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

[ALarson]

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.

"as opposed to"???  This is exactly what I stated:

 

"For the record, I do believe that Elder Cook was stating what he believes to be true."

Edited April 6, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I wish everyone trying to counter Elder Cook with anecdotes would pay attention to this post and its solid analogy.

[Scott Lloyd]

"as opposed to"???  This is exactly what I stated:

 

"For the record, I do believe that Elder Cook was stating what he believes to be true."

We've established that you believe Elder Cook is being honest.

 

What is not clear is that you believe he was speaking competently.

 

I think you misunderstood my use of the phrase "as opposed to".

 

Try inserting its synonym "instead of."

Edited April 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

We've established that you believe Elder Cook is being honest.

 

What is not clear is that you believe he was speaking competently.

lol

 

This is ridiculous.  Yes, I think he's honest.  Yes, I think he's competent.  Does that mean I think he's infallible?  NO 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

 

Scott, on this thread you continue to put words in people's mouths and assume bad faith on the part of other posters. The dishonest / incompetent dichotomy is false. Elder Cook can be very competent and honest. He has provided his interpretation of the data he has seen. An interpretation is personal. It can depend a lot on your personality type (glass half full vs half empty), or on what you want to emphasize. Look at Joseph Smith. He had a strong personal experience around 1820 that changed his life. His interpretation of that experience, and the aspects of that experienced he emphasized changed over time. This does not mean he was incompetent. Nor does it mean he was dishonest. 

 

Another example of this could be air pollution numbers touted in the news in Utah. Large point sources look at the data and claim they represent a small portion of the problem. Activists look at the data and come to the complete opposite conclusion. Is one group lying or incompetent? No! The industry groups take the data and compare themselves across a wide area of the state, and come to the conclusion that they are a small fish in a big pond. Local activists may look at one particular pollutant or look at emissions in a small area around the point source and come to a different conclusion. 

 

Without the underlying data it is impossible to tell what conclusion I would draw from the same data that made Elder Cook declare "The Church has never been stronger." Perhaps I'd agree with him. Perhaps I wouldn't. As it is I can't tell - not because Elder Cook is lying or incompetent, but because I have not seen the data.

Edited April 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[stemelbow]

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.

Every single person, including Peter, have been deficient in character, honesty or competence to one degree or another. Anyone called to be an apostle has deficiencies. But no one is saying that about Elder Cook anyway. Any two people can look at the same data and draw different, even at times, opposite conclusions.

For instance, Elder Cook may look at the lowest growth rate for 70 years and think, "well the rate was bound to taper off, but our numbers are so large that we are stronger than ever". Another may look at the lowest growth rate in 70 years and say, "well, we're not quite as strong as we once were, but we're still doing pretty good".

Neither evaluation is particularly incompetent nor dishonest.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, on this thread you continue to put words in people's mouths and assume bad faith on the part of other posters. The dishonest / incompetent dichotomy is false. Elder Cook can be very competent and honest. He has provided his interpretation of the data he has seen. An interpretation is personal. ...

 

Without the underlying data it is impossible to tell what conclusion I would draw from the same data that made Elder Cook declare "The Church has never been stronger." Perhaps I'd agree with him. Perhaps I wouldn't. As it is I can't tell - not because Elder Cook is lying or incompetent, but because I have not seen the data.

He gave his reasoning; Church membership has doubled in size over the past 25 years, yet the number of requests for name removal has diminished. That's a decrease in rate by over half.

 

What is so ambiguous about this that you need "underlying data" to help you evaluate his conclusion? Is there any other way to interpret this than to say that requests for name removal have diminished -- and done so dramatically -- as a percentage of the whole?

Edited April 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Every single person, including Peter, have been deficient in character, honesty or competence to one degree or another. Anyone called to be an apostle has deficiencies. But no one is saying that about Elder Cook anyway. Any two people can look at the same data and draw different, even at times, opposite conclusions.

For instance, Elder Cook may look at the lowest growth rate for 70 years and think, "well the rate was bound to taper off, but our numbers are so large that we are stronger than ever". Another may look at the lowest growth rate in 70 years and say, "well, we're not quite as strong as we once were, but we're still doing pretty good".

Neither evaluation is particularly incompetent nor dishonest.

