Ignoring the Stupor of Thought

     Recently, a devout LDS friend of mine made the comment that he most certainly would have some tough questions for God once he got to the other side of the veil.   Many of my LDS friends have made that exact same comment or something similar along the lines that they have a list of questions they will be asking God when they see Him on the other side.  

     Others have simply made the remark that we should be patient, we might not understand things now, but eventually, the reasons will be revealed to us.   It’s as if there are millions of members waiting for a huge explanation, a momentous “aha!” that is coming sometime in the future, or after they die that will explain everything that currently is not making sense to them.    For many, there is some doctrine, some policy, some item of history, or perhaps some personal event or tragedy that they simply do not understand, but their loyalty, their testimony, and their obedience to follow the prophet is too strong to even contemplate doubting.  So in an act of great faith, they lay their question aside and decide to either wait for God to answer those questions in His own good time or confront Him when they meet Him after death.      

     Why have they chosen to put whatever question they have on the shelf?  Is it because the facts are uncomfortable?   Is it something for which they have not received answers to their prayers? Does the most obvious answer seem contradict their current beliefs? Regardless, some item is causing them mental stress and discomfort.  It doesn’t sit well with them.  This information conflicts with their existing beliefs and values.   That conflict is something that today is called cognitive dissonance. 

Since, something isn’t sitting quite right with them, in what they see as an act of faith, they choose to ignore it.  The General Authorities have counseled in these moments to have to do exactly that.  Though ignoring the troubling item is not described as avoiding a difficult question, rather it is described as an act of faith.  This is exactly what the LDS General Authorities have taught.  Pres. Uchtodorf in the October 2013 General Conference famously told members to doubt their doubts not their faith.   Elder Neil Anderson in the October 2010 conference told members “Will we understand everything?  Of course not.  We will put some issues on the shelf to be understood at a later time.”  Additionally, like a couple of my devout LDS friends, many members on their own simply give up and say that they intend to wait until after death to ask God.  

     My question is do they really think that God is deliberately not answering their question?  If so, why? The scriptures might say that God’s ways are not man’s ways, but where in the scriptures does it say that He will NOT answer their prayers?   Is this truly some kind of modern day Abrahamic test to see if we can stomach what appears like God commanding Joseph to be eternally sealed to an already married woman?  Where in the scriptures does it teach that for some questions we will have to wait until after we die to ask God?

     The scriptures are replete with examples and exhortations to bring your questions to God and that he will always answer. Do we all of a sudden no longer have faith in the promises of the scriptures?  

Matthew 7:7  Ask, and it shal be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you

Luke 11:9 Ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find, knock and will be opened to you

John 16:24   …Ask and you will receive…

Matthew 21:22  And ALL things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Mark 11:24 All things WHATSOEVER ye pray and ask for believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them

John 11:22  But I know, that even now, WHATSOEVER thou shalt ask of God, God will give it thee

Moroni 10:5  And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of ALL things

James 1:5  If any of you ask wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

     Joseph Smith believed that God would answers his prayers challenging the existing beliefs of his day.   He believed God would answer his tough questions.   He prayed and he got answers, why can’t we?  Why must we wait until after we die to ask of God?  Why have we come to believe that God will not answer some of our questions even though the scriptures reassures us time after time that he will answer ALL of our questions.  God even said that he would NOT upbraid for asking the question.   Rather, if we believe in God, then we should believe that he will answer our prayers as Joseph did.   

     My contention is that God HAS answered those prayers.  We just don’t like the answers.   The problem is that the answers we do get when those difficult questions are asked, explored and prayed about do not fit our preconceived notions of what we believe.  The feelings we get in response to contemplating that topic contradict some fundamental premise that we are unwilling to challenge.   

So we ignore that answer, and say, “that can’t possibly be it.”  We then take the position that there are some questions God will not answer. We think that God is withholding understanding from us as a test of faith.  

     So subtly, unknowingly, we have come to NOT trust the promises in the scriptures that say that God will answer all our questions.   We do not trust that he will answer us, we do not believe that he will answer, that for some reason he won’t give us an explanation, or that we are not worthy to receive one.

     We have given up believing that will receive the revelation on those particular questions.   We do not trust or believe that the Lord will lead us to a solution.  At least not in our lifetime.  So we must wait until we meet him in person after we die. In my simple mind though, trusting God does not mean, NOT asking God.

     I’ve personally come to the conclusion that in reality God has answered those questions.  We reject them because the problem is that it does not fit our preconceived notions of what we believe.  

D&C 9:8 But behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right, I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall fee that it is right

D&C 9:9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong…

     What everyone is experiencing is quite simply a stupor of thought or in more modern terms as mentioned previously, cognitive dissonance.  

   The scripture says that when one experiences a stupor of thought, it will cause them to forget the thing which is wrong.

     In exploring the definition of the word “FORGET” I found that among the meanings of that term are also the following:  “To omit mentioning, to leave unnoticed, to take no note off, to neglect willfully, to cease or to omit to think of something, to ignore”  

     In other words, my devout LDS friends who are waiting until after they die to get an answer from God because they can’t seem to find one now are actually doing exactly what the scripture says when they choose to ignore the how they feel about a topic.   They are doing exactly what the scripture says that they would do if the thing being prayed about was wrong.   They are FORGETTING it.  Ignoring it.   They prefer to omit mentioning it, the cease to think about it.   They prefer not to think about it, they put it in a mental box or shelf and say they will wait until they can talk to God in person.  

     But in doing that they fail to recognize that God has answered their prayer.  He has just told them that “IT WAS WRONG.”   That is exactly scripturally how He said he would communicate that something is wrong. But we don’t like that answer. It does not fit our existing beliefs.   God has sent them a stupor of thought and the desire to forget in accordance with scripture.   Instead, some of those devout members choose to ignore that stupor of thought, choose to ignore the answer that God has given them in the manner He said he would give it to them. Rather, they choose to wait for God and hold out hope for a better answer that will somehow fit what they believe now.  They call that an act of faith in God, when they are in reality ignoring God speaking to them now who has responded to their prayers and questions, but with an answer that doesn’t fit their existing beliefs.

     Trusting god means trusting the answers he gives us, not ignoring them when we get the stupors of thought. 

