Converts who leave the Church.

[Sunday21]

In the temple they told us that our retention rate is 80%, if converts attend the temple in the first year vs something like 20-30%.

[An Investigator]

7 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

In the temple they told us that our retention rate is 80%, if converts attend the temple in the first year vs something like 20-30%.

Oh right,  do you mean attend for baptisms?   I wonder what is so significant about that in relation to convert retention? Maybe to hold a recommend you need to be more committed in general? 

Edited April 15, 2017 by An Investigator

[Blueskye2]

3 hours ago, An Investigator said:

 

Oh this has really surprised me...but I investigated for ages before I joined so when I did Join the church I already knew everyone and I knew what was expected of me.  Catholics have to attend Church for a year before they can become Catholics,  do you think maybe we would have less growth but more committed converts if we adopted this approach?

Coming from participating in our parishes RCIA for 8 years, anecdotally, convert loss happens in the first five years after baptism. Tonight, we will have a new group of newly baptized. By this time next year, I could wager half of the group will not be attending Mass every week.  

I read here and there what people think are the common reasons, but honestly, I think the overriding reason is the difficulty it is to be a devout Catholic in American society in general, and in Utah particularly.  There is tremendous pressure on converts to "get over" their Catholic interests. 

[zil]

3 hours ago, An Investigator said:

Oh this has really surprised me...but I investigated for ages before I joined so when I did Join the church I already knew everyone and I knew what was expected of me.  Catholics have to attend Church for a year before they can become Catholics,  do you think maybe we would have less growth but more committed converts if we adopted this approach?

Now add to this information your understanding of the difference between introverts and extroverts and lots of other facts fall into place - including some problems - namely, the introverts are more likely to come for spirituality, and to consider longer and more carefully whether to join, and to not want (nevermind need) the same degree of social support.  And then you end up with a Church membership overly weighted to the introverted side who don't have the inclination to be whatever it is that the investigating extroverts need, and who, frankly, find it more difficult to fill many positions in the church - e.g. initiate home and visiting teaching.

2 hours ago, An Investigator said:

Oh right,  do you mean attend for baptisms?   I wonder what is so significant about that in relation to convert retention? Maybe to hold a recommend you need to be more committed in general? 

Personally, I don't think this is mechanical (e.g. based on the worthiness standards, effort required to get there, learning doctrine, etc.) so much as something we do not fully comprehend wherein ordinances performed on behalf of the dead (especially deceased family members) somehow bind us to them through the veil.  I think there is some real, spiritual power and protection there that cannot be had in any other way, and which brings us additional spiritual resources which enable us to stay committed in hard times, and give the effort required of active membership in the Church.

[Sunday21]

4 hours ago, An Investigator said:

Oh right,  do you mean attend for baptisms?   I wonder what is so significant about that in relation to convert retention? Maybe to hold a recommend you need to be more committed in general? 

Yes, attending for baptisms and for older sisters being a chaperone. The temple president did not say why, but my guess is that people feel G-d's love in the temple. I often go to the temple with a list of questions and worries. By the time I get to the celestial room, none of my worries seem important.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Sunday21

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

G-d's 

Why do people do this. It makes no sense. "God" is a word that refers to something, specifically in our context our Father in Heaven. So is "G-d". It doesn't mean anything different. What is the point? Are some of you under the impression that using a "-" instead of the letter "O" that you're using the term less frequently or...what? It honestly makes no sense to me at all.

Do you that do this also type He-venly Father...or would it be Heavenly F-ther? Does that somehow hide something disrespectful? At the very least, if it were to avoid too frequent use of His name then it would make more sense, instead of with God to do it when using what we currently use as His name, Elohim (which would be El-him or Eloh-m?) or Jehovah. But really, does the dash, even then, mean anything except exactly what the letters would?

Of course all of these are merely English translations of other things that may or may not be the ultimate heavenly language version of His name. They are all titles we give Him, of which there are hundreds, including Him, which we typically capitalize to make it a title. Should it then be written H-m?

Seriously. I don't get it.

Edited April 15, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[An Investigator]

5 hours ago, zil said:

Now add to this information your understanding of the difference between introverts and extroverts and lots of other facts fall into place - including some problems - namely, the introverts are more likely to come for spirituality, and to consider longer and more carefully whether to join, and to not want (nevermind need) the same degree of social support.  And then you end up with a Church membership overly weighted to the introverted side who don't have the inclination to be whatever it is that the investigating extroverts need, and who, frankly, find it more difficult to fill many positions in the church - e.g. initiate home and visiting teaching.

