Whizzbang, while Pew and ARIS don’t capture well committed converts who leave the church they do give a good analysis of those who were born in the church and leave. Surprisingly only half of those who leave become Nones. At least surprising to me! Especially considering that there will be a disproportionate number who leave in their 20’s. That would mean one would expect the much larger move towards the Nones we see increasing in recent generations.

That said, I tend to agree with you. Fideism, while popular in some ways with certain Mormon intellectuals, seems to really be rejected as a valid justification for belief in Mormonism. We tend to be strong evidentialists. However to leave means to undercut significantly how one judges religious experiences as evidences. What get undermined would, for many people, undermine any basis for Christianity at all. There’s also the historical issues. While there’s undeniably controversial historical things in Mormon history, all of those things are also present in traditional Christianity merely further in the past. If you reject the Book of Mormon because of perceiving there are conflicts with history, the New Testament and Old Testament are not much better. Maybe there are actual Jews unlike (according to this view) actual Nephites but most of the history of the Jews in the Old Testament is rejected as is a great deal of the New Testament.

Of course the reason I think people still remain Christians is because the reasons they leave are actually pretty loosely tied to the intellectual grounds of religions and are more tied to social reasons. i.e. how you interact with the church socially.

Still given the growth of the Nones among Millennials I’d expect the number of Mormons who leave to become Nones to increase with the next studies of ARIS or Pew.

Regarding gay marriage, I won’t get into that issue too much as I know it remains controversial. I’d just say I’m not sure one has to accept the validity of short term “devastation” to think the Lord wants the brethren to pursue to the course they have. As I said I think that within the US the last 20 years was pretty predictable socially on this issue. It was also pretty predictable that social conservatives wouldn’t plan for the long term. I’m not sure it means rearguard actions for lost causes were incorrect. After all there are lots of things one should fight for that are a loosing cause politically or socially.

Mars ‘I”m not too sure about LGBT issues being a “done deal” or the “new normal,” precisely because, as you said, it happened so much faster than race issues. It feels less like an organic shift in opinion and more like an imposition. I imagine a lot of Millennials that are pro-LGBT in public are less so in private. And race issues aren”t even done yet, the current tack of rhetoric among the younger anti-racist set could easily push us back to the 50s on that.

One side-effect of the missionary age change is a much smoother courtship culture. I left my mission to a school full of 21-year-old return missionaries and 18-year-old girls just out of high school. Return sister missionaries were 25 with masters” degrees. 21-year-old women had typically married return missionaries already. Enormous maturity gap. Now there”s still a gap but not nearly as much of one – not sure if it”s intended, but it”s certainly welcome.

MTodd Most who know me would say I”m TBM. But I”m definitely on the fence right now as to whether I”ll stay or go. If I go, I”ll likely become a none. For me it”s a combination of factors: the November policy (and the Church”s awful handling of it) exposed a side of the Church leadership that really bothers me; related, some of the hard nosed comments of general Church leaders (like the Church doesn”t apologize) irks me; leader worship; polygamy, I have a hard time with older men coercing teenage brides; sacrament meetings that don”t mention the Savior; sacrament meetings that are exceedingly dull; other members blaming me when I mention that I”m bored (“You”re obviously not preparing yourself spiritually.”) But now I”m just ranting.

JI MTodd, It”s a choice, isn”t it? Like the choice of some in John 6:60 and 66 versus the choice of others in 6:68-69. When you do make your choice, make it for the right reason.

I think that”s why the Nones are rising, at least n part — speaking generally, they are seeing church as a social club, with a what”s-in-it-for-me perspective

MTodd I think my point is, if I choose to leave, it won”t be because I”m only loosely committed. For me it”s a plethora of reasons (none of which is a piñata)

Clark MTodd, I can but say I hope you don”t go. As someone once said the Church is an infirmary run by the infirmed. I think we need to see through the eyes Jesus sees us with. Imagine how a bunch of racist ignorant bigoted 1st century Palestinians must have seemed to Christ. Knowing what he knew, it must have been even worse than if we had to live in Roman occupied Palestine. Yet somehow he loved them and did great things with them despite their ignorance and flaws. If Christ can do that, I can surely handle quite enlightened and liberally educated yet still flawed 21st century people I encounter.