     There is a famous parable of a man who is on the top of his house, with flood waters engulfing his home and rising.   He prays to God to save him.   So God sends someone in a canoe to save him.   The man waves him off, saying he is waiting for God to save him.   The waters rise even higher, and the man is forced to stand at the highest point of his home with water up to his chest.   A helicopter comes by and drops a ladder to him.   The man waves him off.  His faith is so strong that he says he will wait for his God to save him.  Sure enough, the man drowns.  When he gets to heaven, a bit upset he has a talk with God.   Why did you not answer my prayers?  I was in danger and you did not save me!   God gently answers: “Did I not send a man in a canoe and a helicopter with a rope ladder to save you?”

     Joseph Smith in his revelation recorded in D&C 9 brilliantly described cognitive dissonance, the stupor of thought, as an answer from God.   It is how he tells anyone who prays if something is wrong.

     “If it is right, I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefor, you shall feel that it is right.   But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong.” 

     Many many members are just choosing to ignore that stupor of thought.   Choosing to ignore an answer from God and calling that act of willful ignorance and act of faith.

     When we get that stupor of though when praying over something particularly difficult, God HAS answered our prayer.  It may not fit our view… but God is answering.   Are we listening?  Or will we be in for a shock when we finally do get around to asking those questions after we die?

     The only way we learn and grow is to be unafraid to ask the questions that are truly burdening our heart and be prepared for answers we might not like.  Avoiding those tough questions and avoiding the unpleasant answers is avoiding our relationship with God, or at best, postponing it until it is too late. 

Are Boyd K. Packers three "threats" really impacting the Growth or Decline of the LDS Church? (Lots of stats!)

The recent years of the Mormon Church have been turbulent to say the least.   Plenty of highs of which devout members are proud and plenty of lows that have been easy ammunition for critics of the Church.   The Apostle Boyd K. Packer in 1993 called out what he foresaw to be the greatest threats to the Church as intellectuals, feminists, and homosexuals.   One certainly could argue that he was proven right.  

In recent years, John Dehlin became the figurehead of many intellectuals as he publicly fought for greater transparency and the freedom to discuss the difficult questions raised by the complex history, doctrine, and culture of the Church.  He made it his mission to create "safe" places for members to talk about these things since none seemed available within the Church.   Dozens of these places popped up all over the United States and even overseas.  He started a popular podcast that delved into these questions unflinchingly exploring all sides of the various issues.  Many attribute his efforts to helping them remain in the Church.  Others found their belief in Mormonism turned upside down as he courageously spoke about what was culturally within the Church unspeakable.   The Church was forced to react towards this increase in transparency that was not in their control.   Church manuals were revised and essays published by the Church on their website dealing with many of the issues that were now receiving increased visibility.  General conference talks proliferated asking members to avoid the internet and to trust their leaders.    John was eventually excommunicated. 

On another front, Kate Kelly became the face of a movement of modern day LDS feminists who wanted Church leaders to reconsider its position regarding the role of women in the Church.   Women wore dress pants to Church on Sunday.  Hundreds respectfully lined up to attend Priesthood Session of conference only to be turned away.  A website and an organization formed to encourage the Church to consider the clarion call to “Ordain Women.”    The Church responded here as well recognizing that this was no small movement and that great portions of their devout women shared those concerns. Kate proved powerfully talented at raising the visibility of the cause.   Women were added to committees that were previously all priesthood.   Women were finally allowed to pray during general conference.   Though women were still barred from Priesthood session, credential members of the press who were female were now allowed to attend.    There were other small concessions increasing the voice and visibility of women within the Church, but ultimately what was asked for by the Ordain Women movement was too much for the Church.   Women supporters began to have their recommends taken away, and other punitive actions were taken.   Kate, like John, was also excommunicated for her efforts. 

Finally, and perhaps, most powerfully, the LGBT movement without a clear person in the Mormon world acting as its figurehead, also exerted significant pressure on the Church.   LGBT advocates pushed to receive greater love and inclusion by the Church.  The plight of an LDS homosexual, their depression and suicides were made painfully visible.    The political fight in the United States over same sex marriage only magnified that conflict within the Church.  For a brief while, it seemed that the rhetoric of the Church softened towards the LGBT community and many of them and their advocates felt hope that the Church would one day fully embrace them.  But, just a few weeks ago, the Church came out with a policy that declared anyone engaged in same-sex marriage was to be considered an apostate and face excommunication.  Their children would be banned from membership in the Church.  It was a move that was met with great criticism nationally, not just by ex-Mormons and progressive Mormons, but by the national and international media as well.   Devout Mormons rushed to the defense of their Church through social media sharing blogs defending the decision of the Church to implement the policy.  

A sad side note to what some consider to be the “fulfillment” of Packer’s prophecy regarding threats to the Church, is that none of these “movements” ever wanted to be a threat to the Church.   John Dehlin’s initially foray was all about helping leaders understand why some members were leaving the Church and finding ways to address their concerns so that they would not leave.   Kate repeatedly reaffirmed her desire to continue as a member and her belief in the Book of Mormon. She stated that she wanted Priesthood leaders just to consider and pray about the issues she was raising.   She was not making any effort to get people to leave the Church.   Finally, most of the LGBT Mormons I have known have all wanted to find a way to continue being LDS.   Many of their advocates hoped that the church would find a way to help them feel more included and loved and understood.   Yet, they all ultimately came to be viewed as threats and also faced excommunication.  

One reaction to what has come to be known as “the Policy” is that many members chose to resign their membership in the Church.  I’ve estimated that at least 5,000 people went through the effort to have their name removed from the records of the Church as a direct consequence of the policy change.   Those 5,000 people could create a new Stake.   However, the Church pointed out that most of those people were probably inactive already.  Although, technically speaking, the same comment can also be made of the membership of 15 million people frequently quoted by the Church over half of whom are inactive (though many others would estimate a higher inactivity rate of 60-65%).  I would also venture to argue as well that most of those who went through the trouble of having their names removed from the records of the Church were once devout, full tithe paying, temple recommend holding members of the Church many of whom had once served as local leaders in their congregations.         

That discussion led to natural conversations about the growth of the Church.   Was the Church in decline?  Or was the impact of these intellectuals, feminists and homosexuals truly just a small drop in a vast sea of members whose growth was like the stone cut out of the mountain rolling down with great speed and power destroying everything in its path.  

Since I like to have fun with numbers.  I decided to look into the question of how well the Church is growing.   Let it be known, I am not a statistician.  True statisticians will probably find tons of things wrong with my methodology and have more interesting ways to present their findings.   I’m more of a top 10 lists kind of a guy.  A lot easier on the math.  

