What a Lack of Increase Really Means for the LC

[Freedom]

I saw the following video a little while back (it was linked in Jo’s letter) where Minoru speaks about stagnant growth of the LC in the US:
https://youtu.be/tTihYDJxLmQ?t=4209

To summarize, he states that the LC started out with 30 members in Los Angeles and by 1975 has reached 4,500 members. He estimates there to have been around a 52% annual rate of growth during that period. Then he says that by 1985, the LC had reached 8,500 members in the US, representing 6% annual rate of growth. Then lastly he estimated the current membership in the US in 2018 to be 25,000 which he says represents a 3.7% annual rate of growth. Assuming the membership numbers are accurate, it does paint a pretty grim picture.

Obviously, numbers aren’t everything. Regarding the LC, however, the thing that is a bit interesting about their numbers is that it is easy to see how the initial growth likely played into the whole narrative about their group being the so-called Lord’s Recovery. I know for certain that they have pointed to that initial increase as a measure of their success. So if that is their standard, then by the same token, the subsequent decline and stagnancy should serve as a form of feedback for them. The types of questions that members should be asking themselves is that if their group is what they claim to be, then why isn’t there much to show for it? Why don’t they have very much impact in society at large? Why would the Lord limit himself in the U.S. to some fringe group that represents less than .0010% of the U.S. population? In other words, when the types of claims the LC makes for itself are viewed in the context of its current state, it makes those claims all the more absurd.

For the LC, this issue of stagnancy is one of few issues where they are willing to admit that there is something wrong. In the video, Minoru attributes the stagnancy to the so-called turmoils that took place as well as external opposition in the past. So it would seem that they both acknowledge the problem at hand and know why the problem occurred. However, if people like Minoru claim to know what is causing the problem, then it would make sense to ask why the problem is still occurring. If they know how to fix it, why haven't they. Let’s put it this way - the so-called turmoils led to massive membership losses over the years. It's easy to blame things on that, but do they ever talk about if there could have been alternative outcomes? In regard to the external opposition, the LC now has the full support of the CRI. So the question they really should be asking themselves is why public perception of the LC hasn't changed in spite of all the support they now have.

Aside from all the so-called turmoils, the LC seems to ignore a much more pressing problem. The problem I am referring to is just basic member retention. The LC likes to blame everything on the so-called turmoils or whatever, but that’s only a small part of the bigger issue. Most of the time when members leave it can either be an issue of 1) the LC didn’t meet their needs and they decide to move on, or 2) something happened and they decided that it was in their best interest to leave. The LC can't really do anything about people who don't feel like the LC is a fit for them, but there have been so many lost opportunities over the years where people leave because of things that leaders had the power to change for the better but didn't. Because the LC continues to insist that there are no valid reasons to leave, it compounds the problem by putting even the ex-members who never had any disdain for the LC in the position of having to assert their right to leave the group or sometimes having to go so far as to cut off contact in order to distance themselves. Each ex-member then becomes a potential PR liability for the LC. They don’t know who is and isn’t going to speak out or steer people away from the LC. But the way that the treat people who leave basically ensures that ex-members will have nothing good to say about the group.

When members do leave because of real problems, all too often, there was the opportunity for an alternative outcome. For example, the LC has admitted on many occasions that the church kid retention rate is really bad. Many church kids get subjected to control, manipulation or extreme legalism, and not surprisingly, many church kids leave as soon as they can. So many leave with a very distinct negative impression of the LC. If the LC can’t even make the effort to put a stop to that kind of stuff that causes people to leave, they’re never going to reverse the downward trend. It just isn’t going to happen. When there are reoccurring issues related to control, legalism, etc., that means there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Wishing it will go away isn’t going to make it go away.