"the Church Has Never Been Stronger" -- Elder Cook

[Mormonmaniac]

It is clearly obvious that the membership of the church has never been stronger. That much is a fact, just look at the membership statistics. Now, beyond that, it gets a little hazy. I think it would be fair to say that the strength of the family has seriously been degraded within the church, and throughout the world in general. Thats a no brainer. So then, what are we really debating then?

[Rivers]

I figure that a member of the quorum of the twelve would have an accurate knowledge of church statistics.

Of course he could be lying and giving us a false image of the church. Kind of like the Potempkin villages that Pres. Uchdorf talked about.

[canard78]

I figure that a member of the quorum of the twelve would have an accurate knowledge of church statistics.

Of course he could be lying and giving us a false image of the church. Kind of like the Potempkin villages that Pres. Uchdorf talked about.

It doesn't have to be outright lies.

Data is all about the interpretation.

"The church has never been stronger" is not a simple statement of fact. It is subjective and based on individual interpretation.

The little data provided is vague, as are the claims being made:

Some have asserted that more members are leaving the Church today, and that there is more doubt and unbelief than in the past. This is simply not true. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never been stronger. The number of members removing their names from the records of the Church has always been very small and is significantly less in recent years than in the past. The increase in demonstrably measurable areas, such as endowed members with a current temple recommend, adult full-tithe payers, and those serving missions, has been dramatic. Let me say again, the Church has never been stronger. But, “Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God…”[ii] We reach out to everyone.

Over the last 25 years the actual number of members leaving the Church has decreased and the Church has almost doubled in size. The percentage leaving is greatly reduced.

"Leaving the church..." - does he mean name removal or inactivity?

"Actual number..." - does he mean the numerical sum of people of the % of the total?

"Increase in endowed members, full tithe payers etc..." - again, does he mean the count or the %? % of total or % of active.

With such vagueries it's difficult to even begin to consider a way of countering the claims he's making.

[Scott Lloyd]

I had a guy stop by the house yesterday.  He was telling me about this amazing investment and talked about the strength of the company he wanted me to invest in etc...  When I asked to see the financial reports and data to support his claim he refused to share them but assured me that he was in a position to observe what I cannot observe and is privy to information I don't have.  Thus, his statement carries the weight of absolute truth and is more valid than whatever skepticism I may have towards his claim.

 

Let's just be honest, Scott.  You believe Elder Cook because he is Elder Cook.  If Elder Cook or President Monson, or any of the member of the Twelve told you that Quakers lived on the moon, you would believe it and defend it!  You accept everything Cook says because of his calling.  Data?  Not required.  Evidence?  No need.  Why?  Because Elder Cook.

 

At least be upfront an honest about it.  You believe Elder Cook is called of God and you should accept anything and everything he says.  My goodness, you even gave up singing harmony parts of hymns because it was "what you were told to do" by some Stake leader.  To be clear, I don't see any problem with this.  It's your faith and your belief.  It works for you.  But doing a victory lap while proclaiming that Elder Cook's statement eviscerates Church critics on this point is just plain silly.  Elder Cook made a claim.  He provided no evidence to support that claim.  You choose to believe it.  Others are skeptical.  Perhaps the Church will add "name removal", inactivity, and former TR holders who are no longer active to the statistical report.  Odd how the Church only shares some numbers with the membership.  Especially odd that Elder Cook would make a claim about numbers the Church chooses not to share.  

 

P.S. -- I've meant to ask you why the DN pulled down the very very low activity rate statistics from their website last year.  Happened within 24 hours IIRC.

 

P.P.S. -- What do you think?  Should I invest with the guy that stopped by my house?  He is in a position to know things I don't know....

So much here to respond to, and I don't have time to get to any of it just now, much less any of the other posts that have shown up within the last 18 hours or so that more-ore-less say by implication that Elder Cook is either dishonest or incompetent.

 

But I couldn't let this part pass another moment, because it is pure falsehood:

 

 

My goodness, you even gave up singing harmony parts of hymns because it was "what you were told to do" by some Stake leader.

 

I never, ever said such a thing, and I don't know how you came up with it.

 

Going back through recent memory I can only make a guess.

 

I was posting a while back on something I had read pertaining to the creation of the current LDS hymnal (actually what I had read was notes that Blair Hodges had taken on a lecture he had attended that he had posted on his old blog, "Life on Gold Plates.")