I took a look at the growth of the Church around the world from the year 2000 to 2014.   I used cumorah.com as my source of statistics.   The numbers they have at their website account for over 99% of the membership of 2014 as stated in April 2015 General Conference.  

This is what I learned.

Enjoy!

Cumorah.com showed that the LDS Church had members in 182 countries.  Though I personally believe that the actual number is probably higher.  I am aware of at least 3 strong branches of the Church in China where I visited several years ago.  Granted, they were made up of ex-patriates working in China, but these branches are not listed in Cumorah.com which does not list any presence of the Church in China.   There may be other countries that for some reason do have an LDS presence but did not make the list..

A very quick observation (requiring next to no math!) is that back in 2000, 18 of these 182 countries did not have any members of the Church, so immediately we can easily say that the Church continues to expand globally.  But how is it growing? And where?

Countries with the greatest membership of Latter Day Saints

1.       United States:  6.5 million

2.       Mexico:  1.4 million

3.       Brazil: 1.3 Million

4.       Philippines: 710 thousand

5.       Chile:  579 thousand

Countries that experienced greater than 10% growth in membership per year from 2000 to 2014

A total of 30 countries experienced this tremendous growth.  However, that growth should not be overstated either.   Of these, only 3 of these countries had more than a thousand members back in 2000.   This list includes 18 countries mentioned earlier that had no membership listed in their country back in 2000.

Countries that experienced 5 to 10% growth in membership per year from 2000 to 2014

Once again, this category is dominated by countries where Church presence is very small.   There are a total of 47 countries, with Ghana (62K) and Nigeria (130K) having the largest membership in 2014.  Note that as of 2014, 24 of these 47 countries still have less than 2,000 members.

Countries that experienced 3% to 5% growth in membership per year from 2000 to 2014

A total of 71 countries experienced membership growth from 3% to 5% per year since 2014.   This includes some of the countries with the greatest membership in the Church

Brazil (1.3 Million), Mexico (1.4 Million), Peru (557K),

Countries that experienced 0% to 3% growth in membership per year from 2000 to 2014

A total of 60 countries, including the US (6.5 million) , Phillipines (710K), and Chile (579K) experienced less than 3% growth per year in their membership.  

Negative growth.

While almost every country experienced growth to varying degrees, there are eight countries that actually LOST members from 2000 to 2014:   Andorra, Denmark, Egypt, Gibraltar, Jordan, Nauru, Northern Marianas Islands, and Puerto Rico

Avg. growth rate per year from 2000 to 2014 of countries with the most members

1.       United States:   1.54%

2.       Mexico:  3.07%

3.       Brazil:  3.55%

4.       Philippines: 2.91%

5.       Chile:  0.91%

Greatest Increase in total number of Members from 2000 to 2014

1.       United States  1.2 Million

2.       Brazil 513K

3.       Mexico  484K

4.       Philippines  240K

5.       Peru  214K

Greatest increase in the number of total units (wards & branches) from 2000 to 2014

1.       United States  +2456

2.       Brazil  +233

3.       Mexico +226

4.       Ghana  +145

5.       Congo, Democratic Republic +108

(no other country has had an increase of more than 100 wards/branches from 200 to 2014)

Greatest decrease in the number of total units (wards/branches) from 2000 to 2014

1.       Chile (-276)

2.       Japan (-50)

3.       South Korea  (-44)

4.       Panama (-39)

5.       Guatemala (-30)

6.       United Kingdom (-30)

NOTE:  Average # of members per unit has skyrocketed across the world

An astonishing 167 out of the 182 countries saw the average number of members per unit increase.  In some cases that increase was dramatic.   For example, back in 2000 Chile averaged 579 members per unit.   Today Chile averages 958 members per unit.   Chile has 285 fewer wards and 9 more branches than it did back in 2000.  

Only 15 countries saw the average number of members per unit decline.   Only three of those countries whose average membership per unit actually declined had more than 10,000 members:  Haiti (20K), Ghana (62K), and Cote D’Ivoire (27K).  Ten of those countries had fewer than 1,000 members.  

NOTE:  600 members per unit marker.

Back in 2000, there was only one country that averaged over 600 members per unit.   The Northern Marianas Islands showed 856 members on their membership list, but only one branch was organized there.

However, now in 2014 there are 22 countries that average greater than 600 members per each unit.  

They are:  Boliva, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines,  Uruguay, Venezuela and also Hong Kong, Kiribati, Northern Marianas Islands, South Korea.  Notice that 18 of the 22 countries are Latin American.

It should also be noted that there are 7 additional countries whose average membership per unit are now above 550.   Back in 2000 there were only three.

A Look at Global Growth of Church Membership Regionally

Avg Growth rate per year by region and total increase in number of members from 2000 to 2014:

1.       Middle East                         9.82% avg growth per year  / increase of 2,700 members

2.       Africa                                  7.09%  avg growth per year  / increase of 303K members

3.       Caribbean                            3.38%  avg growth per year  / increase of 71K members

4.       Central America                  3.06% avg growth per year  /  increase of 257K members

5.       South America                    2.87% avg growth per year  / increase of 1.3 million members

6.       Asia                                     2.78% avg growth per year  / increase of 356K members

7.       Oceania                               2.46% avg growth per year  / increase of 128K members

8.       North America                    1.78% avg growth per year  / increase of 1.8 million members

9.       Europe                                1.42% avg growth per year / increase 92K members

Total increase/decrease in number of units (wards/branches) by region from 2000 to 2014

1.       North America increased almost 2700 units

2.       Africa increased 658 units

3.       Oceania increased 130 units

4.       Caribbean increased 63 units

5.       Asia increased 52 units

6.       Middle East increased 15 units

7.       South America decreased (-30) units

8.       Central America decreased (-35) units

9.       Europe decreased (-161) units

CONCLUSIONS

Yes Virginia, the Church is growing globally

It is clear that the Church continues to grow and expand globally.   In the last 15 years, the Church has expanded into an additional 18 countries.  

Africa is where the Church is experiencing its greatest growth as 29 of the 34 countries experienced an average growth rate of over 5% per year.  33 out of 34 countries added congregations.   The average number of members per unit is incredibly low averaging less than 250 members per unit.   Africa is probably where the long term future of the Church lies.  

Church growth in the United States while slow, it was nevertheless quite steady (less than 2% per year).  The Church in the United States continues to add large numbers of congregations, over 2000 in the last 15 years.   The average number of members per unit in the US has remained stable over that time frame (from 450 to 461) suggesting that the growth experienced is real in terms of additional active members and well-functioning units.  Inactivity in the US has apparently remained about the same.   Most of the growth in the Church is still happening in the United States just in sheer quantities of members.   That growth is more probably due to more to high Mormon birth rates than new converts, though that is admittedly sheer speculation.  