Please see my most recent post and the opening post. Elder Cook gave his reasoning in a footnote to the text.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

 

I think it's more along the lines of:

 

I've personally witnessed a lot of disaffection in my area and from reading online, I see that it is widespread. Elder Jensen said we are in the middle of the worst apostasy since Kirkland. Groups like Mormon Stories and Ordain Women have been making waves recently, and have gotten a lot of press. A lot of conference talks seem to be addressing doubting members and disaffection. Way more than in the past. The church recently published a bunch of essays dealing with hard issues and is working those issues into the seminary curriculum. I wonder what is going on? Oh wait Elder Cook says that the church has never been stronger! I wonder what data he is using to support that. I sure would like to see it!

[stemelbow]

He gave his reasoning; Church membership has doubled in size over the past 25 years, yet the number of requests for name removal has diminished. That's a decrease in rate by over half.

 

What is so ambiguous about this that you need "underlying data" to help you evaluate his conclusion? Is there any other way to interpret this than to say that requests for name removal have diminished -- and done so dramatically -- as a percentage of the whole?

Well there are plenty of factors to consider when you consider the strength of a religion. For instance, name removals alone doesn't address those who leave the Church but never bother to remove their names. What if the number of such people and the percentage has increased during that same time? That'd be interesting and perhaps could factor into a determination of the strength of the Church.

[stemelbow]

Please see my most recent post and the opening post. Elder Cook gave his reasoning in a footnote to the text.

Well then see my response. The reasons he gave doesn't address all factors.

I think it's more along the lines of:

 

I've personally witnessed a lot of disaffection in my area and from reading online, I see that it is widespread. Elder Jensen said we are in the middle of the worst apostasy since Kirkland. Groups like Mormon Stories and Ordain Women have been making waves recently, and have gotten a lot of press. A lot of conference talks seem to be addressing doubting members and disaffection. Way more than in the past. The church recently published a bunch of essays dealing with hard issues and is working those issues into the seminary curriculum. I wonder what is going on? Oh wait Elder Cook says that the church has never been stronger! I wonder what data he is using to support that. I sure would like to see it!

Yes...and, are we supposed to pretend the problems we see and are dealing with aren't there because it is "stronger" than ever?

[Scott Lloyd]

Well there are plenty of factors to consider when you consider the strength of a religion. For instance, name removals alone doesn't address those who leave the Church but never bother to remove their names. What if the number of such people and the percentage has increased during that same time? That'd be interesting and perhaps could factor into a determination of the strength of the Church.

You're misunderstanding what he said. The membership has doubled in size, yet the number of name removals has diminished. There's no other way to understand that than to say that the rate of name removals as a percentage of the whole has diminished by more than half.

 

Furthermore, Elder Cook cited metrics that indicate strength in the Church: higher numbers of current temple recommend holders, tithe payers, and people worthy to serve missions.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Well then see my response. The reasons he gave doesn't address all factors.

Yes...and, are we supposed to pretend the problems we see and are dealing with aren't there because it is "stronger" than ever?

Please see my response. He did address other factors.

[ALarson]

You're misunderstanding what he said. The membership has doubled in size, yet the number of name removals has diminished. There's no other way to understand that than to say that the rate of name removals as a percentage of the whole has diminished by more than half.

 

There are other ways to understand those 2 factors.  Many are going inactive but are not having their names removed from the records.  That is the number that we don't have.  

[stemelbow]

You're misunderstanding what he said. The membership has doubled in size, yet the number of name removals has diminished. There's no other way to understand that than to say that the rate of name removals as a percentage of the whole has diminished by more than half.

 

Furthermore, Elder Cook cited metrics that indicate strength in the Church: higher numbers or current temple recommend holders, tithe payers, and people worthy to serve missions.

That still does not address all the factors, Scott. Even the one I mentioned, as an example, was left unmentioned. Strength of a religion can be gauged in any number of ways and it's really just a value judgment. Someone could see the very same data that Elder Cook viewed and conclude, "well, we're not very strong right now. We need to make some adjustments".

I think that's the point everyone is bringing up here. No one is saying he is incompetent nor dishonest.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

He gave his reasoning; Church membership has doubled in size over the past 25 years, yet the number of requests for name removal has diminished. That's a decrease in rate by over half.

 

What is so ambiguous about this that you need "underlying data" to help you evaluate his conclusion? Is there any other way to interpret this than to say that requests for name removal have diminished -- and done so dramatically -- as a percentage of the whole?

 

I think the problem is that you are confusing the data presented with Elder Cooks conclusion. I for one do not doubt that the number of people requesting name removal has gone down when comparing 25 years ago to now. This piece of data alone could support Elder Cooks conclusion that "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," but is not enough for me to come to the same conclusion.

