Mormon church membership - who to count as members

[Notatbm]

The Mormon church regularly cites  ~17million ish members, but many if not a majority of members are inactive and haven’t attended in decades or even a generation or two. 
 

I personally believe it is safe to say about 25% or less attend and probably an even smaller percentage pays a full tithe if any at all. So why keep people on the rolls if they by their own behavior demonstrate they don’t want to be? 
 

Some would say they should resign their membership and I may agree. Perhaps the church should do what I believe was done in England, Chile and the Philippines ( no proof but anecdotally I feel it happened) and purge the church of those who do not attend for whatever reason. 
 

Also, why not purge the rolls of those who are habitual criminals for example? Ex them and let them come back on their own terms if they decide to get it together. 
 

The reason I bring this up is this past week the church has had to face admitting the Charlie Kirk shooter is a member. Also in the same incident another guy (old man) is arrested at the scene for confessing to the shooting as a way of distracting law enforcement. He was hauled off and somehow his pants got pulled down and he was wearing his Gs. People got upset at another newspaper for an article mocking garments… isn’t this kinda the same thing? Allegedly this dude is a long time trouble maker in Utah and well known. Jim Bennet even knows of him. He has been arrested several times for stuff like bomb threats. And if that wasn’t bad enough the old man was found to have child porn on his phone and is now facing charges for that. I bet he has a current recommend. 
 

The temple film maker turned child molester is yet another. Why is the church holding on to these guys? 
 

it is tough enough for the church to have to parry away criticism over this stuff, why make it even more of a burden by keeping inactive and criminals on the rolls? It isn’t a good look. One would think it would be better to have a smaller number of members who are all-in as opposed to keeping no participants on the roster. Heck with this criteria just my non-attendance and non tithe paying would get me purged. 

anyway-discuss if you will. 

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

purge the church of those who do not attend for whatever reason

And that would include me.  Do you think I should lose my membership because I don’t attend these days even though I am a devout believer?
 

Quote

? It isn’t a good look. 

Are you really encouraging the Church to make decisions based solely on how it looks for the Church or do you mean something different here?

Edited September 17, 2025 by Calm

[Notatbm]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

And that would include me.  Do you think I should lose my membership because I don’t attend these days even though I am a devout believer?

Do you pay tithing? Do you do anything that would indicate you want to remain a member? Why don’t you attend? Doesn’t sound like it is what a devout believer would do unless it is for health reasons or being in a geographical area where there is no access to the church. 

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you really encouraging the Church to make decisions based solely on how it looks for the Church or do you mean something different here?

Yes. What positive outcome can happen from keeping a child molester on the rolls of the church… or a beer swilling jack Mormon who doesn’t pay tithing? I do know one can point at those two examples and say- they are Mormons. It would be a bit tougher if they were not members. 

[The Nehor]

Who is going to detect all the habitual criminals and revoke membership based on that?

[Notatbm]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Who is going to detect all the habitual criminals and revoke membership based on that?

If bishops and EQPs are doing their jobs, they will learn who many of them are. Relief society presidents get all the drama from the wives so there is another source. It isn’t hard. The George Zinn fellow (old guy with child porn) was well known all over Utah as getting picked up by the cops on a regular basis. The church knows how to retain child molesters so maybe the kirton mckonkie help line be a good start. 
 

the church can do anything it wants to do with a little addition of the power of the priesthood or do you not believe that?

[Devobah]

43 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

So why keep people on the rolls if they by their own behavior demonstrate they don’t want to be? 

We don't know the hearts of the people. A lot of people don't attend for a variety of reasons, but they still want to remain a member. That's their right.

 

44 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Perhaps the church should do what I believe was done in England, Chile and the Philippines ( no proof but anecdotally I feel it happened) and purge the church of those who do not attend for whatever reason. 

Anecdotes are not a good way to measure something. I'd also like a CFR on this. Where are you getting this?

 

45 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Also, why not purge the rolls of those who are habitual criminals for example? Ex them and let them come back on their own terms if they decide to get it together.

The gospel is one of change and repentance. Christ changes habits.

 

46 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

And if that wasn’t bad enough the old man was found to have child porn on his phone and is now facing charges for that. I bet he has a current recommend. 