  

But mixed verdict elsewhere -- example: Central America

The verdict is mixed in other areas of the Church.   While growth is steady throughout most of the Church in the 2% - 3% range, the average number of members per unit has increased significantly, suggesting significantly increased inactivity thus blunting the growth of actual active members of the Church.  

For example, even though the countries of Central America averaged slightly more than 3% growth per year, their average number of members per unit went from 426 to 681.  We must also take into account that the total number of units in Central America declined from 1106 to 1071 over that time period.

Let’s say that back in 2000 Central America averaged 150 active members per unit that had 426 on the membership rolls.   Let’s further assume that the number of active people per unit remained about the same over those 15 years.  We know that the Church has general guidelines as to how many members and priesthood holders are needed to create a ward, split a ward, etc…which results in relatively stable ward populations.   Therefore, if in 2014, every unit was still averaging 150 active members per unit you would have a situation in Central America where the total number of active members actually declined in spite of 3% annual growth.

Year 2000   1106 units x 150 active per unit = 165,900 members

Year 2014  1071 units x 150 active  per unit = 160,650 members

So it is very possible that the Church has seen active membership in the church in Central America decrease by roughly 5,000 members over the last 15 years even though the Church can still honestly state that overall membership had increased 3% per year over those same years resulting in over 257,000 people being added to their membership rolls.   So on the one hand the Church is growing tremendously, but at the same time, it is experiencing a slow decline with fewer and fewer devout members.  

As a side note we should state that people who have their names removed from the records of the Church are technically not supposed to be counted in the membership numbers. I cannot confirm that the Church actually does that. There are some who suspect that the Church still counts ex-Mormons in membership numbers.  Assuming that their names are NOT included in membership counts, taking their names of the lists should in theory result in a more active percentage of members and lower the number of members per unit.  Regardless of what one theorizes the number of excommunicated and resigned members to be, the increase in inactivity is so large as to dwarf any positive effect on percentage activity that may be experienced by taking members of the membership list.

Serious problems in South America and Europe, Chile is a disaster, some concerns in Asia especially Japan and South Korea

In South America, despite adding almost 1.3 million people to the membership rolls over the last 15 years, half of the countries in South America experienced a decline in the number of wards and branches in their country.   The average number of members per unit also spiked significantly going from 458 in 2000 to 693 in 2014.    It is also very possible that the number of active members in South America has declined.  

Something disastrous has happened in Chile to the Church. Back in 2000 Chile had over 700 wards.   Today they have 421.   The average number of members per unit went from 579 to an incredible 958.   So, even though officially membership in Chile increased by almost 70,000 members over the last 15 years, Chile now has almost 300 fewer congregations and averages almost 1000 people on their membership lists for EACH congregation.   We may be looking roughly at an activity rate of 15% or even less in this country. 

Europe is also seeing serious signs of decline.   Over half of the countries in Europe have experienced a decline in the number of congregations including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands, and others… Europe has seen a decline of over 150 congregations in the time period under study.   It is also the region in the world where the Church is experiencing the slowest growth rate averaging less than 1.5% growth per year over the last 15 years.

Finally, special mention should be made of Japan and South Korea.  Those two countries alone together have accounted for a decline in almost 100 congregations over the last 15 years.

So there is a mixed report to give regarding the growth and/or decline in membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  There are very clear signs of both.

That being said, bringing us full circle to the threats to the Church by  intellectuals, feminists, and homosexuals as posited by Boyd K. Packer back in 1993, it is difficult to determine how much of the inactivity is due to one or more of those three “threats” without more direct causal information.   

That being said, I am guessing that most of the influence of those three "threats" is happening here in the United States.  Yet, the growth of the Church in the US appears to be stable, steady, and real even though it is slow.  Therefore, I would venture to say that the Church has greater problems with regards to the growth of the membership than the potential impact of those perceived "threats" pointed out by Boyd K. Packer.  Inactivity is significant in all of Latin America, Europe, and portions of Asia where the influence of those three "threats" are perhaps not quite as significant as here in the US. It is in those areas where the growth of the Church has been impacted negatively the most and potentially seen actual decreases in the number of active members in spite of continued overall growth.   

   

Mormon Defender erased by Mormon Apologists

[Update:   Originally, this blog post posited that Bill's participation in a FAIRMormon conference was deleted due to his coming out in opposition to the recent policy change by the Church regarding those engaged in same sex marriage and their children.   That does not appear to be the case.  It was pointed out to me yesterday by commenter Andrew Miller, that according to the internet archive records, that the deletion of Bill's participation specifically in panel discussion at that conference regarding 'The Loss and Rekindling of Faith" back in 2013 happened before the announcement of the policy change by the Church. Therefore the two could not have been connected.  Also, it should be noted that in several places at the FAIR website, Bill's name is listed as a speaker at the conference, nevertheless all of his comments at the conference were still deleted.  In light of this, I have modified my blog post so that I no longer make a causal relationship between the policy change by the Church and the deletion of Bill's participation in that panel.]  
------------

Bill Reel is a former Bishop for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and still a very active member of the Church who holds an active temple recommend.   Like many members of the LDS Church these days, he experienced his own faith crisis as he learned about many of the issues being discussed today, some of which are topics of the essays recently published by the LDS Church.

As a Bishop, Bill grew an especial love for members of the Church and helping them through the many different challenges that life provides.   A faith crisis is one of them.  He saw enough of these happen that he wanted to so something about it.  He wanted to help.  So he created a podcast: Mormon Dicussions; Leading with Faith.. where he takes an unflinching look at those issues, but always from a positive perspective and with the goal of supporting and strengthening the testimonies of members of the Church.   It was not long before Bill gained his own following.   His focus on strengthening testimonies earned Bill an invitation to the 2013 FAIR Mormon Conference.   "FairMormon is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS Doctrine, belief and practice." (from FairMormon website)

From FairMormon's own website with archives to its various conference, you can see that Bill was invited to be the moderator for a panel discussion on the topic of "The Loss and Rekindling of Faith"  Here is a screenshot, his name is at the very bottom.

Here is a picture of Bill from that conference participating in that session

Yet, when you look at the current transcript of that session that FairMormon has posted.   It gives the impression that Bill did not participate, didn't speak, and wasn't even there.

