If you’ve been on the Mormon corner of the internet this week, you must’ve seen the various articles drilling down on disaffection and defection from the church — as droves out our windows. If you haven’t heard the story, then you can check this page from Mormon Chronicles to get a succinct, yet complete summary of the saga. Notwithstanding its mostly complete account, the one thing that Mormon Chronicles has not chronicled as of the writing of this article here that directly relates to this saga is the January 31st ABC New article sensationally titled, “Number of faithful Mormons rapidly declining.” The ABC News article gives me the impression that this news bit has become a game of Telephone for the media, and just like the 3rd grade variety, the message will simply get more distorted and more exaggerated as time progresses. Who knows what grossly inaccurate message will take in the hearts of the non-Mormon public?
There is a wide variety of angles to approach this news story. At the boring surface level, we could talk about disaffection in the church. (But wouldn’t we talk about that without being prompted by Reuters articles?) Perhaps we could talk about the fact that Elder Jensen was candid about the church leaders’ knowledge of the situation. (But Elder Jensen has said candid things in private before…in fact, a previous Jensen controversy is why we are all here at W&T.) Maybe we could talk about the fact that these news articles coincide with Open Stories Foundation’s preliminary release of survey results on why Mormons leave the church? (Ah, our very own Jake has already covered this point.)
While all of these are options, I instead thought: what will people do to respond to these phenomena? Will they do anything? Will it be effective?
See, it seems like the church’s ability to retain members is of keen interest to certain non-Mormons…as I’ve written a little bit on my personal blog, evangelical Christians want to reach out to Mormons, and if Mormons are already having issues with various aspects relating to the church, then why can’t evangelical Christians scavenge after the fallout?
A Kinder, Gentler Approach
The one major thing I note from Tim’s post at LDS & Evangelical Conversations is the call to his Evangelical brethren to be more positive. From his post:
The heart of your message is not the bad fruit of Joseph Smith, the heart of your message is the hope that lives within you. Stick to your message. Instead of making you and your ministry the place Mormons become disenfranchised with their faith become the place where they can safely ask “what’s next”. Become a recovery center for the spiritually wounded rather than an artillery range against Joseph Smith. Though some are still converted to Mormonism, the LDS church is not the threat it once was and mostly likely never will be again. I wouldn’t want even a single Evangelical converted into Mormonism but I don’t believe guarding our sheep needs to be our chief focus any longer.
The takeaway I get from this post? So much of the Evangelical approach to this point has been to try to tear down faith in Mormon concepts and ideas…but this has been ineffective because it hasn’t shown Mormons the value in evangelical concepts and ideas, and in fact, the tone and approach has alienated Mormons, turning them away from evangelicalism…perhaps for good.
If the church is going through anything like a crisis, then this approach should not be necessary. Evangelicals have the opportunity to comfort Mormons who are disoriented from faith crises, rather than be the instigators of those faith crises.
In my own post on the topic, I reiterated that I do think that a lot of the evangelical failure with disaffecting Mormons has been because of the attitudes that many evangelicals take with Mormons. At least when it comes to theology (and at least in places like Oklahoma and Texas, where I grew up), I find that many evangelicals are jerks. Blame me for “being offended” if you want, but ultimately, I’m not interested in their religion when I’ve experienced how they treat people who believe and practice differently. For all the bad fruits they speak of for Mormonism, the evangelical ones seem more immediate.
What I’ve found that is so off-putting is that in some cases, our friendship becomes contingent on theological positions. God and church become wedges between us.
The Mormon Plan
So far, I’ve described the evangelical interest in disaffected or disaffecting Mormons…but naturally, that’s not the only group that’s interested in reaching out. Of course, the church itself has plans to reach out to Mormons at risk of leaving the church.
Several articles quote Elder Jensen describing a novel effort to pull inactive members back into the fold: The Rescue. The Reuters article describes the basic gist of The Rescue:
With defections rising, the church has launched a program to stanch its losses. The head of the church, President Thomas Monson, who is considered a living prophet, has called the campaign “The Rescue” and made it his signature initiative, according to Jensen. The effort includes a new package of materials for pastors and for teaching Mormon youth that address some of the more sensitive aspects of church doctrine. “If they are not revolutionary, they are at least going to be a breath of fresh air across the church,” Jensen told the Utah class.