Once again, speculation. And even if he does have one, that's his problem, not yours to police. People are free to eat and drink damnation to their soul. God will not be mocked.

 

47 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

t is tough enough for the church to have to parry away criticism over this stuff, why make it even more of a burden by keeping inactive and criminals on the rolls? It isn’t a good look. One would think it would be better to have a smaller number of members who are all-in as opposed to keeping no participants on the roster. Heck with this criteria just my non-attendance and non tithe paying would get me purged. 

People's paths divert and come back. What's the correct amount of time to ex someone if they don't show. @Calm told you about her current attendance. I know that there are others that are believers that don't attend. John Dehlin, Jeremy Runnells, and a few other notable antis remained on the roles for a significant amount of time. You give them time to change and come back.

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

The Mormon church regularly cites  ~17million ish members, but many if not a majority of members are inactive and haven’t attended in decades or even a generation or two. 
 

I personally believe it is safe to say about 25% or less attend and probably an even smaller percentage pays a full tithe if any at all. So why keep people on the rolls if they by their own behavior demonstrate they don’t want to be? 
 

Some would say they should resign their membership and I may agree. Perhaps the church should do what I believe was done in England, Chile and the Philippines ( no proof but anecdotally I feel it happened) and purge the church of those who do not attend for whatever reason. 
 

Also, why not purge the rolls of those who are habitual criminals for example? Ex them and let them come back on their own terms if they decide to get it together. 
 

The reason I bring this up is this past week the church has had to face admitting the Charlie Kirk shooter is a member. Also in the same incident another guy (old man) is arrested at the scene for confessing to the shooting as a way of distracting law enforcement. He was hauled off and somehow his pants got pulled down and he was wearing his Gs. People got upset at another newspaper for an article mocking garments… isn’t this kinda the same thing? Allegedly this dude is a long time trouble maker in Utah and well known. Jim Bennet even knows of him. He has been arrested several times for stuff like bomb threats. And if that wasn’t bad enough the old man was found to have child porn on his phone and is now facing charges for that. I bet he has a current recommend. 
 

The temple film maker turned child molester is yet another. Why is the church holding on to these guys? 
 

it is tough enough for the church to have to parry away criticism over this stuff, why make it even more of a burden by keeping inactive and criminals on the rolls? It isn’t a good look. One would think it would be better to have a smaller number of members who are all-in as opposed to keeping no participants on the roster. Heck with this criteria just my non-attendance and non tithe paying would get me purged. 

anyway-discuss if you will. 

The only people counted as members are those who were baptized when they were 8 (with parental permission).  There's no way for people to be members 'for a generation or two' who have never attended.

My grandparents were members since childhood but never attended regularly until they were in their 50s.  My parents never attended regularly until they were in their early 30s.  None of them wanted their names removed from the rolls and all had home and visiting teachers, etc.  They considered themselves members even if they weren't actively attending.  If people don't want to be members anymore, they can have their membership ended.

I think the church does what it does because it's not that concerned about 'the look'.  It's concerned with doing what they believe is right (though in an imperfect and flawed way sometimes).

(Also, it sounds like Robinson was an ex-member?  Or at least, hadn't attended in years? )

[manol]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the church does what it does because it's not that concerned about 'the look'.  It's concerned with doing what they believe is right

^^^This^^^

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

If bishops and EQPs are doing their jobs, they will learn who many of them are. Relief society presidents get all the drama from the wives so there is another source. It isn’t hard.

There isn’t that much coming in about people who aren’t actively attending.

21 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

The George Zinn fellow (old guy with child porn) was well known all over Utah as getting picked up by the cops on a regular basis.

And? Do we know if he is formally a member? Also your supposition that he has a current temple recommend is based on…..what exactly?

21 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

The church knows how to retain child molesters so maybe the kirton mckonkie help line be a good start. 

Ah, this is a brainless criticism then. Just throwing random stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks?

21 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

the church can do anything it wants to do with a little addition of the power of the priesthood or do you not believe that?

I do not believe that.