 

I read that some people in rather highly placed positions (one reportedly was a Salt Lake Tabernacle organist) were trying to get the Brethren to forbid singing in parts during hymn singing. I said I thought that was extremely misguided, and I was grateful that the notion didn't go anywhere. I never indicated what I would have done if it had been implemented. I would probably have stopped singing altogether, because the melody lines in the current hymnal are not written comfortably within my vocal range.

 

On a separate occasion, there was a thread about the payment of fast offerings. I mentioned there that I prefer not to write checks and would rather donate online, but that I do make out the check and give it to the deacons when they come around on assignment because a stake president several years ago asked us to do so. I'm sorry if this excites your contempt, but I don't see it as that big of a deal and, after all, not a huge sacrifice on my part.

 

Now then, I think what happened is that in your mind (and unless one has an eidetic memory, we are all subject to imperfection in this respect) you conflated the two separate occasions and came up with the false and mangled account I have quoted above. If you search back through your memory, and perhaps the threads on this board, I think you will find that's the case.

 

I don't know when I'll be able to get back here to deal with the rest of your post, but meanwhile, you might consider retracting this much of it.

 

Edited to add:

 

I was able to find this link relatively quickly, so here you go:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65030-the-perfect-hymn/page-3

Edited April 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

I read that some people in rather highly placed positions (one reportedly was a Salt Lake Tabernacle organist) were trying to get the Brethren to forbid singing in parts during hymn singing. I said I thought that was extremely misguided, and I was grateful that the notion didn't go anywhere. I never indicated what I would have done if it had been implemented. I would probably have stopped singing altogether, because the melody lines in the current hymnal are not written comfortably within my vocal range.

Actually, I think that is rather old news. By "old news" I mean that I heard of this twenty or thirty years ago. What I recall hearing was that the late Tabernacle organist Alexander Schreiner (1901-1987) had objections to members singing parts in the congregation. I hadn't heard that he wanted an official ban on it, but I'm sure that's possible.

Obviously nobody in authority took this seriously.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Stargazer

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, I think that is rather old news. By "old news" I mean that I heard of this twenty or thirty years ago. What I recall hearing was that the late Tabernacle organist Alexander Schreiner (1901-1987) had objections to members singing parts in the congregation. I hadn't heard that he wanted an official ban on it, but I'm sure that's possible.

Obviously nobody in authority took this seriously.

Schreiner wasn't the one identified in Blair's notes. I won't say who it was, because I know and like the man, and I don't want to disparage him. I just think he was dead wrong on this point (assuming the story is accurate, for which I can't vouch).

[ALarson]

So much here to respond to, and I don't have time to get to any of it just now, much less any of the other posts that have shown up within the last 18 hours or so that more-ore-less say by implication that Elder Cook is either dishonest or incompetent.

I've seen no one state that Elder Cook is dishonest or incompetent. sethpayne did not say that the salesperson in his example was dishonest or incompetent.  I feel that Elder Cook stated things in such a way that he was being honest and expressing what he believed.   

 

I think what people are saying here is that until we see the stats, we don't know and can only go on what our own personal experience has been over the last several years.  Some have posted that their wards have grown, others have posted that wards are being dissolved in their area.  I have seen many family members stop attending church within the last 3 years and I've seen many who still have a strong testimony.  

[Scott Lloyd]

I've seen no one state that Elder Cook is dishonest or incompetent. sethpayne did not say that the salesperson in his example was dishonest or incompetent.  I feel that Elder Cook stated things in such a way that he was being honest and expressing what he believed.   

 

As much as to say he was not interpreting the data correctly; i.e. incompetence.

 

I think what people are saying here is that until we see the stats, we don't know and can only go on what our own personal experience has been over the last several years.  Some have posted that their wards have grown, others have posted that wards are being dissolved in their area.  I have seen many family members stop attending church within the last 3 years and I've seen many who still have a strong testimony.  

 

Yep. Anecdotal information.

 

Next to worthless when trying to present a global view, and certainly worthless in backing up an assertion like, "People are leaving the Church in droves" or "There is a mass apostasy going on" or "The Church's membership is hemorrhaging."

 

So I'm supposed to place great stock in your anecdotes, even as I resist the statement from a highly placed Church leader, one with a legal mind who could be expected to be precise, one who by virtue of his position has a global perspective?

 

 

Let's look again at what he said.

 

He said the Church in the last 25 years has doubled in size even as the number of people requesting name removal from Church records has diminished.