 

Here are some questions to ponder:

What were church policies 25 years ago regarding name removal? E.g. Was there any church effort going on in South America do clean up the records and remove the baseball baptisms of yesteryear? Are there any other pertinent facts that change the rate of name removal?

 

More fundamentally, is name removal the best indicator of whether or not there is "more doubt and unbelief"? 

 

What factors are behind the "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. " What exactly does this mean? How much can be attributed to the missionary age changes?

 

How is church attendance as a whole looking? Where is the church growth coming from? Is member growth in Africa and South America masking declines in North America and Europe?

 

These are just a few of the things I'd like to see to better evaluate the claim that the "Church has never been stronger."

Edited April 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

lol

 

This is ridiculous.  Yes, I think he's honest.  Yes, I think he's competent.  Does that mean I think he's infallible?  NO 

Do you think he is misinterpreting the data to which he is privy? If so, then you don't believe he is speaking competently.

[Calm]

"What were church policies 25 years ago regarding name removal? E.g. Was there any church effort going on in South America do clean up the records and remove the baseball baptisms of yesteryear? Are there any other pertinent facts that change the rate of name removal?"

Pretty sure a church court would have been held, if so it is tons easier and IMO less stigmatised to simply send in a letter and maybe have someone show up at your door to confirm (don't know if this last is actually part of the procedure).

[Scott Lloyd]

There are other ways to understand those 2 factors.  Many are going inactive but are not having their names removed from the records.  That is the number that we don't have.  

But this ignores the other metrics he mentioned: dramatic increase in members holding current temple recommends, paying tithing and preparing themselves to serve missions. Members going inactive don't do those things.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

"What were church policies 25 years ago regarding name removal? E.g. Was there any church effort going on in South America do clean up the records and remove the baseball baptisms of yesteryear? Are there any other pertinent facts that change the rate of name removal?"

Pretty sure a church court would have been held, if so it is tons easier and IMO less stigmatised to simply send in a letter and maybe have someone show up at your door to confirm (don't know if this last is actually part of the procedure).

 

I have heard stories of that member records went through purgers. I.e. Bishops would visit, ask members if they were actually members and did they want anything to do with the church. If the answer was no, they would be given a letter to sign to remove their records from the church. I have no idea if these stories are accurate or if this practice would have been wide spread. I do know that certain countries especially in South America and England had large numbers of "baseball" baptisms and that those baptized would not have considered themselves members at all (I do not know what large numbers means relatively speaking though).

[Scott Lloyd]

What factors are behind the "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. " What exactly does this mean? How much can be attributed to the missionary age changes?

 

 

 

The missionary age changes brought about a surge that most agree is now in the past. But it has left in its wake a higher number of young people readying themselves to serve missions. That is to say, the post-surge number has not gone back down to anywhere near the pre-surge level.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Do you think he is misinterpreting the data to which he is privy? If so, then you don't believe he is speaking competently.

Wow.  You just don't give up, do you?  I just stated above that I believe Elder Cook is competent.  (Definitions: Properly or sufficiently qualified; capable)

 

I do believe he was speaking competently and that he is properly and sufficiently qualified and capable to fulfill the calling that he has.  That does not mean that I don't have the right to ask questions, have some doubts, or wonder what data he has looked at to come to the conclusion that the church has never been stronger.  Do you understand that?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But this ignores the other metrics he mentioned: dramatic increase in members holding current temple recommends, paying tithing and preparing themselves to serve missions. Members going inactive don't do those things.

And what does "dramatic increase" mean? Is it an increase in percentage, absolute numbers, what? How much is a result of the missionary surge age changes? How long does the trend go back? I don't know do you? 

Edited April 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ALarson]

I also read that after/during Prop 8, it was reported that thousands requested their names be removed.  That could have increased the number greatly at that time and of course, it would drop off drastically after that. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The missionary age changes brought about a surge that most agree is now in the past. But it has left in its wake a higher number of young people readying themselves to serve missions. That is to say, the post-surge number has not gone back down to anywhere near the pre-surge level.

When I say surge, I mainly mean age change (sorry for the confusion and my imprecise language). Reducing the missionary age has dramatically increased the number of sisters serving and each serving sister is endowed well before she would have been otherwise. How much of the increase is due to this change? In addition, more young men have been serving missions than when they waited until age 19 with the same result on the number of endowed adults. In fact it was the practice on my mission to come home with a temple recommend, so regardless of how many go inactive after their mission, they will still be counted as temple recommend holding adults for two years. Has this been factored in? How much of the "dramatic" increase is a result of these changes and how much is due to reactivation of less active members? I don't know do you?

Edited April 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding