Mormon church membership - who to count as members

[Notatbm]

10 minutes ago, JVW said:

@Notatbm I don't know that you'd ever respond to this if I didn't tag you so I 'm tagging you. I'm really curious to read your response to this. There are assumptions and inferences made here based off of what you've posted so far in the thread and I'm curious how accurate they are. How you felt while reading this post? Is there any truth to it? What is correct, what is possibly correct, what is possibly wrong, and what is absolutely false about the thoughts expressed by Pyreaux?

I personally love when people call me out on my crap because it invites deep introspection. I typically do not respond with hostility to these kinds of call outs. I don't know that I've ever dealt with them through avoidance, which is what you appear to be doing. Please, if you would be willing to, take a few minutes to share your thoughts about what Pyreaux has stated in the quoted text above.

I don’t even read his Mile-long hyperbole filled posts. He is real good at putting words in others mouths which were not even uttered/written. Just like the cfr he just tried to corner me with.

 

read my initial post and compare what I wrote to what he said I wrote. Didn’t match up . Most of what he claims I said isn’t even in there. He just makes stuff up.

Edited September 18, 2025 by Notatbm

[MustardSeed]

I feel like this thread isn’t talking about the root / real problem at all for the OP.  Not even the OP is talking about what he really wants or needs.  It all feels like smoke screen and so it’s gonna go nowhere.

 

[JVW]

15 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I don’t even read his Mile-long hyperbole filled posts. He is real good at putting words in others mouths which were not even uttered/written. Just like the cfr he just tried to corner me with.

 

read my initial post and compare what I wrote to what he said I wrote. Didn’t match up . Most of what he claims I said isn’t even in there. He just makes stuff up.

Ok. Thank you for your response to his text. It was very revealing and I appreciate the time you took to address it. Thank you.

[Notatbm]

42 minutes ago, JVW said:

Ok. Thank you for your response to his text. It was very revealing and I appreciate the time you took to address it. Thank you.

I did just read his post and in addition to attributing false statements to me, this is a smattering of the hyperbole, name calling and character smearing he engages in. Just some highlighted text from his post...it is a very large portion of the post. Anyone who engages like this with all the hyperbole i do not take seriously:

underlying venomous motive

 little fake epiphany shows

disingenuous

feigned desire façade

clever way to couch a hostile demand.

the comparison is flawed

The true, venomous motive is revealed

the final sentence is a moment of pure, unfiltered glee

 fake motive you can weaponize cherry-picked data

The most emotionally charged and extreme examples just to openly taint an entire group.

This is not about a reasoned argument

 it's about how many times you can associate the entire Church with the most heinous crimes imaginable.

All of this is just a cry for personal vindication

Projection

A psychological and moral defense mechanism where individuals unconsciously attribute their own unacceptable thoughts, feelings, or qualities to another person or group. In this case, the ex-Mormon poster is projecting their own qualities onto the Church.

Lying: Notatbm's argument is disingenuous, as it is presented as helpful advice but is actually a hostile attack. He accuses the Church of being deceptive by inflating its numbers, yet he himself is being deceptive about his motives. He becomes the very thing claimed to hate or criticize, is a powerful and destructive psychological cycle. It often stems from deep-seated resentment and a need to externalize one's own perceived flaws. 

Intolerance

Notatbm seems to be a typical secular ex-Mormon that was made by "deconstruction". To see flaws results in a new, impossible standard for any Church to live up to because it often involves the rejection of the core principles of mercy, forgiveness, and grace that are fundamental to any church.

Edited September 18, 2025 by Notatbm
typos

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Call for References: name me another church organization you know who purges their inactive members and who don't tithe [or one that doesn't have criminals as members.]

You said, "Why not purge the rolls of those who are habitual criminals for example?" and "every org I have ever been a part of will purge you from the roles if you dont pay dues... why the church holds on to those who don’t tithe or otherwise participate at all is senseless"

You implied it by questioning why the Church doesn't do what you say 'every org' you've been a part of does. You imply all organizations do this. The question still stands: what other church organization purges members for not tithing or for being a criminal? It's a simple question. Its a direct challenge to the premise of your entire argument, the premise being that other sensible organizations do what you suggested. Name me a church. Your inability to name another church, combined with your claim that 'every org' you've been a part of does this, suggests your premise is flawed.

There is an easy out. Since you've been unable to name another church that operates this way, are you willing to admit your original argument was based on a flawed analogy to secular organizations, not on how other religions function?