 

It doesn't take any esoteric number crunching to arrive at an obvious conclusion from that: On a percentage basis people leaving the Church are doing so at less than half the rate of 25 years ago.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

It takes all kinds of people to make the world go round.  It is obvious that some people are going to be "the glass is almost empty" type of people unless they are forced to acknowledge that the glass is overflowing.  They each find support for their dreary outlook in their own lives and the sky is always falling wherever they go. 

 

I remember years ago a friend talking to me about taking responsibility for my own life.  The gist of his comment was that I needed to review all of the things that occurred in my life and find the single, common thing that was present in every situation.  Of course, the only thing that was present in each event was me.  I am responsible for my life; for the way I look at life; engage life; and the way I feel about life.  

 

It is not surprising to see the broad range of perspectives on this board.  Faithful people can disagree on a wide range of things because they each have their own way of looking at life.  Some will always see the glass half full or even empty while others joyfully rejoice in the fullness of the gospel.  It all revolves around what type of people we choose to be.  

 

I tend to not stay around people with negative attitudes for the simple reason that they don't bring a lot of joy to life.  Just be happy; it is your own choice.  

[Scott Lloyd]

It takes all kinds of people to make the world go round.  It is obvious that some people are going to be "the glass is almost empty" type of people unless they are forced to acknowledge that the glass is overflowing.  They each find support for their dreary outlook in their own lives and the sky is always falling wherever they go. 

 

I remember years ago a friend talking to me about taking responsibility for my own life.  The gist of his comment was that I needed to review all of the things that occurred in my life and find the single, common thing that was present in every situation.  Of course, the only thing that was present in each event was me.  I am responsible for my life; for the way I look at life; engage life; and the way I feel about life.  

 

It is not surprising to see the broad range of perspectives on this board.  Faithful people can disagree on a wide range of things because they each have their own way of looking at life.  Some will always see the glass half full or even empty while others joyfully rejoice in the fullness of the gospel.  It all revolves around what type of people we choose to be.  

 

I tend to not stay around people with negative attitudes for the simple reason that they don't bring a lot of joy to life.  Just be happy; it is your own choice.  

I think Elder Cook could back up what he said with a ton of statistics placed at their disposal, and they would still contradict him.

 

And so it goes.

[sethpayne]

 

Now then, I think what happened is that in your mind (and unless one has an eidetic memory, we are all subject to imperfection in this respect) you conflated the two separate occasions and came up with the false and mangled account I have quoted above. If you search back through your memory, and perhaps the threads on this board, I think you will find that's the case.

 

I don't know when I'll be able to get back here to deal with the rest of your post, but meanwhile, you might consider retracting this much of it.

 

Edited to add:

 

I was able to find this link relatively quickly, so here you go:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65030-the-perfect-hymn/page-3

 

 

Scott,

 

You are exactly right.  I conflated the two statements and retract my misrepresentation.  I think this threw my memory off:

 

I read the other day that when the 1985 hymnbook was being prepared, some individuals, including people in influential positions, were trying to coax the Brethren to require everyone to sing the melody line of the hymn and to forbid singing in parts. This struck me as extremely misguided, and I'll be ever grateful it didn't go anywhere.

 

For one thing, I would have ceased to enjoy hymn singing in Church and probably would have fallen silent. With the key they're written in, most of the hymns have a melody line that is outside my vocal range, even though many of them were published in lower keys when the 1985 hymnal came out.

 

 

Now, the only reason you would "fall silent" is if you would, indeed, *follow* the direction from Church leadership.  So your statement now:

 

 I never indicated what I would have done if it had been implemented.

 

 

Isn't accurate because you did indicate what you would do:  1) not sing harmony and 2) thus probably go silent.  Why?  Because of a Church policy.  

 

What am I missing?

 

Thank you for reminding me of the fast offering story.  It further reinforces my point.  Rather than do what was most convenient for you in donating a not insignificant amount of your income to the Church, you did what you were told to do.  Why?  You didn't need any further reason than your Stake President asked.  

 

So now we have exhibit A and exhibit B.  In both cases you have expressed a willingness to go along with Church policy regardless of your own (and in my view very reasonable) objections -- at least in the case of the hymns -- to unnecessary bureaucracy.

 

Again, nothing wrong with any of that.  It's how you live your faith and it works for you.  But it does further reinforce the point that you accept Elder Cook's statement -- without any question or any hesitation -- because he is Elder Cook.  If he were Mr. Cook at the local Chamber of Commerce, I suspect you may be inclined to ask some probing questions.