Personally, I don't think this is mechanical (e.g. based on the worthiness standards, effort required to get there, learning doctrine, etc.) so much as something we do not fully comprehend wherein ordinances performed on behalf of the dead (especially deceased family members) somehow bind us to them through the veil.  I think there is some real, spiritual power and protection there that cannot be had in any other way, and which brings us additional spiritual resources which enable us to stay committed in hard times, and give the effort required of active membership in the Church.

Oh yeah I never thought that we might just be really bad at fellowshipping extroverts.. although in the Church I seem extroverted compared to some (I'm really not) 

 

Yeah well I had an amazing first trip to the temple doing my mums baptism work, so spiritual .   Part of me speaking to this convert was to suggest going to the temple but when she went she didn't like it and just watched.  I suppose if you have done things so you can't feel the spirit maybe even in the temple you would feel out of place? 

[Sunday21]

3 hours ago, An Investigator said:

Oh yeah I never thought that we might just be really bad at fellowshipping extroverts.. although in the Church I seem extroverted compared to some (I'm really not) 

 

Yeah well I had an amazing first trip to the temple doing my mums baptism work, so spiritual .   Part of me speaking to this convert was to suggest going to the temple but when she went she didn't like it and just watched.  I suppose if you have done things so you can't feel the spirit maybe even in the temple you would feel out of place? 

Yes, you may be right!

[Guest]

@An Investigator,

I believe that @Anddenex gave the only detailed answer that we can really know about (the parable of the sower and the tree of life vision).  The truth is that any individual will have their own reason for leaving.  The reason they state may not be the real reason.  But the specifics are truly individual.

In my mind, I have to go with what I truly believe to be true.  Just because people were mean to me or just didn't befriend me may drive me away.  But it would probably just make me go inactive.  I don't know if I'd ever truly resign.  I just know it's true.  To go against truth would be insanity to me.  I don't know how others can do it.

Maybe, they don't know as I know the truth of the gospel.  Maybe they are simply focused on other things.  Maybe they just don't see the significance.  Maybe they're seduced by the world.  A Megachurch has the glitz and glamour that is very attractive compared to the "boring, old-fashioned" worship services that we have.  But we have what no other Church has -- the restored gospel as Christ taught it.  Yes, they claim to.  But that is where testimony comes in.  My testimony is too strong at this point.  The excuses others have simply won't apply to me.  I'd have to learn to lie to myself indefinitely.  And I simply can't do that.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Guest

[Blackmarch]

On April 13, 2017 at 1:49 PM, An Investigator said:

I have been a member of the Church for a year on Monday and I love it!  I have a brilliant ward, I've met some lovely friends and I really get involved in things.

Most Importantly though is my life has changed because of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I have a very strong testimony of the truth of the Gospel.

Anyway, I have been chatting to a girl who lives near me, recent convert of 6 months and tonight she told me she has left the Church.   Why do people think new converts leave? Do you think I have just been really lucky in my ward? Do you think there is anything wards can do to stop new converts leaving?

Many times our testimony is likened to a plant. To keep it alive one must not only put it in good ground but must give it water and sunlight continually, otherwise it withers and dies.

What causes a person to stop caring are many and varied... Perhaps they heard something unsettling about the church, perhaps a member rubbed thme the wrong way, perhaps they got distracted by worldly things or got caught up in sin, perhaps they stopped doing the small and simple things.

 

Being agood friend or neighbor is probably a good start (and not just only on sunday). 

[Blackmarch]

On 4/15/2017 at 10:35 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

Why do people do this. It makes no sense. "God" is a word that refers to something, specifically in our context our Father in Heaven. So is "G-d". It doesn't mean anything different. What is the point? Are some of you under the impression that using a "-" instead of the letter "O" that you're using the term less frequently or...what? It honestly makes no sense to me at all.

Do you that do this also type He-venly Father...or would it be Heavenly F-ther? Does that somehow hide something disrespectful? At the very least, if it were to avoid too frequent use of His name then it would make more sense, instead of with God to do it when using what we currently use as His name, Elohim (which would be El-him or Eloh-m?) or Jehovah. But really, does the dash, even then, mean anything except exactly what the letters would?

Of course all of these are merely English translations of other things that may or may not be the ultimate heavenly language version of His name. They are all titles we give Him, of which there are hundreds, including Him, which we typically capitalize to make it a title. Should it then be written H-m?

Seriously. I don't get it.

some people live in places where even writing out the name God would count as taking god's name in vain according to local law and could potentially have bad repercussions if someone found out. G-d is a sort of a way around it. I've seen other people do this online, no idea if this is why traveler chooses to do so, but its' fine with me either way.

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Blackmarch

[The Folk Prophet]

12 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

some people live in places where even writing out the name God would count as taking god's name in vain according to local law and could potentially have bad repercussions if someone found out. 

Like Sandy, Utah?

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Like Sandy, Utah?

Or Canada.

[Traveler]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 10:35 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

Why do people do this. It makes no sense. "God" is a word that refers to something, specifically in our context our Father in Heaven. So is "G-d". It doesn't mean anything different. What is the point? Are some of you under the impression that using a "-" instead of the letter "O" that you're using the term less frequently or...what? It honestly makes no sense to me at all.

Do you that do this also type He-venly Father...or would it be Heavenly F-ther? Does that somehow hide something disrespectful? At the very least, if it were to avoid too frequent use of His name then it would make more sense, instead of with God to do it when using what we currently use as His name, Elohim (which would be El-him or Eloh-m?) or Jehovah. But really, does the dash, even then, mean anything except exactly what the letters would?

Of course all of these are merely English translations of other things that may or may not be the ultimate heavenly language version of His name. They are all titles we give Him, of which there are hundreds, including Him, which we typically capitalize to make it a title. Should it then be written H-m?

Seriously. I don't get it.

 

I thought I would give a history as to why I do not spell out G-d on the internet.  About 25 years ago, (maybe more) I was approached by a small group of LDS members in my stake that had gotten involved with an internet forum set up by Dr. Laura (a radio talk personality).  They were very emotional (some in tears) about how they and other LDS were being treated on that particular forum.  As I investigated the forum I realized there was a serious spiritual problem and hesitated getting involved.  There was as anti-LDS spirit as I have ever encountered.  At the time, I was also involved in an inter denominational religious exchange in the Salt Lake City area.

At one of the inter denominational meetings I presented several of the posts that were posting obvious lies about Mormons and asked for input from the group as how I might approach non-LDS in such matters.  There were 4 individuals from the group the influenced me greatly – one was a Muslim, one a Catholic, another a Buddhist monk and a protestant minister.   The Buddhist and Muslim suggested that since this was the internet that I never spell out G-d in my posts.  It was more of a request (almost a demand) than a suggestion.  I thought this idea odd but decided to do some research.

I discovered that in the original text of ancient scripture that ancient scribes never spelled out the sacred references to G-d regardless of the language alphabet being used.   I also committed this and other ideas to fasting and prayer.   After about 4 months I began posting in the Dr. Laura forum and decided that as a personal commitment to maintain the references to G-d and to always remember the very sacred nature of any reference to him and that my responses would reflect on the G-d I personally worshiped – therefore, on the internet I would not spell out his name or title and would use either G-d or L-rd instead as a personal commitment and promise. 

I was soon to be very surprised by responses to my references to deity.  The first was a positive surprise from all over the world thanking me specifically for not spelling out references to G-d and asking for more information (some countries by law required any printed material not have G-d spelled out I was informed that I was one of the few on the internet that had “safe” posts).  One response was from a Christian minister and retired chair in archaeology at Harvard university.  We communicated over the internet and once in person until his death.   

The other surprise was not so positive and mostly from other LDS that were convinced such references were perhaps border line sacrilegious or indication of apostasy – convinced that any such use is not respectful - at the least foolish and nonsense.   At first I attempted to convince these LDS posters of possible benefits or other ways to view this but quickly learned that some people just do not like to be told anything concerning religion and their views – they and they alone know the one and only right way to deal with the world concerning religious matters.   I have learned not to ever even suggest to anyone else how they should post.  What and how individuals post is their choice and clear indication of their agency.

For me, my references to G-d on the internet have become habit as much as sacred purpose.  Though it has been a year or so since someone has thanked me – my efforts to keep such references very sacred is just between me and my G-d.  I would change my attitude in this matter if guided by the spirit but not so much from other posters.  I have come to believe that quite often that negative responses to this little insignificant habit is one of the many indications of those more concerned with doctrine than with love and respect of others.

It makes a lot of sense to me.

 

The Traveler

Edited April 17, 2017 by Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

@Traveler Just to be clear, I was not simply criticizing. Just pointing out that I don't understand it. The part of your explanation that I do understand (and thank you) and respect is the interaction with others and showing respect to THEM and their beliefs. As far as making it more sacred between a believing Latter-day Saint and God...I don't agree, as explained in my initial post. I also feel that the example of how to speak of God in both spoken and written word is set by the general authorities of the church, past and present.

