converts leaving the church

[RachelleDrew]

I am a convert who resigned a couple years after my conversion. I wouldn't say more people leave than join though. I was one of maybe three or four converts that became inactive or resigned. In the course of my membership though, i've seen dozens of adults be baptized. But it is different for different stakes/wards. Our area has a very high conversion retention rate, but I think a good deal of that has to do with the fact that our wards are very small and so fellowship is really well structured in the LDS churches in my area.

[Wingnut]

I am a convert who resigned a couple years after my conversion.

I didn't know that. Is that recent?

[pam]

Rachelle, weren't you just over a year ago working on going to the temple?

[pam]

I didn't know that. Is that recent?

Must be very recent since she got called as a counselor in the Young Women's in January.

[RachelleDrew]

Yup. It is very recent. I sent my resignation in May.

[rameumptom]

Rachelle, just out of curiousity, what things brought you to resignation? Perhaps if there are some weaknesses in the Church, we can learn from those who resign.

[RachelleDrew]

Rachelle, just out of curiousity, what things brought you to resignation? Perhaps if there are some weaknesses in the Church, we can learn from those who resign.

It absolutely was not the people or the local leadership. They are great people, and i'm still friends with many of the members in my local stake. I think people thought that I had been "offended" somewhere along the line, and that simply wasn't it. My son is still attending church services with his grandparents, and will continue unless in the future he decides he doesn't want to. I will always leave it up to him.

My decision to leave was purely doctrinal and testimony-related. I had doubts about the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and about the Book of Mormon as the word of God.

As my temple experience was coming up soon, I had to re-evaluate what I believed in, and at that point the doubts became certainties. That's when I realized that I needed to resign.

It wasn't a weakness in any particular area of my local Branch. That's for sure.

[HiJolly]

My decision to leave was purely doctrinal and testimony-related. I had doubts about the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and about the Book of Mormon as the word of God.

As my temple experience was coming up soon, I had to re-evaluate what I believed in, and at that point the doubts became certainties. That's when I realized that I needed to resign.

Sorry to hear it, RachelleDrew.

I hope you find a community of faith that you can believe in. :)

HiJolly

[RachelleDrew]

Sorry to hear it, RachelleDrew.

I hope you find a community of faith that you can believe in. :)

HiJolly

Thank you very much, and I absolutely have found a great church community since then that more accurately aligns with my belief system.

Luckily, my friends and family who are still LDS are very understanding and have refrained from passing judgement regarding my decision. I know some people aren't that lucky, but I certainly have not had many problems since my departure.

However, in thinking about it there is something that i've witnessed other converts going through that I would like to share with you folks in a hope that there is some understanding. I hope nobody perceives this as insulting or inflammatory, as that is not my intent. More just me trying to provide some insight.

I know one thing that i've noticed others going through though is a disregard for legitimate questions in reference to the church or it's history. New members are taught a very basic understanding of the gospel, and as time goes on it is only natural for them to have some confusion or curiosity in regards to more difficult concepts and controversial historical events in the church. Sometimes the person being asked is unable to answer due to a lack of knowledge about the subject themselves, or because of covenants they made in the temple to not discuss the issue in question.

So questions will get asked, and the ones who are asking are more or less shut down in way that is kind of condescending. It creates an atmosphere of mistrust and bitterness at times in members, and frequently starts a chain reaction that can lead to a person leaving.

I personally didn't experience this, but I witnessed others going through this. My ward/branch was very small and we had several members who were avid FARMS/FAIRLDS studiers, people who actually enjoyed "tough" questions. So I never felt like I was being insulted for asking a complicated or probing question. But some members experience this and it can be very damaging. There has to be a way that this sort of thing can be eradicated, because I feel it would be very helpful to the church's member retention.

[Jamie123]

I know one thing that i've noticed others going through though is a disregard for legitimate questions in reference to the church or it's history. New members are taught a very basic understanding of the gospel, and as time goes on it is only natural for them to have some confusion or curiosity in regards to more difficult concepts and controversial historical events in the church. Sometimes the person being asked is unable to answer due to a lack of knowledge about the subject themselves, or because of covenants they made in the temple to not discuss the issue in question.

So questions will get asked, and the ones who are asking are more or less shut down in way that is kind of condescending. It creates an atmosphere of mistrust and bitterness at times in members, and frequently starts a chain reaction that can lead to a person leaving.

I think this "teaching in a vacuum" approach may have been more effective before the mid 90's, when hardly anyone had access to the Internet and much less information was posted anyway. I remember scouring the university library for information on Mormonism, and finding only 2 books: A short introduction to Church history (published by the church itself) and a historical study of the life of Brigham Young. (This was not a theological university BTW, so maybe my experience isn't typical.) Aside from the various encyclopedia articles, that was all the information I could get - except from the the few tidbits from missionaries themselves, who were often reluctant to tell me anything they didn't think I needed to know.