Here is a link to the official transcript of that session as posted by FairMormon at their website: You will note that FairMormon does note at the top of the transcript that the content has been edited.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/2013-the-loss-and-rekindling-of-faith

(I do have a screenshot of that page in case it changes again.)

Bill's comments and participation in that conference had been available until recently. But in the transcript, the image of him his gone and every single one of his comments erased as if he wasn't there.  It was only recently that Bill participation at the conference was whitewashed.  First of all, the image at the top of the page showing him moderating the panel discussion is gone.   In the originally published transcript, anytime Bill spoke, his name was listed as well as his complete question.   Now, Bill's name has been completely pulled as the person asking questions of the panelists.  It does not seem like Bill was even present during that panel evne though he led the panel and was the one asking questions of the panelists.   His questions are still shown in the transcripts, but those questions have all been edited and are very watered down versions of the questions he asked.  The context and background he provides before asking the questions is the main thing that has disappeared.  What happened?  Why the change?

The facts as so far I can tell, is simply that we do not know.   FairMormon gave no explanation as to why Bill's participation was deleted.  FairMormon did not inform Bill that they intended to delete his comments as Bill was unaware anything had changed until recently, weeks after the change happened.   No explanation other than to note that the transcript had been edited without saying what had been taken out and why.

Let me be clear, Bill still is an active member of the Church.   Still supports the prophet of the Church.  Still believes in the Book of Mormon. Still ardently defends the LDS Church against criticisms of it, but with great respect for those who question.

Yet, this great Mormon defender has been whitewashed by the most well known Mormon apologist organization.

Here is a link from the internet archive showing the transcript of that session with a picture of Bill at the podium and all his remarks included.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150504202251/http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/2013-the-loss-and-rekindling-of-faith

Perhaps FAIRMormon had become uncomfortable with Bill in recent months and did not want Bill's name associated with FAIR.   I don't know and can only speculate.   To some, that discomfort may be understandable.   But is altering their own historical record of a conference the right course of action for an organization the professes to make sure that LDS history is viewed accurately?  Such an action undercuts everything that FAIRMormon supposedly stands for which is an accurate portrayal of LDS history, doctrine, culture.  If FAIRMormon is willing to do this with their own historical records, how can any one trust anything they write as being complete and accurate and most of all "fair"?    

Assuming Bill did indeed fall out of favor with FAIRMormon and the organization did not want Bill's name associated with FAIRMormon; in such a case, an action that would have been more historically accurate, more honest, and frankly showed more integrity would have been to keep the record showing accurately what was said at the conference and by whom, but then to add some kind of notation at the beginning or the end stating that Bill's current views are no longer in line with those of FAIR and that any of his comments should be read with that in mind.

Instead, for a group that as an integral part of its various defenses against LDS critics argues that we should  look at the whole context of a situation, that all the information should be considered, has now engaged in not providing the entire context, and intentionally excluding information and background without providing any explanations.    

For a group that defends the LDS Church against claims that it has hidden its history, it has just engaged in some history hiding itself.

FINDING A NEW BOAT

As many of you will remember about a year ago, M. Russell Ballard spoke in General Conference and encouraged members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to “stay in the boat and hold on!”  His call was part of an effort by LDS leadership to stem the flow of members who are leaving the LDS Church.   Many talks in General Conference in recent years in one way or another have been devoted to this effort.  His call was of course met with dueling internet memes.   Those like Mormon Women Stand, who wanted to share his clarion call with their fellow saints put out the following meme:

Others with a completely polar view of the LDS Church created their own opposing meme:

Of course, neither meme (as with any analogy) is perfect.   There are times when one must abandon ship to preserve one’s life.  And not everyone spends their entire life at sea.   In addition, the first meme leaves out the many who are no longer in the ship BUT did not want to leave the ship.  Rather were made to walk the plank (so to speak) facing charges of apostasy or others who were shunned by family and friends that could not understand or tolerate their views, questions and life decisions and wer thus metaphorically kept out of the ship.   The image also leaves out others who intentionally jumped out of the ship into the terrors of the unknown ocean obviously preferring to brave that, than to continue with the “Old Ship Zion” or what they saw as the HMS Titanic. 

While those who posted this second image tend to view the LDS Church as a sinking ship, it ignores the fact that even though they may have jumped ship, according to the meme, those people are now either in a small life raft or wading in freezing water.  Most members to this day still do not appreciate how difficult a choice that it was for them to abandon the “Old Ship Zion”,  they clearly no longer felt safe or welcomed there.   Many devout LDS members do not realize how terrifying it was and still is for many to have jumped ship…and yet, they did so precisely to save their own lives.   Nevertheless, every one of them is happier to be where they are in spite of the dangers than back on the ship.

But with the image of people from the Titanic out the in cold waters still fresh in our minds, let us remember that along came the RMS Carpathia and plucked the survivors from the sea.

I recently attended a Sunstone Conference at Kirtland Ohio.   It was a tremendously enjoyable conference and I was fed intellectually, spiritually, and socially.   I learned so much, was touched by the passion of the people there and the loving spirit shared by all.   In attendance at this conference hosted by the Community of Christ were members of the Community of Christ Church, members of the FLDS Church, active members of the LDS church who carried current temple recommends, progressive LDS members, inactive LDS members, members who had been excommunicated from the LDS Church and those who chose to have their names removed.  ALL of them were there enjoying one another’s fellowship and learning together about something every one of them had in common.  A Restorationist heritage.  

Men were there with their husbands, women were there with their girlfriends.   Exmos and Actives embraced one another and were able to speak about Mormonism without any rancor but with love and respect.   Women conducted the Church service on Sunday morning.   A member of the Quorum of the Twelve of the Community of Christ humbly helped roll out video equipment and setup tables working hard behind the scenes to make sure everyone felt welcome and the conference was a success.   You would not be able to tell that he was any different than any of the attendees.  Despite the presence of some incredible intelligentsia, there were no rock stars, religious, academic or otherwise.  

After the conference I asked some of my friends who attended what they thought was the best part of the conference. Without fail, they all spoke of the feeling of community, the feeling of being welcome and included.  They loved being able to discuss the history, doctrines, culture of the various different faiths that all shared a Restorationist heritage.  We all shared Kirtland.   And several of them said something that struck me quite deeply.   They said quite simply that they had found their tribe.   The USS Restorationist Heritage boat piloted by Sunstone came along and plucked them out of the sea and gave them shelter and community.   They had found a new boat.