 

[Notatbm]

11 minutes ago, JVW said:

Ok. Thank you for your response to his text. It was very revealing and I appreciate the time you took to address it. Thank you.

if you compare my post to his response you posted here, id like to hear your opinion on the comparison. Id truly like to know if im smoking crack here.

[Notatbm]

5 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

You said, "Why not purge the rolls of those who are habitual criminals for example?" and "every org I have ever been a part of will purge you from the roles if you dont pay dues... why the church holds on to those who don’t tithe or otherwise participate at all is senseless"

You implied it by questioning why the Church doesn't do what you say 'every org' you've been a part of does. You imply all organizations do this. The question still stands: what other church organization purges members for not tithing or for being a criminal? It's a simple question. Its a direct challenge to the premise of your entire argument, the premise being that other sensible organizations do what you suggested. Name me a church. Your inability to name another church, combined with your claim that 'every org' you've been a part of does this, suggests your premise is flawed.

There is an easy out. Since you've been unable to name another church that operates this way, are you willing to admit your original argument was based on a flawed analogy to secular organizations, not on how other religions function?

 

This is what I said and exactly what you challenged me on: "every org I have ever been a part of will purge you from the roles if you dont pay dues, attend meeting etc"

Every org I have been a part of does exactly that. Nowhere in there did I mention any church. You dont get to make up stuff I did not say. Take your CFR request and file it in the trash.

[Pyreaux]

6 hours ago, Notatbm said:

This is what I said and exactly what you challenged me on: "every org I have ever been a part of will purge you from the roles if you dont pay dues, attend meeting etc"

Every org I have been a part of does exactly that. Nowhere in there did I mention any church. You dont get to make up stuff I did not say. Take your CFR request and file it in the trash.

Correct, you avoided mentioning any churches. By using the phrase "every organization I've been a part of," you were clearly attempting to establish a universal, common-sense rule based on your personal experience, by extension, to all other "sensible" organizations you haven't been a part of. The unstated, but obvious, conclusion of this inductive reasoning is that this rule should also apply to the LDS Church because all churches are also organizations.

The entire point of the statement is to use this "universal rule" to criticize the Church's policies as an exception to the norm. Because, if you didn't believe your rule applied to all sensible organizations, including ones you've not been a part of and churches, your argument would be baseless, a hasty generalization to make a case.

My request stands.

Semantic Evasion

The specific tactic of hiding behind a literal interpretation of one's words to avoid an obvious implication is called semantic evasion. The individual knows what they implied, but they are trying to force a debate about the words themselves, rather than the substance of the argument.

This behavior is a hallmark of a bad-faith argument. A good-faith arguer seeks truth and understanding; they would admit that their analogy was flawed or that they cannot provide a factual example. The poster, however, is not interested in a genuine exchange. Their goal is to "win" by any means necessary, which is why they resort to deflection when cornered.

When he says, "You don't get to make up stuff I did not say," he is also using a form of gaslighting. He is trying to make me doubt my own understanding of the conversation and put me on the defensive. This is a common tactic when a person has no logical defense for their position.

Edited September 18, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Okrahomer]

FWIW -- I asked ChatGPT to compare/contrast membership policies across several religious organizations. The only issue I have with this is how ChatGPT links LDS membership to "the database" -- that seems a bit synthetic.  I see the LDS policy as most similar to the Catholic and Orthodox approaches:

 

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2025 by Okrahomer
needed all columns, typo

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Okrahomer said:

how ChatGPT links LDS membership to "the database" -- that seems a bit synthetic.  I see the LDS policy as most similar to the Catholic and Orthodox approaches

ChatGPT states Catholics estimated numbers of members based off of sacraments, but it looks more like the estimates are for areas that can’t communicate easily with the Vatican.

https://www.catholicsun.org/2018/06/07/big-book-of-numbers-vatican-volume-tracks-church-statistics/

”The figures are the result of information requested annually from every diocese and church jurisdiction. Collecting and compiling the figures takes more than a year. The volume with statistics valid as of Dec. 31, 2016, was published this spring.

Worldwide, there are more than 1.29 billion baptized Catholics, according to the volume, and that means the Catholic population is holding steady at about 17.7 percent of the global population.

In addition, it estimated that another 4.9 million Catholics live in church jurisdictions with which the Vatican has no “regular exchange of information.” Most of those 146 dioceses, prelatures and prefectures are in mainland China.