Regarding my point about people leaving, again these are aggregate numbers. There are lots of reasons people leave. These analysis of the Nones are more being made by non-Mormon (and typically secular) polling agencies, social scientists and psychologists. However the categories certainly don”t fit everyone but describe major trends within the subgroups

Clark If (as many assume) the reason for the drop to 18 is primarily to avoid people falling away when they go to college I”m skeptical this will change that much. It may actually make things worse since many people just aren”t ready at 18. By pushing it for 18 you have more people with bad missions who might fall away when they get home. (And that year back is stressful and a period when many surprisingly do fall away)

This is a place where it”s hard to have public statistics. I suspect the Church has some activity numbers internally although they”d likely just be estimates. Like I said, if that was the aim, I”m skeptical this will make a difference.

I think LGBT issues are a done deal. Gen-X through Millennials overwhelmingly accept LGBT normalization even among religious believers. To my eyes that was the case back in the late 90”s when the Church started making those a big deal. I thought the social moment was such that the next 20 years turned out about as I expected. Right now we”re going through a period where there is solidification of these social changes and then expansions in other areas like transgender. It”s not at all clear how religions will adopt to the new normal. Right now they realize they blew it in the 90”s despite the signs. They”re trying to carve out exemptions in the public sphere but again I think that”s a lost cause despite trying to portray it as religious freedom. Too much of the public simply sees LGBT the way they saw skin color with the adoption of the new views happening far more rapidly than racial view shifts.

Once that policy is absorbed socially though it”s not at all clear what happens next. I could easily see the left becoming a victim of their own success much like the right found after the shift rightward in the 80”s/90”s stabilized. We”ve since seen a big shift leftward primarily due to GOP being unable to really explicate themselves from living in the past. I suspect that with religions there”s a similar danger of fighting battles that are already lost rather than adjusting to the new reality.

Socially I”ll be honest it”s not at all clear what the next 10 years hold. The Trump/alt-right might be a last gasp of a certain mindset or it may illustrate a new movement coming out of the recession. I suspect the former simply because I think demographic changes will dominant. My guess is that the left is about where the right was in the late 90”s, with the associated problems. But we”ll see. Demographics aren”t as determinative as some think.

Clark Chris, I missed your comments way back in (9). I think you raise a good point. Of course government/civilization evolved socially with religion in a fairly intertwined way. So I”m not convinced they ever were as separate as some portray, even in medieval Europe through the early modern era. However it does seem clear that many functions of religion socially have been taken over by the state or business.

One example I like to raise is how quasi-religious groups like the Masons within the US actually grew substantially in the late 19th century and early 20th century due to the social need for insurance and a social net. As private life and medical insurance developed in the post-war era and the state started providing a social net those organizations largely dried up. Effectively the religious/mystic trappings were secondary to their primary social role. I think you”re completely correct that for many people the primary social roles of religion were fairly unrelated to religiosity.
Of course it”s easy to see amongst the educated left how “social justice activism” has adopted many features of religion. Back in the 20th century many noted how socialism and communism ended up adopting the structures of religion as well. Even religious ritual often pops up among the secular in odd ways. Finally while western Europe is no longer religious, many quasi-religious practices such as alternative medicine, “spiritualism” and the like are still extremely popular.

Your point about nordic countries being the leading indicator in all this is a good one. Although I think in some ways the US is just fundamentally different not just because of individualism (both in terms of religion and government) but in how it perceives itself. That said it”s interesting that the shifts we”re seeing in the US started in Canada about a decade earlier. So it may well be that Canada is a sign of what the US is becoming. My sense is that the big shift in the United States is really urbanization which shifts what freedoms people care about as well as their structural needs. The rift politically between the urban and the suburban/rural is of course well known. But I don”t think people have paid as much attention to it in terms of religion nor the rise of the Nones.

I am interesting in reading your thoughts on the missionary conversation rate and will go back and look at your earlier post. I understand and agree there are other reasons the church may want more young adults to engage in full-time service by lowering the age of service. I too question it’s impact on conversion rates but must also confess I’m not qualified to assess the trade-offs at play. It seems obvious part of the thinking is to hedge against losses associated with young men taking a gap year between high school graduation and missionary service. And capturing the value of more young women serving by lowering their age of service to 19 is brilliant I think. But I am sure it will take time to tell if both decisions produce positive utility overall.