  

I was so struck by that comment.   With my devout LDS friends, whenever we discuss the Church, there is tension…almost a need to prove that the other is wrong.  An invisible tug of war fraught with subtle judgement and sadness.   I have experienced outright judgement and condemnation by other devout LDS members.   To be fair, I can't honestly say how I have made them feel.   However, with progressive and post Mormon friends, some of them at times are more focused on anger and condemnation of the Church.   There is a visceral hate.  To be forthright, I do share some of their views, BUT I do not hate the Church.   I do not wish it or its members any ill, and believe in the sincerity and Christianity of its membership and leaders.  But I also share some of the views of devout Latter Day Saints as well and am proud of my Latter Day Saint upbringing and experiences.   I am passionate about that middle, but sometimes feel alone there.  So it was wonderful to be welcomed onto the SS Restorationist Heritage boat and be welcomed.       

One of the presenters at the conference said something that hit home.  Mica McGriggs said in her presentation that there are primarily two major views of Joseph Smith.   One group practically has Joseph on a pedestal.  Everything he did was ordained by God even if we do not understand it.   Very little blame if any is placed at his feet.  Rather, judgement is levied against anyone who dares criticize him.   “Give Joseph a break!”   On the other hand, there are those who see Joseph Smith in the vilest of ways; as a pedophile, a con-man, and a liar….”evil” is his middle name.  She argued for a more nuanced view of Joseph Smith, as that of a man, one that includes both sides of good and evil and puts him in the context of the world in which he lives.  There were over 70 people in attendance at the conference and I’m sure 70 different opinions about the man called “Brother Joseph” yet we were all united by him, and were able to talk about him and his legacy freely, openly, in a spirit of love and understanding.   That spirit is what I seek.

From the Book of Mormon we get the following scripture: 

2 Nephi 26:33 “…he inviteth them all to come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female, and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile”

I saw that scripture come alive at the Sunstone Conference.   The spirit of inclusivity, that everyone there were all alike unto God no matter where they were personally.   I find the scripture more interesting now that the scripture mentions Jews and Gentiles…showing people of different faiths and beliefs are also alike unto him.  

In the Sunday morning church service, gay couples sat next to traditional couples.   Excommunicated LDS and resigned LDS sat next to active and devout LDS.  Community of Christ members were intermingled among them too.   We were joined by someone from the FLDS.   A woman presided over the services.   And of course, there were a few kids running around in the pews.  Every one of them, their heritage traced back to the man Joseph and to the Kirtland temple.  A shared love for the Restorationist heritage that we all shared.  We were all moved by the powerful sermon delivered by Jana Reiss and then the heartfelt emotions that were shared in the testimony meeting.        

Finally, as my friend Brandt Malone so aptly stated “No matter where on stands on the religious spectrum, there is something very special about singing “The Spirit of God” in the Kirtland Temple.”  

I too must heartily agree with Brandt’s statement.   Those who know me, know I love to sing.  When it came time to sing that song, I sung it with a gusto that I have not done in years.  But I couldn’t make it through.  I broke down in tears, my voice cracking, choked with emotion as I tried to make it through each verse.   Tears shed for what I had lost and tears shed for what I had found there in Kirtland.  The fourth verse of that song came true for me at the conference.   It was indeed a blessed day when the lamb and lion, the gays and the straights, the black and the white, the ex-mormons and devout Mormons along with those from the Community of Christ and the FLDS; we all did indeed lie down together without any ire.   

I AM NOT AN ANTI-MORMON

The word “Anti-Mormon” has dogged me ever since my first serious questions and doubts about the Church claims of truth, the version of history the Church taught, and some elements of LDS culture began weighing upon me years ago.   I began studying in earnest and ran smack into the Anti-Mormon wall.        

I was afraid of that word.  I was afraid that I might become a victim of so-called  Anti-Mormon people,  Anti-Mormon literature and Anti-Mormon websites.      I was afraid that what I found and what I was learning were somehow coming from “Anti-Mormon” sources.    Back then, I thought that just about anything that came from an “Anti-Mormon” source had to be a lie.   Yet, time after time,   I would confirm facts that I was sure were “Anti-Mormon” lies.   That confirmation would come from Church sources.  Things that I knew to be true after confirming them from Church sources I was being told by fellow members that they were lies and untrue.   Trust began to be shaken.  While debate rages over the many interpretations of facts both pro/anti and every shade in between, the facts themselves remained stubborn.  You either struggle to account for them, or you choose to ignore them.

Many of us, who for most of our lives had so much faith in the Church, and incredible faith in a God who would answer prayers impacting eternal salvation much like he had for Joseph Smith, find it difficult to ignore difficult questions and difficult to believe that God would help us find our keys, but not help us resolve an issue that had an impact on our testimonies.   We were not afraid to confront them.  I was one who was sure that the issues raised would turn out to be either Anti-Mormon lies, or that some perfectly logical explanation existed, or perhaps that some fact that I was missing would be found.  Ultimately, given that I was searching with a sincere heart and real intent, that God would answer a specific prayer about the specific topic being researched.  

The more I learned about issues that for some reason were not found in any manual, I sought out people to discuss it.  Did they know about this?   Did they have any insights?  Was I living in a hole?  What were their thoughts?  Could they point me to a source that I was unaware of? 

At first I turned to my wife.   I was hit with an immediate threat.  Everything I read was from Satan, if I left the Church, she would divorce me, she told me to get my head out of the Anti-Mormon world.   She did not believe that I had confirmed the issues as legitimate questions from Church sources.   Nor did she care to see that for herself.  Talking to her about this created enough strife in our marriage that we could not talk about it anymore.

 

I next turned to my Bishop.  He thought the questions were interesting, but he did not want to discuss them.  He thought he might look them up after he was released.  But his focus had to be on building faith…He suggested that I ignore it all. 

These were questions that I dared not raise during a Sunday School Class, or Priesthood.  There was no opportunity to do so, since none of the lessons ever addressed any of the questions that I had.   I also felt that raising them in Church would detract from the Spirit and purpose of the meeting.   SO I kept silent about them in Church.  There just seemed to be nowhere to go to discuss these things.

I took to social media, mainly Facebook.   I had a much wider group of LDS friends online…not just those I ran into in my ward or stake, but LDS friends from my mission, from the ward I grew up in, my young single adult wards, and so on.  Surely, someone out there would know something I did not.   I talked to my LDS friends because I trusted them and because I did not want to talk with the so called Anti-Mormons about my questions.   And of course, members tell you to avoid talking to them, so I did.  