[ALarson]

As much as to say he was not interpreting the data correctly; i.e. incompetence.

Not true.   

 

But continue to interpret what every one else is posting to fit your narrative.  It's pretty pointless though until we have the stats. 

[sethpayne]

I've seen no one state that Elder Cook is dishonest or incompetent. sethpayne did not say that the salesperson in his example was dishonest or incompetent.  I feel that Elder Cook stated things in such a way that he was being honest and expressing what he believed.   

 

 

Indeed.  And just to be very clear:  I am not making any claim about Elder Cook's honesty or competency.  I'm making no claims at all.  Why?  Because I have no reliable information on which to base such a claim.  From either critics or Elder Cook. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Indeed.  And just to be very clear:  I am not making any claim about Elder Cook's honesty or competency.  I'm making no claims at all.  Why?  Because I have no reliable information on which to base such a claim.  From either critics or Elder Cook. 

You're insinuating either that Elder Cook is making a false statement (a reflection on his honesty) or you're insinuating he is misinterpreting the data  (a reflection on his competence).

 

You can't complain about or express skepticism about his statement in general conference without doing one or both of those things. There's no getting around it.

 

But it does further reinforce the point that you accept Elder Cook's statement -- without any question or any hesitation -- because he is Elder Cook.  If he were Mr. Cook at the local Chamber of Commerce, I suspect you may be inclined to ask some probing questions.

 

Because of his reputation and my own observation, I hold him in high esteem in terms of character and competence and, in the absence of any compelling reason whatsoever to think otherwise, I believe he has spoken in good faith.

 

It's regrettable that others here, especially professing Church members, can't find it in their hearts to do the same.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

 

You are exactly right.  I conflated the two statements and retract my misrepresentation.  I think this threw my memory off:

 

 

Now, the only reason you would "fall silent" is if you would, indeed, *follow* the direction from Church leadership.  So your statement now:

 

 

Isn't accurate because you did indicate what you would do:  1) not sing harmony and 2) thus probably go silent.  Why?  Because of a Church policy.  

 

What am I missing?

 

Thank you for reminding me of the fast offering story.  It further reinforces my point.  Rather than do what was most convenient for you in donating a not insignificant amount of your income to the Church, you did what you were told to do.  Why?  You didn't need any further reason than your Stake President asked.  

 

So now we have exhibit A and exhibit B.  In both cases you have expressed a willingness to go along with Church policy regardless of your own (and in my view very reasonable) objections -- at least in the case of the hymns -- to unnecessary bureaucracy.

 

Again, nothing wrong with any of that.  It's how you live your faith and it works for you.  But it does further reinforce the point that you accept Elder Cook's statement -- without any question or any hesitation -- because he is Elder Cook.  If he were Mr. Cook at the local Chamber of Commerce, I suspect you may be inclined to ask some probing questions.

Assuming most everyone else would be following the directive, it would be awkward indeed to continue to sing harmony in congregational singing. It would amount to open defiance, and I'm not into that sort of thing where the Church is concerned. Again, I'm sorry if that displeases you.

 

But it's a moot point anyway, because it never happened, probably because it was so very misguided and reflected myopic judgment, and the Church of Jesus Christ is governed by divine inspiration.

 

As for the fast offering thing, I complied with the stake president's request (it was never a mandate) more as a favor to him than anything else, because, in the final analysis, my preference against check writing is  a trivial matter anyway. I regret that you apparently see this as indication of a general cowering obsequiousness on my part.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[UtahTexan]

Hmmmm I just heard this.  Saying it does not make it so.

 

Denial does not help but hey that is ok.. Carry on.  If you think 30%-35% activity rate is fine, if you think losing many STRONG AND WELL OFF tithe payers is fine ok. 

 

I see my own Eastern USA ward and stake. Low converts, poor retention, most converts are not families and are lower in the economic status, maybe 40% attendance, no new wards or stakes in 25 years....

 

if you think all is well in Zion I have a scripture for you.

 

Saying the Apostle was wrong because HIS ward seems to be different is like saying milk is no longer popular because the people in your Lactose-intolerant group do not drink milk.

[sethpayne]

You're insinuating either that Elder Cook is making a statement without being forthright regarding data (a reflection on his honesty) or you're insinuating he is misinterpreting the data he is not being forthright about (a reflection on his competence).