What will The Rescue entail? One person via a private Mormon Facebook group claimed that he learned per his stake being part of the pilot for this program that The Rescue would involve the following steps:
1. The Ward Council nominates 15 names of less-active/inactive members. These names come from the various quorums and auxiliaries
2. Those 15 names go onto a Rescue list
3. Each of those 15 people are assigned an active member, usually from the Ward Council, but not necessarily
4. The assigned member contacts the inactive member and asks if they are open to a visit
5. The assigned member visits the inactive member.
6. Depending on how the mood is, the assigned member will either a) just have a pleasant visit and ask to return or b) invite the inactive member to meet with the missionaries to re-take the discussions.
7. The assigned member returns and reports to the Ward Council. If everything went swimmingly (that is, the inactive member has agreed to take the discussions or has invited the active member for another visit) then that inactive member will stay on the Rescue list
8. If things did not go swimmingly, that is, the inactive member said get lost or said they would not take the missionary discussions, they are dropped from the Rescue list and replaced with a fresh inactive member.
If the inactive member progresses to the missionary discussions, the missionaries visit and challenge the member to do all the stuff they’d normally challenge investigators to do, minus baptism.
In some cases, the bishop may visit the inactive member instead of the missionaries and challenge the inactive member to live their covenants and return to the temple.
If the inactive says no, they are taken off the Rescue list, but they are not free and clear. Eventually, they will end up back on the Rescue list, and the cycle will continue.
Does any of this sound familiar?
From the same private Facebook group, many of the comments expressed doubts as to the efficacy of such a program. Isn’t this supposed to be home teaching? Is this home teaching with the missionaries involved? Is this a way to rebrand home teaching to make it more *urgent*?
If this is something like how the program will actually run (unfortunately, I have no confirmation either way), then one thing that is intriguing is the extent to which assigned members are to check the mood from the inactive member. Presumably if the inactive member is not receptive, then the assigned member will just have a pleasant visit and ask to return later.
…Just a pleasant visit?
It seems that what lies at the foundation of The Rescue’s approach is an idea that many inactive members are inactive because they weren’t properly socialized or integrated into the ward, or because they didn’t make enough friends in the church. And who knows..? Maybe that is the case and the online disaffected Mormon community is horribly unrepresentative. Or maybe, even of those for whom historical issues are something of a problem, what is the real final straw is the fact that the social connections aren’t satisfactory as well.
But here’s the thing…many inactive and disaffected Mormons both have reservations against this method of resolving these social problems…and it’s quite frankly the same reason I’m “put off” by evangelical Christianity for the most part, and the same reason why so many disaffected Mormons become estranged from family and friends: friendship becomes contingent on theological positions.
The disaffected Mormon often finds out that God and church becomes a wedge in his/her marriage and relationship (although both sides of the couple will see things differently: for the still believing spouse, the disaffected spouse’s change in beliefs is like a breach in the contract). The inactive Mormon subtly discerns that the attempts to re-fellowship have the same sort of inauthenticity behind them.
Today’s Questions
So, let’s suppose, for one moment, that the reason people disaffect is not necessarily because of any substantial theological or historical point (or that those points aren’t decisive). Let’s suppose that it primarily has to do with how one has been treated. And let’s suppose further that maybe “poor treatment” is not so simple as finding people who were slighted or maligned or insulted…that alternatively, one may feel bad about a religion simply because they feel relationships formed in a particular faith community — even if not overtly negative — are shallow, limited, or reserved.
How can the LDS church reach people who feel that relationships based with a particular religious outcome in mind are shallow?
Can evangelical Christians do better by performing effectively the same role, just with a different denomination?
How can evangelicals or faithful Mormons be true, good friends to disaffecting members while being true to their ultimate evangelical, missionary, or fellowship goals?
Wheat & Tares 
I think it would be helpful if they updated the manuals to discuss the things not taught in Sunday School along with including history into their timelines–like when Joseph Smith took on his second wife. Because you know it’s sad when your kid first hears about polygamy in history class and brushes it off as ‘anti-mo’ propaganda.