Your Reagan reference warmed my heart and I get what you are saying. I come from the generation of Alex Keaton. I will go out on a limb and suggest even if the rapidity of the current cultural shift softens or slows, the delta that is left will create problems depending on if and how quickly the church moves to, at a minimum, align with the slope of the current cultural change in this regard. My guess is this will happen in time, probably in step with Q15 turnover. The question is how long will that take and what will be the costs in the meantime. I don’t see a reverse in direction societally with millennials relative to LGBT issues, as one example. But I’m really freewheeling at this point and need to bring myself back to some level of disciplined analysis.

Your post has rekindled my interest in and motivation to dive back into the national survey data and consider points you make. As always, thanks for putting in the time to spark good discussion.

BigSky, a few things I didn’t mention earlier. First on retention rate of children of record as I’ve said I’m far from convinced the rate has ever been higher than 70% and I suspect has been between 65%-70% most of the post war era. (Although I can’t prove that easily) I’m very skeptical it’ll drop significantly, although getting near 60% wouldn’t be out of the question. That’s one reason why I’m very curious to see the next ARIS study as I find their statistics a little more trustworthy than Pew’s for various reasons. (They usually differ somewhat as well) Because different studies have different flaws and sometimes different measurements it’s very important to not mix them uncritically. I had a warning on using retention figures back at my old blog earlier this year.

Again though I may well be wrong and we may see retention drop below 60%. I’d be quite surprised if that were the case though.

It is true that the birth rate of Mormons is dropping, although it is still the highest in the country I believe. Again since especially the recession of 2008 birth rates dropped across the country including in Utah and among Mormons. My understanding is they are slowly creeping back up slightly though. At a national level the rate had dropped earlier in the 70’s and then recovered in the late 80’s. So I’m loath to draw too long term a trend for this given economic stresses. (The low point was 1975 with 1.74 births per woman and we’ve dropped to 1.88 in 2012)

Issues regarding how we conduct missionary work are definitely worth discussing. I tend to be quite sympathetic to a major rethink although I do like how they church has recently embraced new technology. (Although they need to carry around a portable bluetooth speaker as it’s really hard to hear their iPads) I don’t think there are any obvious better approaches although that may be a lack of imagination on my part. I think that, as when I was on a mission, the best missionary work is done by regular member bringing their friends to the missionaries. But by and large most people don’t like doing that.

While I don’t have good evidence for my solutions so I don’t push them too hard, I’d probably raise the missionary age back up to 19 and then significantly increase the number of Stake Missionaries as callings. I also think we have the problem of primarily proselytizing dissatisfied Christians. This means we don’t do as well in Asia as say Evangelicals. I think we need a real rethink in how we present our message. It may well be we should be targeting Nones and building upon common ground there simply requires a different common ground.

Regarding social justice again it’s hard to know how to take it. There have been extremely rapid social changes the past 10 years. Probably nothing like it has happened in the post war era other than the late 60’s. I think that transition is still going on. Until we reach an other point of social stability I’m loath to say much. I remember when I was young how Reagan conservatism was a big thing. So these social changes don’t tend to persist as long as some think.

While I understand some of the positive reasons for the change I really think it has some big negatives as well. Of course what counts is what God wants in all this. Both he and the brethren are much better at balancing those costs and benefits than I am.

Rodney Stark’s comments on Mormon growth back in the 90’s were always silly to my eyes. You just don’t get exponential growth past a certain point. The way some Mormons embraced them in a kind of triumphant “I told you” so was extremely unfortunate at best. So comparing our growth since the 90’s to unrealistic expectations doesn’t bother me much.

I’ve not written on foreign growth as it’s so much harder to get good figures there although there are a few people who’ve written on them.

It is worth repeating what I said in that post on converts per missionaries. While conversion is important, that’s not necessarily the most significant aspect functionally for missionary service.

I compiled the number of full-time missionaries, converts and baptisms of record by year from 1970-2014 in a spreadsheet using the church’s annual statistical report delivered in general conference. The trends are alarming.

Average convert baptisms per full-time missionary have been in a steady decline and moved from ~8 to ~3 over that period, with some variation. Convert baptisms do not seem to have moved much over the past decade and are down considerably from the early 90’s. Growth from children of record baptisms has experienced only modest gains over the past decade. While the church is experiencing growth, incremental growth YOY from both converts and children of record baptisms appears to be trending flat or even in a modest negative decline. There certainly doesn’t seem to be the compounded growth rate some sociologists predicted a decade or two ago. It is difficult to fit a line to the data and extrapolate outside the dataset looking ahead, but unless there is a change I fear the church could experience negative growth a few years from today.