[Notatbm]

19 minutes ago, Devobah said:

We don't know the hearts of the people. A lot of people don't attend for a variety of reasons, but they still want to remain a member. That's their right.

if one had the “right” to be a member then how does the church go about excommunicating someone?

19 minutes ago, Devobah said:

 

Anecdotes are not a good way to measure something. I'd also like a CFR on this. Where are you getting this?

I made it clear I had no proof so no CFR. Google it. Baseball baptisms, chile eliminated 30 stakes etc. 

19 minutes ago, Devobah said:

 

The gospel is one of change and repentance. Christ changes habits.

 

Once again, speculation. And even if he does have one, that's his problem, not yours to police. People are free to eat and drink damnation to their soul. God will not be mocked.

what? Even if he (who) has what? 

19 minutes ago, Devobah said:

 

People's paths divert and come back. What's the correct amount of time to ex someone if they don't show. @Calm told you about her current attendance. I know that there are others that are believers that don't attend. John Dehlin, Jeremy Runnells …

church prob should have exed them earlier 

[Notatbm]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The only people counted as members are those who were baptized when they were 8 (with parental permission).  There's no way for people to be members 'for a generation or two' who have never attended.

To make sure we are on the same sheet of music a generation is approx twenty years:

my understanding is the church counts someone on the roles as a member if they were baptized AND they have not yet reached the age of 110. If that is true, a person baptized at age 8 and never darkens the doorway of the church for the rest of their lives will remain a member in the rolls until the age of 110. 

That is FIVE generations they could be on the rolls so yea it is possible. A neighbor of mine hasn’t been to church since she graduated high school… she is in her late 60s so she has been inactive for two generations. 

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

(Also, it sounds like Robinson was an ex-member?  Or at least, hadn't attended in years? )

My understanding is he is an inactive member. 

Edited September 17, 2025 by Notatbm

[Notatbm]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There isn’t that much coming in about people who aren’t actively attending.

sounds like the ministering program is killing it.  Have not attended in about 1.5 yrs. No one talks to me. I live within a literal baseball throw of I think six active families… six

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And? Do we know if he is formally a member? Also your supposition that he has a current temple recommend is based on…..what exactly?

he is wearing garments… kinda hard to waltz into a bookstore and buy them without a recommend I suppose. Last time i bought them ( many moons ago). Had to present my recommend. 
 

I thought the church had to authorize the wear of garments or is that just an old wives tale? 
 

why would he wear garments if he wasn’t an active member anyway.  I guess there are wierd people out there. 

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Ah, this is a brainless criticism then. Just throwing random stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks?

so the church does not retain any child known child molesters? 

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do not believe that.

You faith in the force is weak Luke 

Edited September 17, 2025 by Notatbm

[Devobah]

26 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

if one had the “right” to be a member then how does the church go about excommunicating someone?

Their right to not have their names removed even if they are inactive. That’s what I was referring to. 

27 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

made it clear I had no proof so no CFR. Google it. Baseball baptisms, chile eliminated 30 stakes etc. 

So do you have proof or not? Your anecdotes mean very little here. Your word doesn't count either. Do you have the evidence?

 

28 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

what? Even if he (who) has what? 

Even if the gentlemen who has called in the bomb threats has a temple recommend. 

 

29 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

church prob should have exed them earlier 

There was plenty of discussion just on this board about their excommunication proceedings. Unfortunately it’s very much a stake president to stake president basis. 

[Notatbm]

28 minutes ago, Devobah said:

So do you have proof or not? Your anecdotes mean very little here. Your word doesn't count either. Do you have the evidence?

I told you two times I don’t have proof. I don’t care if you don’t believe it. 
 

you can read thru this if u like : https://mrm.org/mormon-missionary-strategy-gone-wrong#:~:text=“These British boys thought they,seek parental permission at all.&text=Unlike the recent ploy of,were undoubtedly baseball-baptism boys.&text=Perhaps the four overly-enthusiastic,Mexico need to hear that.

28 minutes ago, Devobah said:

 

 

There was plenty of discussion just on this board about their excommunication proceedings. Unfortunately it’s very much a stake president to stake president basis. 