😉
When I heard of the rescue I thought it would be some cool new thing, like special classes that delve into church history, and explore the problems in mormonism. I knew my hopes were set to high.
The Rescue is identical to a similarly scheme done about 10 years ago here, except they only had 5 names on the list to focus on. The church is setting its sights higher with 15.
It is interesting that both evangelicals and mormons are trying to claim the disaffected. When it seems to me that most turn to agnosticism or atheism instead of another form of Christianity when they disaffect. (this is anecdotal)
Is there any info on what Elder Jensen actually said? All of these claims about people leaving the church in “droves” don’t seem very well supported in the articles making this claim. I have no doubt that Elder Jensen has hard data but I haven’t seen any actually reported.
I am personally not sure how accurate these reports are but frankly, I can’t help but think that if evangelicals and others believe Mormons are less of a “threat” they may dial down the antagonism, which would be nice.
re 4:
E,
There is a recording of the Q&A session where Elder Jensen spoke. Here’s a link: http://www.fileswap.com/dl/5iKOuShH9D/ElderJensenQandAInterlacedEdited.mp3
Disaffection really isn’t a new story. So, it’s not like last year, there was no disaffection, and now there’s a flood. Rather, what’s “new” is that now we know for sure that general authorities know about disaffection.
re 3,
Jake,
Yep, I’m still hoping that there’s something cool and new out of this.
For whatever it’s worth, evangelicals want to claim the disaffected because they don’t want them becoming agnostic/atheist.
re 1
NewlyHousewife,
But what would be the best way for the church to do something like this without rocking the boat of class *teachers* who may not know about these things?
The Rescue=fake friendship
if you do what we want, we will come back and visit, if you don’t, we want nothing to do with you.
Sounds like Home Teaching/Visiting Teaching to me.
E – from your mouth to God’s ears!
“The Rescue”? So transparent! How many disaffected and lapsed Mormons already feel they are being love-bombed or rescued or whatever? And they generally don’t like it one bit. I think this article is spot on.
I sure as heck don’t see disaffected Mormons turning evangelical, for the following reasons:
– Everything they don’t like about Mormonism (attitudes, orthodoxy, social conservativism) is the same or worse in Evangelicalism.
– Evangelicals have absolutely poisoned that well.
– Mormonism makes a pretty compelling case that the Christian church was corrupted after Christ’s death, so Protestant sects seem deeply flawed.
– If Mormonism isn’t true, then all our polemic beliefs point to their being no true church, period. Whether that view leads to skeptical or cynical belief, or agnosticism or atheism probably depends on the individual’s personality.
What about unintended consequences? If some of the fifteen were staying on the membership rolls for family reasons (i.e. they don’t want to fully come out as no longer mormon to their families). If these people are not interested in the discussions and would prefer to be left alone, won’t this encourage them to request that their names be officially removed?
With that said, I wonder if this is really just a feedback loop. What are the real reasons most people disaffect? Who organizes and understands this data? As I mentioned in my comment yesterday, it is really a complicated question with no simple answers. Will more home teachers really change the trend?
Finally, I agree that one thing evangelicals could do would be to stop having “mormons worship the devil” type classes and seminars. It’s not helping anyone to spread deliberate misinformation. All it encourages is ill will on both sides.
First – I completely agree with Hawkgrrrl. I really don’t see myself ever going back to the Church, because frankly I don’t believe it. Still, on the continuum of possibilities it is far more likely that I would return to Mormonism than it is that I would ever become an Evangelical. I shudder at the thought!
Second, let’s accept the proposition true, that a change in the social integration structure will result in greater numbers. Theologically that ought to be a problem. The Church isn’t producing Enoch’s who will be wild men willing to stand alone against the world. If the interest is just volume, which I think it is, then the rescue sounds practical. If the goal is faith unto salvation, the strategy is way off the mark…and has been for a long time. The emphasis should be on greater teaching of the gospel.
Have decent training sessions before a teacher starts teaching would be one.
I’m not sure that the Facebook poster accurately depicted what this program is going to be like. In the recording Elder Jensen makes it sound like it is intended to help people deal with controversial issues, including active members. I’m going to reserve judgement until I have more information.