Thirty years earlier, the 1986 yearbook estimated there were as many as 15 million uncounted Catholics living in 214 jurisdictions that did not or could not report to the Vatican. The figure included Catholics in China and in most of what was then the Soviet Union.”

https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/host-sacramental-statistics-vatican-tracks-practice-faith

Edited September 18, 2025 by Calm

[Okrahomer]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

ChatGPT states Catholics estimated numbers of members based off of sacraments, but it looks more like the estimates are for areas that can’t communicate easily with the Vatican.

It’s quite interesting to note challenges, similarities and differences in the approaches.

fyi:  I just had a look at the Seventh-Day Adventist Church policy.  The SDA Church is another one that does not consider “activity” in their calculations of membership.  Apparently, the SDA links membership to specific congregations, which is similar to Protestant and Jehovah’s Witness churches.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

This is what I said and exactly what [@Pyreaux] challenged me on: "every org I have ever been a part of will purge you from the roles if you dont pay dues, attend meeting etc"

Every org I have been a part of does exactly that. 

Were you ever an Eagle Scout? If so, then you are recognized as a lifelong member of BSA, regardless of participation. 

I bet the same holds true for whatever university alumni association you are part of too - once graduated, you typically remain an alumnus/alumna forever.

And let's not forget about civic and political organizations. If you ever registered with a political party, you get to remain registered with them for years even if you never vote. 

Now, obviously I don't know every org you may have ever been a part of, but these are a few that I suspect are pretty likely candidates that would be exceptions to your assertion. 

Of course, none of that really matters because religious organizations are fundamentally different from secular organizations in ways that make roll-keeping more about identity than about transactions or participation. Churches don’t view membership the way Netflix does, as a subscription you cancel for lack of payment. It’s more akin to family or heritage, something you remain part of unless you actively choose to leave.

 

[webbles]

21 hours ago, Notatbm said:

They don’t know cuz they don’t actually minister to people. Since when is the church concerned with an invasion of privacy?

21 hours ago, Notatbm said:

anyway- ministers who do their jobs will most likely know. Something about getting to know the people you minister to. someone like Robinson would have told a ministering bro about his situation. Kids brag on that stuff now. 

You make a lot of assumptions.  I don't see why ministering people would know this.  I don't see why he would tell or brag about this.  Sure, a few might do it, but not every single person.  You may be really social and like to talk and find out about people, but that isn't everyone.  I can tell you that no ministering brother would learn about things like that from me.  There is no way they would find out.  I'm a really private person and I don't care how friendly they get with me, they won't find out.  Probably because I won't let them become friends with me.  It doesn't matter if they "actually minister" to me.  I won't let them know.  I don't know if the perpetrator is like me or not but I'm pretty positive that I'm not the only person who acts like this.

 

21 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Why about someone trying to cancel a sealing after a divorce? The form specifically asks you to list all sins committed even if they have already been confessed to a bishop.  Yep no privacy there. “Jesus forgot about your sins, but he actually works for us so we need to revisit them. “

That is a lot different from trying to track every single member.  To cancel a sealing, you have to initiate it.  If you don't want to confess every sin you committed, then don't get a cancellation.

 

21 hours ago, Notatbm said:

I distinctly remember a bishop asking 11.95 year old me if I masturbate. Mormon bishops and mission presidents have asked that forever… still do. 

I'm sorry this happened to you.  It never happened to me.  It never happened to my sons.  Hopefully, those who are still doing this will stop.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't see why ministering people would know this. 

My next door neighbor (20+ years) has been my minister for the past three years…which I love.  We are good friends.  She just barely found out my daughter is queer.  It was because we were talking politics due to Kirk’s murder, which I never do with church members or the vast majority of my friends because I want them to feel safe (my intensity when talking can come across as judgmental for some people I have learned).  If the murder hadn’t happened, there is a good chance she would have never known though our kids grew up together and I consider her a good friend.

And I talk about pretty much everything.  If you think I overshare here, you should see me in person.

There is no reason to assume ministers know everything important in someone’s life….especially the problematic stuff with church.  We intentionally have not shared my daughter’s LGBT views because she likes her privacy, doesn’t want sympathy expressed, and did not want to be a project for family or friends or church members.

My husband is extremely active, loads of friends in the Church, ministered by close friends, but he just doesn’t talk about personal troubles with most people.  He has a hard enough time with me.   

If our ministers and bishops are missing massively significant information about our lives, given how we don’t feel any discomfort with our leaders and want to help them all we can, I find it hard to imagine that it’s that typical for leaders to know all the crucial things in a member’s life that might be problematic from the POV of the Church.

Edited September 19, 2025 by Calm

[Notatbm]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

You make a lot of assumptions.  I don't see why ministering people would know this.  I don't see why he would tell or brag about this.  Sure, a few might do it, but not every single person.  You may be really social and like to talk and find out about people, but that isn't everyone.  I can tell you that no ministering brother would learn about things like that from me.  There is no way they would find out.  I'm a really private person and I don't care how friendly they get with me, they won't find out.  Probably because I won't let them become friends with me.  It doesn't matter if they "actually minister" to me.  I won't let them know.  I don't know if the perpetrator is like me or not but I'm pretty positive that I'm not the only person who acts like this.

we have several kids in our ward and family who are “out” publicly. Most are not shy about it. My generation (x) no one had time for any lgbtq drama and you kept it to yourself. Go to a high school campus right now (not in Utah) . Kids in same- sex relationships dang near having public sex and this is gilbert. Current generation isn’t shy about it. 

3 hours ago, webbles said:

 

That is a lot different from trying to track every single member.  To cancel a sealing, you have to initiate it.  If you don't want to confess every sin you committed, then don't get a cancellation.

it asks you to list sins already repented of and handled by a bishop. In addition to any others . Jesus forgets our sins except for sometimes not. Even after you repented and your bishop has declared you forgiven. 

3 hours ago, webbles said:

 

I'm sorry this happened to you.  It never happened to me.  It never happened to my sons.  Hopefully, those who are still doing this will stop.

What is there to apologize for?  bishops were supposed to do that. Jesus probably told the prophet to make sure to police up all the kids who play with themselves. 

Edited September 19, 2025 by Notatbm

[Notatbm]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

Were you ever an Eagle Scout? If so, then you are recognized as a lifelong member of BSA, regardless of participation. 
 

actually the rank is permanent but you are not a member of the natl Eagle Scout assn .Membership (lifelong) in NESA comes with a $500 fee. I’m wouldn’t join if someone paid it for me since they covered up decades of man/ boy rape.  Talk about corruption. Any organization that covers one’s abuse of children deserves to be sued into oblivion if they can’t be shoved into prison cells. 

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

I bet the same holds true for whatever university alumni association you are part of too - once graduated, you typically remain an alumnus/alumna forever.

oh yea didn’t think of that. They are just like the church, the only time I hear from them is when they want money. 

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

And let's not forget about civic and political organizations. If you ever registered with a political party, you get to remain registered with them for years even if you never vote.
 

well I vote and am proud to be a member of the party. 

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

Now, obviously I don't know every org you may have ever been a part of, but these are a few that I suspect are pretty likely candidates that would be exceptions to your assertion. 

Of course, none of that really matters because religious organizations are fundamentally different from secular organizations in ways that make roll-keeping more about identity than about transactions or participation. Churches don’t view membership the way Netflix does, as a subscription you cancel for lack of payment. It’s more akin to family or heritage, something you remain part of unless you actively choose to leave.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2025 by Notatbm
Typos and added thought

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

we have several kids in our ward and family who are “out” publicly. Most are not shy about it. My generation (x) no one had time for any lgbtq drama and you kept it to yourself. Go to a high school campus right now (not in Utah) . Kids in same- sex relationships dang near having public sex and this is gilbert. Current generation isn’t shy about it. 

But not everyone is like that.  We are talking about how the church would somehow know all this just because of the ministering people.  Some people, they would know about.  Some people, they wouldn't.  For the particular person we are talking about, we can't know.  But for me, it feels like they are in a great position to hide their situation from ministering people if they are worried about it causing problems with their family and others, similar to how you are worried that your kids would be othered.  I just don't see how this purging idea would work.  Far too many would slip through the cracks and far too many people would be hurt by it.

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

it asks you to list sins already repented of and handled by a bishop. In addition to any others . Jesus forgets our sins except for sometimes not. Even after you repented and your bishop has declared you forgiven. 

I'm not sure your point.  The person who is requesting a sealing cancelling is doing the requesting.  Yes, it is an invasion of privacy but that is a choice they are making.  This is different from a systematic purging where the church is constantly invading everyone's privacy.

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

What is there to apologize for?  bishops were supposed to do that. Jesus probably told the prophet to make sure to police up all the kids who play with themselves. 

I disagree that bishops were supposed to do that.  Considering that there are lots of people who were interviewed like you and lots who were interviewed like me, it feels like it was more a decision at the local level on whether to do it or not.  That's why I'm sorry for you.  You were paired up with a bishop who did that.

