life, and never really thought about any of it. But someone like her would be categorized as leaving because she liked to party etc.

Yeah, why people leave is fascinating. There are probably just about as many reasons as there are people. I definitely don't find "comfort" that most people leave for reasons beside doctrinal or policy issues. I think we often just assume people's stories are like ours, or maybe like stories we are familiar with. I thought that the original post may have been falling prey to this. Unfortunately, I'm sure I do the same thing.

[JohnW]

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.

What do you mean "correct, except for the anecdotal part"?

My point was that all of the information you presented was based on anecdotal evidence.

And yes, if you are presenting a conclusion on the basis of only anecdotal evidence, then objecting to that use of only anecdotal evidence is entirely valid.

I just meant that the example I gave was of our ward. As bishop, I was involved with every person who left, at least at some level. That isn't anecdotal, it is based on fact. Technically speaking, it is a census. The big problem, as both of us mentioned and agreed upon, is that it is a census of a very small population. It shouldn't be extrapolated to the church as a whole. I thought I made that clear, but it looks as if I didn't.

I guess the only thing that was anecdotal was when I said our ward didn't seem to be an outlier when talking to family and friends.

[Marcus]

What do you mean "correct, except for the anecdotal part"?

My point was that all of the information you presented was based on anecdotal evidence.

And yes, if you are presenting a conclusion on the basis of only anecdotal evidence, then objecting to that use of only anecdotal evidence is entirely valid.

I just meant that the example I gave was of our ward. As bishop, I was involved with every person who left, at least at some level. That isn't anecdotal, it is based on fact. Technically speaking, it is a census. The big problem, as both of us mentioned and agreed upon, is that it is a census of a very small population. It shouldn't be extrapolated to the church as a whole. I thought I made that clear, but it looks as if I didn't.

I guess the only thing that was anecdotal was when I said our ward didn't seem to be an outlier when talking to family and friends.

Sorry no. Speaking as a statistician, your details are, by definition, anecdotal. It's the definition of the word.

And you are not using census properly either, because, as you stated, you were involved with "every person who left." That's an anecdotal element of a group, and in no way represents a census.

I have no problem if you want to discuss anecdotal experiences, for example as Gad just did, but that's what it is--anecdotal.

[JohnW]

For context, overall ward size is around 150-200 active members.

Interesting. What’s the number of members of record for the Ward?

- Doc

About double that. We seem to be a relatively standard "outside-Utah" ward. I don't know if Utah wards are still closer to 300 or more active members. I had heard they were dividing those wards like crazy a few years ago and having more wards than "normal" in their buildings. I used to joke with my family living in Utah that the church decided California ward sizes were functionally better. In reality, there are pros and cons to each. Personally, I think anything less than 100-130 is difficult to manage. We were down to about 130 for a few months, and it was noticeably more difficult. There just weren't enough adults to go around for all the callings. On the other hand, in a ward with 300 people I think I would have a hard time finding meaningful callings for all the adults. It would be too easy for people to hide in a large ward. I'm only speculating on that, of course. We never got much past 200 before the next cohort of families moved out.

[JohnW]

I just meant that the example I gave was of our ward. As bishop, I was involved with every person who left, at least at some level. That isn't anecdotal, it is based on fact. Technically speaking, it is a census. The big problem, as both of us mentioned and agreed upon, is that it is a census of a very small population. It shouldn't be extrapolated to the church as a whole. I thought I made that clear, but it looks as if I didn't.

I guess the only thing that was anecdotal was when I said our ward didn't seem to be an outlier when talking to family and friends.

Sorry no. Speaking as a statistician, your details are, by definition, anecdotal. It's the definition of the word.

And you are not using census properly either, because, as you stated, you were involved with "every person who left." That's an anecdotal element of a group, and in no way represents a census.

I have no problem if you want to discuss anecdotal experiences, for example as Gad just did, but that's what it is--anecdotal.

Ha ha. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I think we may be past the usefulness of discussing the word anecdotal, but maybe we can try one more time. If you are a statistician, then teach me the correct usage.

Anecdotal: If you mean anecdotal in the strictest sense of the word (which is probably what statisticians are used to), then yes, I talked to people to get my facts. The problem is that when dealing with people, that is our only option. When the layperson sees the word anecdotal, they think it means not very reliable because it is based on opinion, not fact. What better way to find out why someone is leaving the church than talking to the person themselves. I don't think you can do much better than that. Yes, they may not be telling their bishop the truth as to why. Yes, they may not even know why themselves. But it is in a different category than just saying, my cousin's friend has a brother who said blah blah blah. That is what the layperson thinks of when they see the word anecdotal. Maybe I'm wrong. I would like to learn your perspective.

Census: This one I'm a little more lost on. Is not a census counting every person of a population? We had a population of people leave church activity over a certain period of time. When we count them and list why they left, is that not a census? Help me understand that one.

Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I think this just may be an instance of me using layman definitions of words while you are using their strict scientific meaning. This wouldn't be the first time confusion has resulted in this way.

[Marcus]

Sorry no. Speaking as a statistician, your details are, by definition, anecdotal. It's the definition of the word.

And you are not using census properly either, because, as you stated, you were involved with "every person who left." That's an anecdotal element of a group, and in no way represents a census.

I have no problem if you want to discuss anecdotal experiences, for example as Gad just did, but that's what it is--anecdotal.

Ha ha. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I think we may be past the usefulness of discussing the word anecdotal, but maybe we can try one more time. If you are a statistician, then teach me the correct usage.

Anecdotal: If you mean anecdotal in the strictest sense of the word (which is probably what statisticians are used to), then yes, I talked to people to get my facts.

Agreed.

The problem is that when dealing with people, that is our only option.

No it's not.

When the layperson sees the word anecdotal, they think it means not very reliable because it is based on opinion, not fact. What better way to find out why someone is leaving the church than talking to the person themselves. I don't think you can do much better than that. Yes, they may not be telling their bishop the truth as to why. Yes, they may not even know why themselves. But it is in a different category than just saying, my cousin's friend has a brother who said blah blah blah. That is what the layperson thinks of when they see the word anecdotal. Maybe I'm wrong. I would like to learn your perspective.

Your layperson view is incorrect. An anecdotal reference may be completely factual, but it does not represent a statistical analysis of a group because by definition you are not properly and comprehensively sampling the group.

Census: This one I'm a little more lost on. Is not a census counting every person of a population? We had a population of people leave church activity over a certain period of time. When we count them and list why they left, is that not a census? Help me understand that one.

No. A census would be to prperly sample an entire population, some of whom may have left, some who didn't. Anecdotally collecting stories of only one side of one decision from only those who talked to you about that decision is by definition anecdotal, not a census!!

Sorry, i am sure i am being a little abrupt but i don't have a lot of time right now so i am trying to get right to the point.

Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I think this just may be an instance of me using layman definitions of words while you are using their strict scientific meaning. This wouldn't be the first time confusion has resulted in this way.

Agreed. Please be clear what layman definition you are using as you understand it, that will help considerably.

[JohnW]

Ha ha. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I think we may be past the usefulness of discussing the word anecdotal, but maybe we can try one more time. If you are a statistician, then teach me the correct usage.

Anecdotal: If you mean anecdotal in the strictest sense of the word (which is probably what statisticians are used to), then yes, I talked to people to get my facts.

Agreed.

The problem is that when dealing with people, that is our only option.

No it's not.

When the layperson sees the word anecdotal, they think it means not very reliable because it is based on opinion, not fact. What better way to find out why someone is leaving the church than talking to the person themselves. I don't think you can do much better than that. Yes, they may not be telling their bishop the truth as to why. Yes, they may not even know why themselves. But it is in a different category than just saying, my cousin's friend has a brother who said blah blah blah. That is what the layperson thinks of when they see the word anecdotal. Maybe I'm wrong. I would like to learn your perspective.

Your layperson view is incorrect. An anecdotal reference may be completely factual, but it does not represent a statistical analysis of a group because by definition you are not properly and comprehensively sampling the group.

Census: This one I'm a little more lost on. Is not a census counting every person of a population? We had a population of people leave church activity over a certain period of time. When we count them and list why they left, is that not a census? Help me understand that one.

No. A census would be to prperly sample an entire population, some of whom may have left, some who didn't. Anecdotally collecting stories of only one side of one decision from only those who talked to you about that decision is by definition anecdotal, not a census!!

Sorry, i am sure i am being a little abrupt but i don't have a lot of time right now so i am trying to get right to the point.

Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I think this just may be an instance of me using layman definitions of words while you are using their strict scientific meaning. This wouldn't be the first time confusion has resulted in this way.

Agreed. Please be clear what layman definition you are using as you understand it, that will help considerably.

Thanks Marcus. That helps me understand your position better. On the census part, sure, I guess it was implied that I also talked to the people who stayed, but you are right in the fact that I didn't talk to all of them and I didn't talk specifically about why they stayed in every case. On the anecdotal part, I guess I just assumed that by using the word, you were implying a negative connotation to my comments. That is the layperson's view. At least I think most people assume calling something is anecdotal is a way to attack an argument. Maybe I'm wrong.

Either way, I think I'm clear on terminology. And, of course, by now I've completely forgotten why we were talking about anecdotes and censuses. If I remember correctly, we both agreed that my experience wasn't a good indicator for the church as a whole. I think originally I was just stating that my experience was that people weren't leaving at a higher rate in my neck of the woods.

No worries. I'll let you get back to whatever it was that you were doing. Consider the dead horse beaten by us both.