The reaction was interesting.   Some certainly did join in on the discussions.   I learned a lot from them and I truly enjoyed the back and forth that inevitably occurs when many different people engage.   .  It was great to get a wide variety of views.   I soon realized that many were watching my discussions online without participating.  Some of them wrote to me directly and privately, thanking me for asking questions they had but never had the courage to ask.  I had more support than I thought.   I started gaining followers as people heard I was openly discussing more difficult questions on my Facebook page.  I did not seek out these followers, they just came on their own.

But then the criticisms began.  At first they were gentle, warning me that some people had weaker testimonies and could be impacted by our discussions negatively.   Some began to wonder if I were out to discredit the Church.   Some wrote to me directly, asking me to stop or asking me to continue the discussion somewhere more private.   And of course, someone “out of concern” reported my activity to the Bishop. 

In deference to those who were worried that I was impacting people’s testimonies, I created my first Facebook group.  A place reserved only for those who were interested in discussing Mormonism and unafraid to examine closely each of the issues.   The group was a closed group.  No way that anyone who did not want to engage in those discussions would see it. But that was not enough.  It wasn't long before I was accused of setting up an Anti-Mormon group in an attempt to persuade all my friends the Church was wrong.  

I also started blogging about what I was learning , what I was feeling and what I was observing.  It was just a place to capture my thoughts, record them for later review.   I would share the blog with others so I could get their reactions… Was I right? Was I wrong? Was I missing something?   Was there a better way of looking at things?  I just placed it out there.  I did not encourage anyone to read it.  I really did not care if anyone read it.   But I certainly did welcome any and all reactions from anyone who did.     

Once again, I was reported to the Bishop.   More and more people became convinced that I was on some type of vendetta against the Church, attempting to undermine the faith of others.  All I was trying to do was to shore up my own faith which by this time had begun to falter.     

The Bishop talked with me in his office and he directly asked me to stop writing about the Church?  What??!!  I could not believe what he asked.  I grew up loving the LDS doctrine regarding the fight for Free Agency led by Christ and Michael in the pre-existence.  I felt that that such a fight was my fight.   Yet here was my Bishop asking me to no longer write or discuss what I was learning.  It felt more like the Bishop was embracing Satan’s plan who would make sure everyone was saved by enforcing conformity, by taking away free agency and by extension, the right to question.   I asked him point blank “Are you trying to muzzle me?”   That took him aback.   My Bishop is a good man and was a good friend.   I don’t think he honestly recognized that he was doing precisely that.   He backtracked and emphatically said no, but was unable to say more.

Why are people who ask difficult and perhaps critical questions in a sincere search for truth made to feel like pariahs in the Church?  For many devout members, their definition of “sincere questions with real intent” are only those that lead to a testimony of the Church.   All other questions are perceived as an intentional attempt to undermine the Church.

I have since been called many names that go along with being an Anti-Mormon.  I am also a Church hater, a follower of Satan, one of Satan’s minions.  I have denied Christ and have crucified him anew.  I am one of the elect who has been deceived.  I have been accused of intentionally attempting to lead children of other members astray.  I’ve been told that I am on an Anti-Mormon tirade and that I am campaigning to get people to leave the Church.   I have been compared to Judas and someone who would be among the crucifiers of Christ.   Need I say more?  Why would I want to be a part of people who think that of me?

If anything, those accusations have raised resentment and in some cases, anger, in many people like me.  We were just seeking answers to very hard questions, questions that were disturbing to us and were disturbing to our understanding of LDS claims of truth.  We took those questions to our LDS fellowship in good faith seeking support and direction.  Instead, we get accused of attempting to undermine the Church and lead others astray.   We have been rebuffed.   I am not surprised that many of my friends who have experienced this have become angry and resentful as to how they were treated by some members.   I totally understand why some of them indeed have become “Anti-Mormons”  To be sure, there are definitely people who are Anti-Mormon and proud of it.   Zelph on the shelf has a great article entitled: "Why I'm proud to be an Anti-Mormon" describing their own feelings on this similar topic.  http://zelphontheshelf.com/why-im-proud-to-be-anti-mormon/

But what is an Anti-Mormon? Perhaps I am in some denial protesting against being labeled an Anti-Mormon when I really might be.    I asked a bunch of my devout LDS friends on how they defined an Anti-Mormon.   Four clear themes arose from their answers.

1)      An Anti-Mormon is someone who was a strong emotion/feeling of hatred towards the Church and/or its members.

2)      An Anti -Mormon is someone who is actively and intentionally trying to persuade others that the LDS Church is not true.

3)      An Anti-Mormon is someone who is actively and intentionally trying to undermine confidence in the leaders of the Church

4)      An Anti-Mormon is someone who is actively and intentionally attempting to undermine the credibility of the LDS Church as a religious organization.

Using the above four points as a definition of an Anti-Mormon, here are my reactions:

1)      I do not hate the Church.  To hate the Church would be to hate myself.   I was raised and grew up a Mormon by a single Mother who was a convert.   The ward I grew up in was amazing and they were a huge support to my mother and sisters and I.  I loved my mission and do not regret serving one.   I am proud of the LDS ancestry that all LDS members inherit.  What the pioneers accomplished was incredible in the midst of the hardships they endured should bring the admiration of anyone. I do not hate any church members either.  The ones that I know are all good people striving hard to follow the Prophet and follow Christ as best as they can.   Those who have been antagonistic towards me have truly been a minority of the members that I personally know, but with enough motivation in them to silence me that thanks to their playing Big Brother and turning me in to my Bishop and later having members of the Stake Presidency watching whatever I said or wrote.  Like it or not, I will always be a Mormon and I still have a great love for all of my LDS friends and family.  I still to this day defend the Church to those who are viewing some aspect of it incorrectly.   