[Notatbm]

8 hours ago, webbles said:

I disagree that bishops were supposed to do that.  Considering that there are lots of people who were interviewed like you and lots who were interviewed like me, it feels like it was more a decision at the local level on whether to do it or not.  That's why I'm sorry for you.  You were paired up with a bishop who did that. 
 

I don’t know why anyone would be sorry though. Given the times and they are not too long ago the GAs were talking bout this topic like crazy. How do you explain packers talk in the general priesthood meeting ( that’s where the pamphlet came from) or mark petersons guide on how to stop masturbating? I’m just surprised no leader has ever asked you (. Think ur who said that). anyway… 

 

check this out… mark e Peterson is wack..

https://archive.org/details/steps_in_overcoming_masturbation_mark_e_petersen/page/n5/mode/1up?view=theater

Edited September 19, 2025 by Notatbm

[Pyreaux]

I've also been wondering if perhaps this absurd idea is just a personal fantasy that has become common in ex-mormonism to believe the Church should take on the burden of their own departure by "purging" them from its rolls. A fantasy stemming from the difficult emotional, social, and familial consequences of leaving the faith.

The Fantasy of a "Guilt-Free" Exit

For many who leave The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a formal resignation is not just a simple administrative act; it's a painful process that can lead to rifts with family and friends. By fantasizing about a Church-initiated purge, these individuals wish to avoid the personal responsibility and emotional fallout of resigning. They want the Church to be the "bad guy" who severed the tie, thereby absolving them of the guilt and grief associated with their departure.

The Fantasy of Validation

Or the desire for a public purge could also be a fantasy of validation. It represents a longing for the Church to publicly acknowledge, "we agree, your issues are valid, you should no longer be a member." This would, in the mind of the individual, confirm their narrative and remove the personal responsibility of having to justify their choices to family and friends. From this perspective, the aggressive and passive-aggressive behavior is perhaps not for moral superiority, but a mask for their own lack of courage to fully break away and face the consequences on their own.

Edited September 19, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I've also been wondering if perhaps this absurd idea is just a personal fantasy that has become common in ex-mormonism to believe the Church should take on the burden of their own departure by "purging" them from its rolls. A fantasy stemming from the difficult emotional, social, and familial consequences of leaving the faith.

The Fantasy of a "Guilt-Free" Exit

For many who leave The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a formal resignation is not just a simple administrative act; it's a painful process that can lead to rifts with family and friends. By fantasizing about a Church-initiated purge, these individuals wish to avoid the personal responsibility and emotional fallout of resigning. They want the Church to be the "bad guy" who severed the tie, thereby absolving them of the guilt and grief associated with their departure.

The Fantasy of Validation

Or the desire for a public purge could also be a fantasy of validation. It represents a longing for the Church to publicly acknowledge, "we agree, your issues are valid, you should no longer be a member." This would, in the mind of the individual, confirm their narrative and remove the personal responsibility of having to justify their choices to family and friends. From this perspective, the aggressive and passive-aggressive behavior is perhaps not for moral superiority, but a mask for their own lack of courage to fully break away and face the consequences on their own.

Extrapolating from the several very public excommunications and resignations shortly before they got ‘purged’, that included calling a press conference to announce their fate that often amounted to condemning the Church for unrighteousness dominion or whatever, I really can’t imagine it would be all that good of a look for the Church.  Would leaders break their tradition and start publicizing why people had their membership withdrawn?  I can see a number of lawsuits happening if so and if not, if they kept it confidential, they can easily be set up as the big bad simply kicking someone out for dislike or leaders saw inactive as burdens, etc…unwelcome, not good enough.

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

By fantasizing about a Church-initiated purge, these individuals wish to avoid the personal responsibility and emotional fallout of resigning. They want the Church to be the "bad guy" who severed the tie, thereby absolving them of the guilt and grief associated with their departure.

When I was on my mission, we participated in a pilot program that involved having the missionaries visit inactive members and invite them to come meet with the bishop to start the process of either (1) renewing their temple recommend; or (2) having their name removed from the records of the church. I was actually kind of surprised at how many people did not want to have their names removed. They weren't interested in participating at all, but they firmly did not want to be out of the church either. 

Nowadays, it's even easier - a couple of clicks, a sprinkling of auto-fill, and you can be out without any fuss. Still, a signification number of people chose to just never bother with it. Maybe they are indifferent, but unless we have some kind of constructive knowledge that says they want out, I don't see the need in proactively trying to remove them (potentially against their will). 

 

[Stargazer]

On 9/17/2025 at 1:26 AM, 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. 