 

 

No I'm not.  I'm simply saying that Elder Cook provided no data to support his claim.  No more, no less.

 

You can't complain about or express skepticism about his statement in general conference without doing one or both of those things. There's no getting around it.

 

 

Well it's a good thing I'm not expressing skepticism or complaining and that I'm only stating I can't make a judgement one way or the other.

 

Because of his reputation and my own observation, I hold him in high esteem in terms of character and competence and, in the absence of any compelling reason whatsoever to think otherwise, I believe he has spoken in good faith.

 

 

You accept the statement simply because you favorably view his character and reputation?  It has nothing to do with his calling?

 

It's regrettable that others here, especially professing Church members, can find it in their hearts to do the same.

 

 

Oh.... so it IS because of his calling.

[sethpayne]

 

As for the fast offering thing, I complied with the stake president's request (it was never a mandate) more as a favor to him than anything else, because, in the final analysis, my preference against check writing is  a trivial matter anyway. I regret that you apparently see this as indication of a general cowering obsequiousness on my part.

 

Scott,

 

As I've said numerous times, it is the way you live your faith.  I respect people of faith and I certainly respect the way they live it.  

 

So your claim that my comments are an "indication of general cowering" just isn't true.  I've never said such a thing.  In fact, I've praised you for living your faith.

 

Seth

[Scott Lloyd]

No I'm not.  I'm simply saying that Elder Cook provided no data to support his claim.  No more, no less.

 

 

Well it's a good thing I'm not expressing skepticism or complaining and that I'm only stating I can't make a judgement one way or the other.

 

 

You accept the statement simply because you favorably view his character and reputation?  It has nothing to do with his calling?

 

 

Oh.... so it IS because of his calling.

Not solely because of that, no.

 

But I don't believe the Lord is in the habit of calling apostles who are deficient in character, honesty or competence.

[UtahTexan]

Sure. We have a bunch of slackers no doubt.

 

Maybe.  The Ward I started attending was just a branch a couple of years ago and it is full each Sunday.

 

So.......

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

 

As I've said numerous times, it is the way you live your faith.  I respect people of faith and I certainly respect the way they live it.  

 

So your claim that my comments are an "indication of general cowering" just isn't true.  I've never said such a thing.  In fact, I've praised you for living your faith.

 

Seth

If it's an implication that blind obedience is a component of how I live my faith, it's dubious praise indeed. Pardon me if I don't get all warm and misty over that.

 

By the way, in all of this, no one has been forthcoming with compelling statistics that show a mass exodus going on from the Church. All I've seen here are anecdotes.

 

Why is that? Why aren't the critics at least as demanding of evidence for that as they are on Elder Cook for contradicting it?

Edited April 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Not solely because of that, no.

 

But I don't believe the Lord is in the habit of calling apostles who are deficient in character, honesty or competence.

Unless they're past leaders or Prophets who were only speaking as men.  Funny how that works.  How do you know that Elder Cook wasn't just speaking as a man and giving us his opinion? Maybe his opinion is an honest one but inaccurate.  There are many examples of this happening in the past.

 

For the record, I do believe that Elder Cook was stating what he believes to be true.  So please stop inferring that I am calling him dishonest.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Unless they're past leaders or Prophets who were only speaking as men.  Funny how that works.  How do you know that Elder Cook wasn't just speaking as a man and giving us his opinion? Maybe his opinion is an honest one but inaccurate.  There are many examples of this happening in the past.

 

For the record, I do believe that Elder Cook was stating what he believes to be true.  So please stop inferring that I am calling him dishonest.  

I said dishonest or incompetent. It's one or the other, if not both.

 

The phrase "stating what he believes to be true" implies incompetence.

 

And he did speak generally of statistics. He said the Church has doubled in size in the past 25 years as the requests for name removal have diminished.

 

So he has been more forthcoming with statistics than you have been.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

I said dishonest or incompetent. It's one or the other, if not both.

 

The phrase "stating what he believes to be true" implies incompetence.

No, it's not one or the other....or both. 

 

And no, saying that Elder Cook was stating what he believes in no way implies that he is incompetent.  

Edited April 6, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

No, it's not one or the other.  Black or white.  

 

And no, saying that Elder Cook was stating what he believes in no way implies that he is incompetent.  

If you in any way insinuate that you doubt that what he is saying is true -- as opposed to "what he believes to be true" -- you are in fact casting aspersions on his competence by implication.