The big question(s) is, of course, what are the key drivers?

1) Nuclear Mormon families in North America are having fewer children AND 1 in 3 (approaching 1 in 2) fall away resulting in their children not being baptized?
2) Slowing convert baptisms in developed economies?
3) The church’s offering–how it improves the lives of its members–is slipping in relevancy?
4) The 50-year-old model of young men and women in white shirts, ties and dresses with name tags preaching a message of eternal families does not resonate with many market segments (outside of perhaps developing economies)?
5) The social costs of identifying as Mormon are becoming too high for young members whose generation values authenticity above all else as well as valuing greater consciousness towards issues relating to social justice–many of the church’s policies seem misaligned in this regard?

Church growth, activity rates, self-identification is critically important and I wish I heard more from the pulpit about this other than more missionaries and more commitment on the part of members to use pass along cards. I hope I am not coming off as being jaded, but realistic.

The secular faithful are the ones that are concerned about LGBT policies, and I would argue that we’re not going to draw them in no matter what they do. They – and I don’t have any sources on this – seem to change churches without actually attending them. I call them faithful because they tend to treat social causes with the same kind of vigor and dogmatism that you would expect from a religious adherent. Who says you can’t be religious but not spiritual? Anyway they are a large and complex movement that is a fascinating topic of study I haven’t done.

MTDs are a little closer to true nones on a spectrum. They find fulfillment in life, they believe in God and sunsets, they typically have close friends. They can come to the Church in times of crisis, but often just go to whoever finds them first – and often go right back to MTD when the crisis has passed, confident that their new Mormon friends will be able to help them if something happens again.

True nones are the most important in my opinion. I’d say this is the largest of the three groups I just made up (you could probably split it more I guess), and the group with the greatest chance of members being receptive to the Gospel. This is the “none” of the lower classes, the people who never had any religious contacts at all, the people who don’t have any friends – not saying these traits don’t apply to the other groups, they’re just more common here. This group is a total toss-up. Quite often they have no foundation and are very easily socialized into a functional ward. These are the people who would crave the Church’s challenge and discipline – secular faithful have their work cut out for them, MTD would have joined a church if they wanted that.

I’m not too concerned about fertility here – probably highest in MTD, but they typically let their child choose what religion they want, which in my experience is mostly true none.

I’ve felt the same way about the majority of my callings. They’ve all been mildly boring or unpleasant and none has ever given me that fulfillment or glow that everyone talks about here.

But I recently got a calling as a French Gospel Principle teacher. I enjoy that but it’s probably more selfish because I just really enjoy speaking in French with others.

However, I can’t extrapolate my experience onto a broader trend, in fact from my anecdotal conversations with other active millennials I suspect I’m a small minority. Probably because like-minded people have already become Nones. (I guess that was an extrapolation right there… call it an untested hypothesis)

Still, I think – and it might seem counterintuitive – that we will draw more to us by adopting harsher stances. There’s just not a lot of room for strength in the public sphere anymore. Do What Thou Wilt has become most of the law, and we’re finding out why most human societies have had very strict (relative to today) moral codes. I keep thinking of Brad Pitt’s monologue in Fight Club about a generation of men raised by women, never having a chance to feel proud of themselves. This church gives them that chance. Our patriarchy may turn out to our advantage after all.

Martin, I don’t doubt that most people spend more time on Netflix than volunteering, but when you ask them about their lives, what puts the glow in their eyes? Fifteen minutes in a soup kitchen outweighs a season of streamed TV every time. First-world nations often have extreme time surpluses, but just because we’re prodigal with them does not mean that is where we put our gods.

I had lots of success in South America on my mission 40 years ago because mothers and fathers were hugely concerned about getting their children baptized correctly. Our message of authority, proxy baptism, etc, resonated with them. As I’ve said a few times on LDS blogs (probably too many times) I can’t imagine anyone I work with now losing sleep at night over who has the authority to baptize their children. It’s just not on their radar. We have had more than 100 years of success because our message addressed the existential concerns of people in society. I’m not suggesting we should change our message, I am suggesting that society in general is moving away from it.