I didn't attend church for three years once upon a time, even though I was a believer. Mainly because I was a teenager, the only member in my family, a member for only eight months when we moved to a completely new area, didn't know where the meeting house was located, and hadn't enough initiative at the time to make a concerted effort to find out. Yep, they should have excommunicated me.  In one of my mission cities in Germany there was a branch member who only attended church if his wife kicked his heinie that day, and always sat there sullen and grumpy. In the six months I was assigned to that branch, I saw him there about twice, but his obvious displeasure was memorable. 

Next time I met him, guess where it was? In Provo at a mission reunion during General Conference a few years later. He was the bishop of the now ward. And you could feel the Spirit radiating from him. Yep, he should have been excommunicated during his "rebellious" years.

Are you aware of the Parable of the Lost Sheep? Or, in your rejection of the Church, have you forgotten that every sheep is precious to the Shepherd? The parable ends with the shepherd rejoicing having found the lost one. I'm sure some of his friends laughed at him for spending all that time and effort looking for the lost one when he had 99 perfectly good sheep right where he wanted them.

As for the bad sheep, well, I seem to recall that Jesus chose Judas to be one of his Apostles, and imagine that, he betrayed Jesus to His death! Jesus should perhaps have realized early on that Judas was a bad seed and kicked him out. But no, he was permitted to remain -- possibly because the Savior wanted to save him, even at risk of betrayal.

You seem to think that the Church is omniscient when it comes to its members. It isn't. And what if it were? There'd be directives coming down every week from Salt Lake City directing bishops and stake presidents to excommunicate every member who had looked on a woman (or man) lustfully that week -- since that's tantamount to committing adultery -- or whatever little thing unworthy of a member. And by the end of the year, there'd be nobody left to attend church, probably including every official in the Church, and every Church employee. 

The guy that distracted police from the shooter will face man's justice, and then church discipline, because now it is known that he is a participant in child sex porn. If I don't misremember, that is an automatic membership revocation offense.

Edited September 19, 2025 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 9/17/2025 at 3:00 AM, 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

I'm sure if you complained to your elders quorum president that nobody's visiting you, you'd start getting more attention. Or do you emit one of those "Don't you dare visit me!" force fields to scare them all off?

Before ministering came along, and except when my HP group leader was my home teacher while my wife was in the process of dying, I hadn't been home taught for years. With ministering I've never been visited under that program. Even though one of my ministering brothers is the EQ president. But then again I'm there every Sunday, so maybe he isn't so worried about me. As it turns out, I don't particular care about being visited. If I need something, I know who to call (and it's not Ghostbusters).

 

[rpn]

On 9/16/2025 at 8:26 PM, Notatbm said:

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? 

The Lord's belonging is valid baptism.   And a member who hasn't attended a single church meeting for 75 years,  remains a member with access to the gift of the Holy Ghost.   Why do mortals think they are entitled to exclude members on criteria that God doesn't use?

[Notatbm]

10 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm sure if you complained to your elders quorum president that nobody's visiting you, you'd start getting more attention. Or do you emit one of those "Don't you dare visit me!" force fields to scare them all off?

Before ministering came along, and except when my HP group leader was my home teacher while my wife was in the process of dying, I hadn't been home taught for years. With ministering I've never been visited under that program. Even though one of my ministering brothers is the EQ president. But then again I'm there every Sunday, so maybe he isn't so worried about me. As it turns out, I don't particular care about being visited. If I need something, I know who to call (and it's not Ghostbusters).

 

No I don’t give off that vibe. I have a bad attitude about the church, but I have never verbalized anything to anyone unless they ask… and no one ever has

HT experience for me has been the same as you basically. I have lived in the ward nearly ten yrs.. one visit from home teacher two years after we moved in. Change to ministering and again one visit right when program started whenever that was. Have not seen or heard from anyone since. 
 

I do get the annual text from ward clerk for tithing settlement tho so I guess we can tell what they really care about. 
 

I don’t really care if someone visits or calls or not. Anytime anyone wants to brag on ministering ( which I have rarely heard- sounds like it’s even more of a failure than HT) I just roll my eyes. 
 

I am thankful for the reduction in church from three to two hours, not that I go anymore but I mention anyone talks to anyone else anymore. It’s get in, get out. Activities for the youth have been slashed and at least in our stake no ward parties, dinners etc. there is zero social activity. Makes the local evangelical churches look like stellar successes. They at least have community there. 
 

my friend circle is who I work with and a couple vet groups so I’m good.