The church can tell them exactly what to do. Stake president or not, they answer to the Q15

Edited September 17, 2025 by Notatbm

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

To make sure we are on the same sheet of music a generation is approx twenty years:

my understanding is the church counts someone on the roles as a member if they were baptized AND they have not yet reached the age of 110. If that is true, a person baptized at age 8 and never darkens the doorway of the church for the rest of their lives will remain a member in the rolls until the age of 110. 

That is FIVE generations they could be on the rolls so yea it is possible. A neighbor of mine hasn’t been to church since she graduated high school… she is in her late 60s so she has been inactive for two generations. 

 

Normally, when talking about two generations, you are talking about the difference between grandparents and grandchildren (one generation difference is parents and children).  So it did confuse me, thinking of someone not attending as grandchildren or grandparents.  So thanks for clarify that you meant someone not attending for 20 years or more.  I agree, that's very possible.

And yes, they will remain members even if they don't go.  The church generally lets people decide that kind of stuff for themselves, baring serious sin.

[The Nehor]

57 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

sounds like the ministering program is killing it.  Have not attended in about 1.5 yrs. No one talks to me. I live within a literal baseball throw of I think six active families… six

Do you want them to reach out to you?

57 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

he is wearing garments… kinda hard to waltz into a bookstore and buy them without a recommend I suppose. Last time i bought them ( many moons ago). Had to present my recommend. 

Fun fact: When don’t renew your temple recommend the garments don’t spontaneously combust and no one comes to take them.

57 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I thought the church had to authorize the wear of garments or is that just an old wives tale? 

When you buy them you own them. The Church can ask or tell you to stop wearing them but you can just ignore them.

57 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

why would he wear garments if he wasn’t an active member anyway.  I guess there are wierd people out there. 

Lots of reasons to wear them:

- Just out of habit
- You like the feel
- You want to wear them as an act of protest
- You want to tick off members by wearing them.
- To make sacrilegious porn
- Performing demonic summoning rituals

57 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

so the church does not retain any child known child molesters?

No idea. Probably some in there.

57 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

You faith in the force is weak Luke 

No, my faith in most everything is pretty weak. It is in no way limited to energy fields generated by living things.

[MustardSeed]

Most members of the church are messy.  Thank goodness you don’t have to be perfect to be counted among the membership. 

[Pyreaux]

7 hours ago, Notatbm said:

The Mormon church regularly cites  ~17million ish members, but many if not a majority of members are inactive and haven’t attended in decades or even a generation or two. 
 

I personally believe it is safe to say about 25% or less attend and probably an even smaller percentage pays a full tithe if any at all. So why keep people on the rolls if they by their own behavior demonstrate they don’t want to be? 
 

Some would say they should resign their membership and I may agree. Perhaps the church should do what I believe was done in England, Chile and the Philippines ( no proof but anecdotally I feel it happened) and purge the church of those who do not attend for whatever reason. 
 

Also, why not purge the rolls of those who are habitual criminals for example? Ex them and let them come back on their own terms if they decide to get it together. 
 

The reason I bring this up is this past week the church has had to face admitting the Charlie Kirk shooter is a member. Also in the same incident another guy (old man) is arrested at the scene for confessing to the shooting as a way of distracting law enforcement. He was hauled off and somehow his pants got pulled down and he was wearing his Gs. People got upset at another newspaper for an article mocking garments… isn’t this kinda the same thing? Allegedly this dude is a long time trouble maker in Utah and well known. Jim Bennet even knows of him. He has been arrested several times for stuff like bomb threats. And if that wasn’t bad enough the old man was found to have child porn on his phone and is now facing charges for that. I bet he has a current recommend. 
 

The temple film maker turned child molester is yet another. Why is the church holding on to these guys? 
 

it is tough enough for the church to have to parry away criticism over this stuff, why make it even more of a burden by keeping inactive and criminals on the rolls? It isn’t a good look. One would think it would be better to have a smaller number of members who are all-in as opposed to keeping no participants on the roster. Heck with this criteria just my non-attendance and non tithe paying would get me purged. 

anyway-discuss if you will. 

The Ethics of Counting Inactive Members

Ah, the oft' repeated ex-mo suggestion that the LDS Church's membership numbers are artificially inflated because they include a large number of inactive members who haven't attended in years. It is a valid observation, but it lacks understanding how large religious organizations count members.