Not that I begrudge you or anyone from choosing to do as you feel is right.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I have come to believe that quite often that negative responses to this little insignificant habit is one of the many indications of those more concerned with doctrine than with love and respect of others.

Hmm. Interesting. But you don't consider presuming others lack love and respect a view that lacks love and respect?

[Sunday21]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Or Canada.

Cheeky!

[eddified]

@Traveler I appreciate the explanation. I also wondered why you did it, but not enough to say anything about it. To me it is a little strange that you feel it shows respect for God, since none of the church materials, and none of the general authorities that publish books ever do this. However, it makes perfect sense that you feel it shows respect for people of other religions and cultures.

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, eddified said:

@Traveler I appreciate the explanation. I also wondered why you did it, but not enough to say anything about it. To me it is a little strange that you feel it shows respect for God, since none of the church materials, and none of the general authorities that publish books ever do this. However, it makes perfect sense that you feel it shows respect for people of other religions and cultures.

 

In general I feel that if you have a question – you should ask it.  I believe it an honor to be asked.  Once during my college experience, I asked a professor a question and he seemed to imply only questions he liked should be asked.  I responded that I thought my question simple enough that a professor teaching the subject should be able to answer it.  That if he could not answer the question I would consider him incompetent to teach the subject – that if he would not answer the question - that I did not feel I should continue to pay him to teach me but that I would find a more willing teacher.  He became one of my favorite professors.

I believe G-d has the attitude that we if we do not understand – we should ask him.  I believe this to be the proper way to deal with things that are not understood – we should ask.  I have, on occasion, encountered some that do not like to be asked questions.  I think they feel threatned.  Asking why they do not like to be asked questions may at first seem cleaver – but it will not produce fruit.   I believe, because of experience, that G-d loves to be asked – just not as the Scribes and Pharisees – that ask with intent to set a trap.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@Traveler Just to be clear, I was not simply criticizing. Just pointing out that I don't understand it. The part of your explanation that I do understand (and thank you) and respect is the interaction with others and showing respect to THEM and their beliefs. As far as making it more sacred between a believing Latter-day Saint and God...I don't agree, as explained in my initial post. I also feel that the example of how to speak of God in both spoken and written word is set by the general authorities of the church, past and present.

Not that I begrudge you or anyone from choosing to do as you feel is right.

Hmm. Interesting. But you don't consider presuming others lack love and respect a view that lacks love and respect?

 

I thought that there may be some profit to go a little deeper into a prejudice I have developed from posting on the internet.   From your original post about spelling “G-d”; you made a blanket statement as to why it did not make sense to you.  But there was no question directed to me or anyone else as to why I or anyone would do such a thing.  In addition, there were some wildly speculative comments insinuating such a practice to be foolish which (as best as I could determine – that had nothing to do with anything posted).  When questions are not asked and unrelated assertions made – I assume (with admitted prejudice) that it is very likely I am dealing with someone more dogmatic than loving or compassionate.

It is my flawed nature that when I exercise a prejudice that I may “play” somewhat to see or verify my prejudice.  However, in your specific case – I sense a much higher potential.  In short, I think you to be much better than my prejudices are currently allowing.  But I would ask one other question – why do you presume to know how a general authority would knowingly spell “G-d” in unpublished material on the internet for people that could not copy it for their use or pass one to others (legally) if spelled out?  Do you have a reference?

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, Traveler said:

you made a blanket statement as to why it did not make sense to you.  But there was no question directed to me or anyone else as to why I or anyone would do such a thing.  

That's because my objective was not to find out why you or anyone else did this, but simply to make commentary on the matter. I suppose I was implying I wanted an explanation (though, likely, to debate the matter rather than simply learn--to which end you surprised me and taught me something I hadn't thought of), but really, I was just commenting because I saw someone other than you do it and thought to myself, "What the heck?" and so I commented. Honestly, I wondered if someone was copying you on the matter without having thought through the matter. If someone has thought through the matter and determined it's the right course then the fact that I don't get it should not sway said person. If someone is doing so without having thought about it then I suppose I would have them think about it.

25 minutes ago, Traveler said:

When questions are not asked and unrelated assertions made – I assume (with admitted prejudice) that it is very likely I am dealing with someone more dogmatic than loving or compassionate.

What are you saying it should/shouldn't be related to? I was just making an off-topic comment on a practice that I see and don't get. What was it supposed to relate to? And how is not asking questions and making assertions indicative of someone being dogmatic? I don't follow your logic.

22 minutes ago, Traveler said:

someone more dogmatic than loving or compassionate.