The world is quite different now. Information (and misinformation) is available on tap to absolutely anyone. You don't even need to have your own computer as the public libraries have plenty. Even the temple ceremonies - once guarded secrets - can now be read at the touch of a button. More information leads to more questions and - rightly or wrongly - more doubts, and many - particularly those of an older generation - don't realise the Church is now fighting a totally different battle.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Jamie123

[HiJolly]

I think this "teaching in a vacuum" approach may have been more effective before the mid 90's, when hardly anyone had access to the Internet and much less information was posted anyway. I remember scouring the university library for information on Mormonism, and finding only 2 books: A short introduction to Church history (published by the church itself) and a historical study of the life of Brigham Young. (This was not a theological university BTW, so maybe my experience isn't typical.) Aside from the various encyclopedia articles, that was all the information I could get - except from the the few tidbits from missionaries themselves, who were often reluctant to tell me anything they didn't think I needed to know.

The world is quite different now. Information (and misinformation) is available on tap to absolutely anyone. You don't even need to have your own computer as the public libraries have plenty. Even the temple ceremonies - once guarded secrets - can now be read at the touch of a button. More information leads to more questions and - rightly or wrongly - more doubts, and many - particularly those of an older generation - don't realise the Church is now fighting a totally different battle.

I totally agree. Excellent point.

HiJolly

[LDSVALLEY]

I didn't take time to read all 110 posts so if I repeat something said....sorry.

When I was a Mission Leader I looked into why so many leave the church what I found was this.....

The church gets focused on the front end of Missionary work and often neglect the back end. Meaning that we focus on the finding and the baptizing but ignore what is often the harder part, the retention of the new member.

The church is a different culture with a different language, different values and a different way of doing things compared to the outside world. Most new converts have to alter their life view and life style in order to conform but often we don't give them enough support and understanding of the difficulty they have with this. We get so used to the gospel we fail to realize how confusing and open to misunderstanding the basic doctrine can be. Mixed in with people teaching the gospel according to them instead of the Lord, with Leaders following what they think is their role instead of learning what the Lord as laid out. It is surprising that as many stay as do in my opinion.

This is not guess work but reality. I spent 80% of my time on retention and only 20% on finding and we baptized more members and kept more new converts active then any other Ward in our Stake. I spent months teaching cooperation with the other auxiliary Leaders and how their callings could be made easier by working more with New Converts up front instead of waiting until they fell away and then trying to get them back. Even though I mostly ignored the finding we led with Baptism's because when we took the time to care and teach each individual they responded by bringing those they cared about to experience what they now had.

The new Mission Leader and indeed the new Stake Leaders went back to preaching finding as what Missionary work is. Too date most of those we had kept active have now left. And we have had 1 baptism this year. We just finished Stake conference and as my facebook page said I attended a Missionary Fireside disguised as Stake Conference. Only 1 of 9 talks\testimonies was not about Missionary work.

Doctrine and Convenants 4 is on Missionary work. The field is white already to harvest. This is true but after you harvest your crop if you then ignore it to harvest more then it just lays in a field and rots.

[MichaelPAGuy]

I feel another major problem with converts leaving the church is gossip and the internet. Instead of relying on what God tells people through the spirit members, old and new decide to look anti-lds stuff up on the internet and tend to believe it. Who is a more credible source, God or the internet?

[Jamie123]

I feel another major problem with converts leaving the church is gossip and the internet. Instead of relying on what God tells people through the spirit members, old and new decide to look anti-lds stuff up on the internet and tend to believe it. Who is a more credible source, God or the internet?

God obviously, but the people you're referring to are starting to doubt that the feelings they've always attributed to the Spirit are really from God, and are looking for other possibilities. You must remember that most anti-Mormons are not anti-God. They are Christians, preaching what they believe to be the truth. Their version of your rhetorical question will be something like "What's the more credible source? Your own subjective feelings (which you choose to label 'The Spirit'), or the Word of God revealed to us in Holy Scripture?" And by "Holy Scripture" of course they mean the Bible interpreted their way.

[Last_Daze]

If you'll permit me just to share my thoughts on the matter (as an investigator). I know a few converts to the church; some have left, and a couple remain. I think I can echo those who say that it has little, if anything, to do with doctrine. Rather, I think it has to do with two main things:

1) The missionary lessons don't include a lot about the history of the church, or cover anything but the Gospel as currently taught by the church. So the new convert learns about stuff from church history, like the ban on black men in the Priesthood, or the Mountain Meadows incident, or some obscure statement by Brigham Young or some other church leader, or something that was taught in the past but is no longer taught as doctrine by the church. The reaction is something to the effect of "OMG, that happened?!?!!? They lied to me! I can't believe it!" They get this idea that because they were not told about every jot and tittle of church history by the missionaries, they were deceived and the church is not what it was made out to be. (Whether this happens through 'anti-Mormon propaganda' is uncertain. I am sure it does for some.)

2) More serious (and unfortunate, from my point of view), is that the convert realizes that the church socially is not what they thought it would be. I think that a lot of people are coming to the church seeking a strong, close-knit faith community where people believe strongly, support each other, and live their faith out in their daily lives. Many are actively seeking this kind of environment. Of course, because the church and its people are not perfect (regardless of the level of organization) they become disillusioned and leave.

I think the second point has the most to do with an inability to integrate into the community post-baptism. I think it is incumbent upon the community to do everything they can to help the new convert along; I'm glad to hear that people, around here at least, seem to agree with that. No question at all, Pres. Hinckley was correct when he said that every convert needs three things: a friend, a calling/responsibility, and nurturing with the Word.