2)      I have no intention or desire to convince anyone else that the LDS Church is not true.  I have come to my own conclusions, but those are my own.   Everyone is free to seek their own answers to life’s great questions.   But that doesn’t mean that I will stop writing or thinking about the Church either.   I want to know what LDS members think of the issues that face them today and that are more and more making it into mainstream media for millions of non-Mormons to digest as well.   Woiuldn't they rather have their voice heard as a response than those of people who hate them?  If I wanted to destroy a members testimony, I would actively and intentionally push the CES letter on my devout LDS friends, I would continually attack the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I would attack other foundational aspects of the claims of the church.  I would do so openly and publicly.  But I do not.  I probably post more positive articles about the Church than negative ones.   On the other hand, if anyone asks me, I will answer any question about the Church honestly.  If someone asks me, I will explain why I left the Church.   The path of someone questioning the Church is a hard and lonely one.   I traveled it.  I would not want anyone to do that alone.   So I will always be there to help someone on that path.   They do not have to agree with me.  I’m fine with that.   But I will be a place where any one can ask me anything, explore their thoughts and feelings and I will do my best to respond and be fair

3)      I have no intention of undermining any current leader of the Church.  I may disagree with them, I may point out contradictions or inaccuracies.  But since when did the “rules” change so that any disagreement with a Church leader is viewed as an attempt to undermine them and dismiss their credibility?   How many of us have had moments of serious disagreement with our parents?  Yet in those disagreements and times of criticism, do we not still love them?  Do we not not think they are a very credible influence in our lives?  We do not attempt to smear their names publicly.

4)      I have no intention of undermining the Church itself.   Once again, I do disagree with the Church, but honestly, I am just one small person.  A Church with millions of active members around the world that is as powerful and rich as the LDS Church, with billions of dollars of assets at their control, a top leadership that is filled with people with Harvard MBA’s, Law Degrees and PhD's as worldly proofs of their brilliance, such a church is hardly threatened by someone like me.  If they were, it would be akin to straining at a gnat.  

I may no longer believe in the historicity claims of the Book of Mormon, I may no longer agree with the general principles and doctrines of the foundation of the Church and how that was taught.  I may no longer view Joseph Smith as a prophet.   I may still want to discuss openly my thoughts, feelings and things that I learn about the Church with other members to get their views.  I may still want to see what members of the Church think about the issues that of the day that are facing them and getting lots of press.     

But I am NOT an Anti-Mormon.    

Extract of Mormon statistics from the Pew Research Center Survey on America's Changing Religious Landscape

Today (May 12, 2015) the Pew Research Center released a demographic survey of America’s changing religious landscape examining demographic changes for US religious groups from 2007 to 2014.   I am providing a link to the survey results published by Pew here.   

All I have done was just to pull out of the survey all of the statistics that are directly relevant to Mormonism.  If you wish to see how Mormonism demographic statistics compare to other religions you should follow the link to the PEW survey and look at the tables they have published.

The demographic results specific to Mormonism are below:

GENERAL STATS

·         Mormon Share of US Population from 2007 to 2014 from  1.7% to 1.6% Decline of 0.1%

·         36% of people raised Mormon no longer consider themselves Mormon.   Of those, 21% of them are now unaffiliated with any religion, 6% are now evangelical, 3% protestant, 2% Catholic,  1% moved to historically black protestant, 3% are now “other”

·         69% of US Mormons were born in the Church, 31% are converts.

AGE BREAKDOWN

·         Average Median age of Mormons increased from 41 to 43

·         US Mormons aged 18 to 29 declined from 24% to 22%

·         US Mormons aged 30 to 49 declined from 42% to 40%

·         US Mormons aged 50 to 64 increased from 19% to 22%

·         US Mormons aged 65 and over increased from 15% to 16%

ETHNICITY

·         Ethnicity: Whites decreased from 86%  to 85% of US Mormons

·         Ethnicity: Hispanics increased from 7% to 8% of US Mormons

·         Ethnicity: Blacks decreased from 3% to 1% of US Mormons

·         Ethnicity: Asian experienced no change, still 1% of US Mormons

·         Ethnicity:  “Others” increased from 3% to 5% of US Mormons

·         2% of Whites in the US are Mormon (unchanged from 2007)

·         1% of Hispanics in the US are Mormon (Unchanged from 2007)

·         1% of ethnicity “Other” are Mormon (unchanged from 2007)

·         A negligible % of Blacks in the US are Mormon (unchanged from 2007)

IMMIGRATION

·         85% of US Mormons are third generation immigrants with both parents having been born in the US

·         7% of US Mormons were born in the US, but had at least one parent born outside the US

·         7% of US Mormons were born outside the US

EDUCATION

·         The percentage of Mormons with at least a bachelor’s degree increased from 29% to 33%

·         27% of Mormons have at most a high school degree.

·         40% of Mormons have gone to some college but not graduated

·         23% of Mormons have a Bachelor’s degree

·         10% of Mormons have a post graduate degree

INCOME

·         26% of Mormons make less than $30K

·         21% of US Mormons make between $30 to $49K

·         38% of US Mormons make between $50K to $99K

·         16% of US Mormons make more than $100K

GENDER

·         The percentage of US Mormons that are men increased from 44 to 46%

·         The percentage of US Mormons that are women decreased from 56% to 54%

MARRIAGE

·         82% of Married Mormons have a Mormon as a spouse.  This is the second highest rate among all religious groups.  

·         The percentage of US Mormons that are married dropped from 71% to 66%.  Yet, the Mormon faith has the largest percentage of adults that are married compared to every other religious group studied by the Pew Survey

·         The percentage of US Mormons that have never been married increased from 12% to 19%

·         The percentage of US Mormons that are divorced/separated dropped from 9% to 7%.  This is the second lowest rate out of all of the religious groups studied in the Pew survey.  Only the Hindus have a lower rate

·         The percentage of Mormons who are living with a partner has remain unchanged at 3%

·         The percentage of US Mormons who are widowed has remain unchanged at 5%

·         The fertility rate among Mormons is officially the highest compared to all other religious groups in the US at an average of 3.4 children born to adults between the ages of 40-59.  

·         The average number of children at home is also the highest compared to all other religious groups at 1.1

MIGRATION

·         The percentage of Mormons living in the West has declined from 76 to 67%

·         The percentage of Mormons living in the South has increased from 12% to 20%

·         The percentage of Mormons living in the Midwest has stayed the same at 7%

·         The percentage of Mormons living in the Northeast has increased from 4% to 6%

RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION BY GENERATION

·         1% of those from the greatest generation (born before 1928) are LDS

·         2% of those from the silent generation (1928 to 1945) are LDS

·         1 % of those who are Baby Boomers (1945 to 1964) are LDS

·         2% of those who are Generation X (1965 to 1980) are LDS

·         2% of those who are Millenials (1981 to 1996) are LDS

·         All these numbers have remain unchanged from 2007 to 2014

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

·         1% of self reported gays, lesbians or bisexuals in the US consider themselves Mormon

METHODOLOGY

·         A sample size of 664 Mormons was used with a margine of error of +/-  4.9 percentage points