Not that I think there is a hierarchy in religious sects. But for me going from Mormonism to Evangelism would feel like a downgrade. As hawk said, some of the difficult parts of Mormonism that I struggle with are taken to even more extreme levels in some evangelical churches. Could I really go to a church that insisted that every word in the bible came from God? At least we have the translated correctly clause in that.
People will leave the church if they think the grass is greener on the other side of the churches fence, for many it really is greener. If the church wants to get people back then it needs to not send people across the gate to tell them how green it is back where they came from, the disaffected have been there and they know how green (or not) it is. Instead of sending people out the church needs to get gardening and make the grass greener and improve the church. Instead of standing amongst parched brown grass trying to convince others and those that have left that its really green.
re 11,
mapman,
I certainly hope that the FB commenter wasn’t right. I too eagerly look forward to more information.
When I read discussions like this, I am seeing a replay of discussions we’ve had in the RLDS/CofChrist tradition 40 years ago or more.
All I can say is this: Restoration church growth seems to be controlled at the macro-societal level, and NOT at any level that can be altered by changing programs, emphases, or approaches.
The LDS is filling its niche. Societies throughout the world will determine how big that niche is, and how those societies evolve will dwarf any responses by the church.
The Restoration is NOT the tail that can wag the dog.
Re FireTag-
Amen. This is my view of it as well.
Re Andrew-
This is really the rub in my opinion. And it’s only real to those who have felt it. I do have hope, however, that things will/can change. My current bishop (who is a 180 difference from my previous one), knows a reasonable amount about my concerns. Yet I still get temple recommends, teach the YM in my ward, etc. etc. He’s a diamond in the rough to be sure, but I’m hopeful that more people are becoming like this.
Re: Firetag (#14)-
I think that is a great point. This is the trouble I have John Dehlins recent efforts, as well as others wanting to effect change in the Church. Let me connect dots…at least as I see them. Dehlin is hoping to provide the Church with the results of his survey, so that they can do…what? Let’s pretend that he is able to verify that the Church’s history and doctrine are becoming problematic to many members. Can the Church change those things? Can they all of the sudden write of a certain part of their history without jeapordizing the legitimacy of the organization? Can they repeal or change doctrine, when the Church is based on revelation from God, which comes with the natural implication that God doesn’t send mixed signals? Of course they can’t! All they can do is “spin”. They can find a new way to say things, change the wrapper, change the label, they can even change the channels in how that product is delivered. But in reality they cannot change the product. I think this some of the why (perhaps) behind Firetags comment. The Church can’t really change the product, so they can’t really have a strong affect on the economic demand for the Mormon “good”. They can’t do anything to make society want it. When society changes, smart companies change their products to align with market demand. As I have pointed out, changing the product of Mormonism will ultimately drive the demand down to zero. Therefore, the only thing that can happen is a change in the broader society, that happens to align them to Mormonism, not the other way around. In essence, the programs are ultimately a waste of advertising.
Cowboy:
Exactly. And changing the product — as the RLDS/CofChrist radically did — doesn’t help even if you do it. The CofChrist is still following exactly the same decline path in North America as it was before it liberalized.
A cynic would say that you might as well go ahead and do what you think is right without worrying about how it will affect your membership records.
“A cynic would say that you might as well go ahead and do what you think is right without worrying about how it will affect your membership records”
So long as cynic = sincere believer. The fuss about changing the wrapper, “and I’m a Mormon”, etc, bespeaks a religion that has no faith in it’s spiritual appeal. So instead they advertise like the Gap, or Old Navy. “Hey look at all these happy normal people wearing our clothes”. They may be able to sell on the trends, or affect the impulse buy, but at the end of the day their buyers just end up with boxes of old clothes that they never really wear. The good news for the Gap is that they can still turn a profit on this model, whereas the Church can’t.
I am near positive that 15 rotation deal is not the program. They use that system as a missionary tool and it has been around for a few years. I attempted to make it work when I was a ward mission leader. It is designed to help member missionary work.
Bring back coffee and donuts, and I’d be there every Sunday.
#21:Chino Blanco, I have been at churches with coffee and donuts___it works!