A) Are the two mutually exclusive?

B) What "dogma" am I addressing. I find the dogmatic point irrelevant. The practice simply doesn't make sense to me. I don't know of any LDS dogma surrounding it.

29 minutes ago, Traveler said:

why do you presume to know how a general authority would knowingly spell “G-d” in unpublished material on the internet for people that could not copy it for their use or pass one to others (legally) if spelled out?  Do you have a reference?

So you're suggesting that the practice is only valid in unpublished material on the internet? Interesting. Of course since if a general authority puts something out on the internet it becomes "published" by default...that's not going to work out to well for me. I feel trapped.

Clearly the examples they set to which I refer are published.

[Traveler]

 

Some have answered the question of this thread by saying they would not leave the church.  Before I attempt to tell something of my position – I would first tell a story.  It is a true story.  From time to time we encounter individuals that are much greater than their mortal circumstance would seem to indicate.  My father was one such man and so was my mother.  We all stumble through mortality but my father often spoke of being aware of trends and not events.  For example, he would say that where a person is going is a much greater indication of their character than where they are.   This is a simple notion that requires much more than what I call “surface” observations.  It means the student, or the discoverer must seek understanding beyond the obvious.

Now, on with the story.  Some years ago, I was attending my church meetings.  Attending church is almost habit for me.  It is hard to remember most lessons and talks – but there are always a few that are so profound that they will change our life trends.  Attending church meetings was not an event in my life but it was a trend – something that happened regularly with almost no exception.  Quite frankly, attending church was one of those things that made me feel better about myself.   In reality, I thought of myself as better than most.  I justified this thought by my better than most participation at church.  Besides that – I had a better than most prestigious calling.  I was one of the “good” members of the ward that can consistently be relied upon (especially to say profound and greatly spiritual things – especially at church) and we all know there are not a lot of those.

Anyway – on with the story.  I was sitting (righteously) as I always do with the High Priest Group in our ward.  Our teacher was one of those people that are much greater than his mortal circumstance.  To begin his lesson, he asked a simple question – “Why did you attend this priesthood meeting today”.  It is sort of my custom to allow others to respond first – and then to top their responses with my great wisdom – so I sat giving others the first opportunity.  It would seem that almost everybody else was doing the same thing.  Though the question was simple and easy to answer – no one was volunteering a response.

After some time of silence – time enough to make everyone still awake uncomfortable, the wise teacher called on one of the most respected members of the ward.  A member of the stake presidency – Brother G_______, “why are you here today?”  With his usual candor, this good brother thought briefly and responded – “I am here to be uplifted, inspired and spiritually renewed to better tackle the upcoming week”.  Dang, I thought to myself – he has taken my thunder and I began to scramble trying to think of something to top that.  The teacher paused for a moment and then asked the good member of the stake presidency – “So Brother G________, if you are not uplifted, inspired and spiritually renewed – you will no longer come to church?  Brother G_______ had no response to the new question.  Neither did I dare respond after that.  No way was I going to take on fire and risk my better than most standing.

There I sat – very worried that I would be called on next and realizing that the normally great Sunday answers were not going to suffice.   Myself induced pressure was now getting to me as the teacher passed in silence looking for someone else to pick on.  I was very uncomfortable – a very rare thing for me – specially at church.  The teacher turned to another brother.  This brother seldom spoke at church and only if directly addressed.  He was not a shining example.   He was my next-door neighbor and I was well aware of his problems.  He had been excommuned a few years previously, his marriage had failed and he had only recently showed up at church.  He was an individual or many shortcoming and problems.  This poor brother seemed to tremble before the teacher that asked him why he was at church that day.  My heart ached for this poor brother realizing his lack of spiritually. But the teacher asked him why he was in attendance.  I could tell this poor brother was struggling for an answer as he spoke softly as he emotionally struggled to say – “I am here today because I promised the L-rd that I would attend church.”

I do not remember any more of that lesson.  What changed me was done and over with.  My life and my church attendance took a different direction.  I do not attend church for me.  My reason for what I do on the Sabbath day is more an ack of service and a small gift for all that my G-d has done for me.  And if my G-d were to direct me somewhere else – I would leave this church I love in a heartbeat – I would require no more reason than the covenant and promise to my G-d.  The doctrines – the fellowships – even my most beloved wife and family (ancestors and descendants) – everything I have and love is a blessing from G-d.  More than myself I trust G-d to provide good things to those I love.   My promises to G-d are not for myself but for those whose aggregate is so much more important than me.

 

The Traveler