Firstly, Baptism as the basis for LDS membership, as with many Christian denominations. Once a person is baptized and their name is entered on the membership rolls, they remain a member until they formally resign, are excommunicated, or pass away. This is a common practice in many faith traditions. It's a vital ordinance, and cruel to arbitrarily take away.

The logic of "purging" the rolls of inactive members is an overly drastic measure. While it might lead to a more "accurate" representation of active participants, it would also go against the fundamental theological principle of many churches that baptism is a binding covenant that cannot be easily undone. For the LDS Church, membership is not just a club membership that can be revoked for non-attendance. Many members who are currently inactive still consider themselves to be faithful, many hope to return to activity one day, and many who leave do ultimately come back later in life. The Church, by keeping them on the rolls, maintains a connection to them.

Secondly, the ex-mos seem to just assume other religions have so much higher rates of active participation.

Catholicism: A Pew Research Center study found that about 29% of U.S. Catholics say they attend Mass weekly or more often. This means a significant majority of people who identify as Catholic do not attend services every week. The Catholic Church, however, still counts all baptized individuals as members.

Protestantism: Similarly, a Gallup poll found that only about 32% of U.S. adults reported attending religious services in the past seven days, a number that has been in decline for years. The definition of "Protestant" is also broad, encompassing many denominations, some do have very high attendance.

Criminals and Membership

This is a classic example of confusing the actions of individuals with the character of an institution. While members of the Church have committed crimes, becoming a source of embarrassment and criticism for the institution; Every major religion and organization in the world has members who are criminals. The actions of one or a few individuals do not define the entire group.

The LDS Church does, like many religious organizations, have a formal process for dealing with serious transgressions, including criminal behavior. This process is called church discipline or a church court. Depending on the nature of the crime, the individual may be disfellowshipped or excommunicated. Excommunication is usually a private and confidential matter, and the church would not publicly announce the excommunication of every member who commits a crime.

The purpose of these disciplinary actions is not to "look good" to the public, but to help the individual repent, to protect the integrity of the Church, and to protect others from harm. The process is also a way for the Church to maintain accountability within its own community.

The Ex-Mo Logical Fallacies

Cherry-Picking

Do you even know whether LDS members are more or less criminally inclined than the general population? General sociological data suggests that having a religious affiliation is often correlated with lower crime rates, but it's not a direct cause and effect. It would be a huge overstatement to say that all religious groups have no criminals or that any one group, like the LDS church, somehow has a disproportionate number of them.

The argument that if we had only ex-ed them, we'd have saved face is a prime example of this fallacy. This line of reasoning assumes that the Church's primary motivation for its disciplinary process is public relations. It's a spiritual process, not a PR strategy. The idea of "saving face" by preemptively excommunicating anyone who might commit a crime is not only impractical but also deeply un-Christian. The Church's role, from a theological perspective, is to minister to all, even those who have committed serious errors. 

The Kirk Shooter Example: If the shooter was actually a rebellious LGBT activist or even an apostate-Mormon, where his actions thus far were motivated by his animosity toward the Church, not his membership in it. Should this isolated incident be twisted to start purging 'apostates' who are LGBT or who support LGBT policies? 

Motivation and Bias

The OP claims to be acting out of concern for the Church's reputation, but everything they've ever said reveals a different motive: a desire to see the Church discredited and diminished. This is a classic example of a false front or pretext. Feigning concern to make an argument seem more credible, when the true goal is to harm the institution they once belonged to.

The "Membership Numbers are Inflated" Trope: This is a common talking point in ex-Mormon circles. It's not just a debate about numbers; it's an attack on the Church's integrity and its public image. The idea that the Church is "lying" about its numbers is a core belief for many critics. The "purge" of inactive members is presented as the solution to this supposed lie, its only suggested because it would, in turn, reduce the Church's influence and make it appear less successful.

The "All-in" Argument

The idea that a smaller, "all-in" membership is better for us is a common trope and is perhaps the most insidious because it takes a grain of truth and blows it up into a misguided demand. A highly committed core of members is, indeed, essential for any religious organization. It's what keeps the lights on, the programs running, and the missionary work going. The flaw is it also ignores the pastoral role of a church to minister to all, including those who are struggling, inactive, or fallen away.

The call for a "purge" is based on a biased premise. It's a delusion that the only reason not to do as suggested is to inflate numbers. The practice of counting all baptized individuals as members (which is not unique to the LDS Church) and the reasons for it are rooted in theological and pastoral principles rather than a desire to inflate numbers. 

A church is a body of believers, not an exclusive club. The Church, by its nature, is not meant to minister to those "all-in." The vast majority of inactive members are not criminals or public relations liabilities; they are simply people who have drifted away for a variety of reasons, some temporary, some permanent. To sever that tie would be a betrayal of the Church's core mission. The Church maintains these records because it views these individuals as part of the "family" of God. It's not a scheme to look good, critics only say and think that because they are biased against the church.

The True Heart of the Matter

For many who actively oppose the Church, the "church growth" is not a positive outcome, it's a problem. Their logic goes like this: The Church is a lie or a harmful institution. The Church is growing, or at least claims to be, and its global influence is significant. This growth must be an illusion or based on deception, because a "false" church such as this should be in decline.

Therefore, the practice of keeping inactive members on the rolls is interpreted as a deliberate scheme to manufacture a narrative of success. It's the only logical explanation that fits their pre-existing premise.

This is a classic case of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. The critics have already decided that the Church is "bad" and should be failing. When the publicly reported numbers don't align with that expectation, they don't question their premise; instead, they attack the numbers themselves.

For a bitter ex-Mormon, see a large decline in membership would validate their decision to leave and confirms their belief that the institution is a fraud. The Church's continued public growth, at least the very perception of it, is a constant source of frustration for them because it contradicts their preferred narrative. They want to believe that the Church is losing its influence, and a massive "purge" of the rolls would provide the empirical evidence they so desperately desire.

Edited September 17, 2025 by Pyreaux

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

I made it clear I had no proof so no CFR. Google it. Baseball baptisms, chile eliminated 30 stakes etc. 

Baseball baptisms occurred in the 50s.  In that entire decade, the church grew less than 1 million (https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2024/06/08/charts-growth-church-jesus-christ-latter-day-saints-1830-2023-member-temples-wards-stakes/ shows 1 million at 1947 and 2 million at 1963).  So even if we assume that every single person in that time period was a baseball baptism, that only accounts for 1 million inactive members.  Baseball baptisms are not even close to the reason why only about 30% of members are active.

The elimination of the stakes in Chile is an interesting piece of history.  One of the main reasons why Chile had so many stakes was to improve member retention.  The idea was that by having more callings and smaller geographical stakes, it would make it easier for new members to feel apart of the church.  It was semi-successful but it also left members doing a lot of work since there wasn't as many members to carry the load.  When the church combined stakes, it actually caused members to stop attending because now they had to travel further than they used to and it was too much of a hassle.  https://www.cumorah.com/articles/ldsGrowthCaseStudies/247 is a case study on why the church discontinues stakes.

In none of those cases did any purging of membership roles occur.  In Chile, the membership count 1989 was only ~300k.  It grew quickly to ~500k by 1999.  But slowed considerably and only grew to about ~600k by 2009.  The total count didn't shrink.  Missionaries focused more on retaining members and the baptisms were more focused so the growth was less.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_in_Chile has the membership numbers.

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Do you want them to reach out to you?

not really, but you would think if they wanted to keep counting me as a member maybe someone would put forth some effort to see what’s up. No one cares and that is fine. 

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

When you buy them you own them. The Church can ask or tell you to stop wearing them but you can just ignore them.

Lots of reasons to wear them:

- Just out of habit
- You like the feel
- You want to wear them as an act of protest
- You want to tick off members by wearing them.
- To make sacrilegious porn
- Performing demonic summoning rituals

I’m pretty sure zinn wanted to stay in the good graces of all his Mormon political friends. The garment checker wackjobs are real people. I have some in my family. You aren’t Mormon? Not worth talking to. 

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No idea. Probably some in there.

https://floodlit.org/accused/

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

not really, but you would think if they wanted to keep counting me as a member maybe someone would put forth some effort to see what’s up. No one cares and that is fine.

Yet you are complaining about it.

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

I’m pretty sure zinn wanted to stay in the good graces of all his Mormon political friends. The garment checker wackjobs are real people. I have some in my family. You aren’t Mormon? Not worth talking to. 

The garment checkers?

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

https://floodlit.org/accused/

Cool, I wish the victims success in pursuing justice.

[MustardSeed]

7 hours ago, Notatbm said:

I have some in my family. You aren’t Mormon? Not worth talking to.

That’s too bad.  It’s possible I suppose that it may have something to do with something other than your lack of shared religion.
I don’t talk much to my one brother who is not LDS.  He might think it’s due to religion.  But I talk equally seldom to my active brother- plus I have another non LDS brother whom I’m quite close to. 
 

the first brother is simply too negative and I don’t like being around him.  Hes Always looking for a reason to complain and argue.  Not interested- 

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, Notatbm said:

The Mormon church regularly cites  ~17million ish members, but many if not a majority of members are inactive and haven’t attended in decades or even a generation or two. 

I personally believe it is safe to say about 25% or less attend and probably an even smaller percentage pays a full tithe if any at all. So why keep people on the rolls if they by their own behavior demonstrate they don’t want to be? 

Some would say they should resign their membership and I may agree. Perhaps the church should do what I believe was done in England, Chile and the Philippines ( no proof but anecdotally I feel it happened) and purge the church of those who do not attend for whatever reason. 

Also, why not purge the rolls of those who are habitual criminals for example? Ex them and let them come back on their own terms if they decide to get it together. 

The reason I bring this up is this past week the church has had to face admitting the Charlie Kirk shooter is a member. Also in the same incident another guy (old man) is arrested at the scene for confessing to the shooting as a way of distracting law enforcement. He was hauled off and somehow his pants got pulled down and he was wearing his Gs. People got upset at another newspaper for an article mocking garments… isn’t this kinda the same thing? Allegedly this dude is a long time trouble maker in Utah and well known. Jim Bennet even knows of him. He has been arrested several times for stuff like bomb threats. And if that wasn’t bad enough the old man was found to have child porn on his phone and is now facing charges for that. I bet he has a current recommend. 

The temple film maker turned child molester is yet another. Why is the church holding on to these guys? 

it is tough enough for the church to have to parry away criticism over this stuff, why make it even more of a burden by keeping inactive and criminals on the rolls? It isn’t a good look. One would think it would be better to have a smaller number of members who are all-in as opposed to keeping no participants on the roster. Heck with this criteria just my non-attendance and non tithe paying would get me purged. 

anyway-discuss if you will. 

You’re basically arguing that the Church should kick people out who stop showing up, stop paying, or embarrass the faith. Okay, but that’s not how covenants, agency, or accountability work. Membership isn’t a fan club where the admins prune inactive users - it’s a covenant people. If someone wants out, they can ask. Until then, their standing in the church is between them and God, not you.

 

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, Notatbm said:

you would think if they wanted to keep counting me as a member maybe someone would put forth some effort to see what’s up. No one cares and that is fine. 

Isn't that a two-way street? I mean, if you wanted us to stop counting you as a member, maybe you would put forth the (minimal) effort to have your name removed from the records of the church. But if you don't care either, that is fine.

 

[Notatbm]

39 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

That’s too bad.  It’s possible I suppose that it may have something to do with something other than your lack of shared religion.
I don’t talk much to my one brother who is not LDS.  He might think it’s due to religion.  But I talk equally seldom to my active brother- plus I have another non LDS brother whom I’m quite close to. 
 

the first brother is simply too negative and I don’t like being around him.  Hes Always looking for a reason to complain and argue.  Not interested- 

Not sure if I communicated that right. I meant I have some family members who will not associate with or do business with non Mormons if they have any control of it. One has gone so far his “roll-o-dex” is loaded with all his Mormon contacts for everything from the last 50 years or so. He won’t do business, use a handy man etc unless they are Mormon because non-Mormons are all dishonest (his words). 
 

family talks with me just fine.