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

[Marcus]

Agreed.

No it's not.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, you are. There's nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence as long as you properly identify it and consider it as such.

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.

Well no, i was objecting because you presented your anecdotal evidence as an explanation for 'why people leave the lds church.'

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.

No problem.

Didn't you post as Gorman in previous iteration? If so, this pretense at the not understanding the math behind stats is you resurrecting a horse that died long, long ago, and has long since had its elements dispersed into the universe, in order to take another inscrutable whack at it. I'm more than happy to let it die again. Again.

[JohnW]

Didn't you post as Gorman in previous iteration? If so, this pretense at the not understanding the math behind stats is you resurrecting a horse that died long, long ago, and has long since had its elements dispersed into the universe, in order to take another inscrutable whack at it. I'm more than happy to let it die again. Again.

Yes, yes I did. I don't remember statistics conversations in the past, though. I hate to say it, but probability and statistics was always uncomfortable to me. I think that is the main reason I didn't like quantum mechanics. One time the local community college asked me to teach a statistics class at night. I told them I hadn't really taken much statistics outside of physics. They had me teach it anyway. Luckily is was low-level statistics. I still had to study quite a bit that semester. The good thing is that I ended up learning a whole bunch of statistics while teaching that class. It has been long enough ago that I must need to brush up. Maybe you can keep me straight, Marcus. Remind me next time I try to resurrect the horse.

[malkie]

Didn't you post as Gorman in previous iteration? If so, this pretense at the not understanding the math behind stats is you resurrecting a horse that died long, long ago, and has long since had its elements dispersed into the universe, in order to take another inscrutable whack at it. I'm more than happy to let it die again. Again.

Yes, yes I did. I don't remember statistics conversations in the past, though. I hate to say it, but probability and statistics was always uncomfortable to me. I think that is the main reason I didn't like quantum mechanics. One time the local community college asked me to teach a statistics class at night. I told them I hadn't really taken much statistics outside of physics. They had me teach it anyway. Luckily is was low-level statistics. I still had to study quite a bit that semester. The good thing is that I ended up learning a whole bunch of statistics while teaching that class. It has been long enough ago that I must need to brush up. Maybe you can keep me straight, Marcus. Remind me next time I try to resurrect the horse.

Far be it from me to drag you back into statistical arguments, but what do you think is the probability that you'll try to breathe new life into the equine?

[huckelberry]

....., 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.

..........

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.
......

JohnW, I think it would be quite difficult to get accurate information about why people leave. Most are going to avoid telling you to avoid arguments, offense, and embarrassment. It is highly likely that multiple reasons contribute and a person may see different things as most important on different days of the week. I do not know which thing is most important to me. In fact it is possible that if asked some people would have difficulty presenting the correct answer even they were trying to be open about it.

If one was trying to create statistics there would be a variety of problems which would blur any accuracy. How one gets a selection of respondents would slant the selection of people. How respondents saw the purpose of a survey could seriously affect the answers proposed. How those answers were interpreted would allow the survey takers assumptions to determine the results. To turn answers into numbers there would be some approach to the simplification , did you leave because of a, b, c, or d?

I suppose even with the difficulties statistics gathered by an outside source would be more accurate than what people told their church leader. I never told a church leader anything about my journey out. I did have friends I spoke openly about problems concerning the church and who shared the same. Not a lot but enough to see result of some stay in some left and returned and some left and were glad to stay completely out. Despite some inside confidences I would not claim to really understand for sure the why of the different paths taken.

I certainly do not wish to say your thoughts and observations are with out value. Well I am suggesting a bit more restraint on saying why other people leave, your information is limited.

I am a bit curious as to how you see the church adjusting.