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

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

I just think what he said contrasts so starkly with what has almost become conventional wisdom in some quarters -- that members are leaving the Church in droves -- that it is time to look as critically at those claims as some here are looking at Elder Cook's statement.

[Scott Lloyd]

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. 

Then why hasn't it continued, if the Church is in such a crisis state as some would have us believe?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I just think what he said contrasts so starkly with what has almost become conventional wisdom in some quarters -- that members are leaving the Church in droves -- that it is time to look as critically at those claims as some here are looking at Elder Cook's statement.

I actually agree with this 100%. I'd love to see the numbers.

Edited April 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

If, because of earlier eligibility for missionary service, fewer young people are falling away from the Church during this critical period of ages 18-24, I'd call that an indicator of strength.

[Scott Lloyd]

I actually agree with this 100%. I'd love to see the numbers.

Then we're not all that far apart.

 

And I would like to see numbers too. I never said otherwise. I just think it odd that in the meantime so many appear eager to dismiss out of hand what a highly placed Church leader would say in general conference on this matter. And why there wasn't commensurate skepticism back when the "leaving the Church in droves" meme became common. And why so many appear so desperate to cling to that meme now.

 

The double standard there is palpable.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If, because of earlier eligibility for missionary service, fewer young people are falling away from the Church during this critical period of ages 18-24, I'd call that an indicator of strength.

Certainly, but this indicator of strength would be different to me than so a sudden surge of adult members being reactivated. I think it is far easier to prevent inactivity than reactivate people later in life (but this is merely an unfounded opinion not based on any supporting evidence).

[Calm]

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).

I believe Pres. McKay's bio by Prince and the other guy (can never remember his name, my bad) related that there was a time period where a GA was sent out to clean up after some similar procedures they might remove names if it turned out the individual or the patens hadn't realized the baptism meant membership, but that was over 50 years ago iirc. It would have to be a pretty widespread cleanup to make as significant of a difference as Scott is pointing out can likely be concluded, it seems to me unless the numbers are quite small...which would be significant in another way then.

[Calm]

If, because of earlier eligibility for missionary service, fewer young people are falling away from the Church during this critical period of ages 18-24, I'd call that an indicator of strength.

But they would be on record as TR holding even if they left shortly after coming home, at least until they didn't renew it at the end of the two year period....

So that gives more missionaries out with more recommends whose age group in previous years would not have had TRs and more returned missionaries, some of who have already gone inactive but have current TR to add to the total number of current TR holders.

At least that is how I understand the reasoning.

[Scott Lloyd]

Certainly, but this indicator of strength would be different to me than so a sudden surge of adult members being reactivated. I think it is far easier to prevent inactivity than reactivate people later in life (but this is merely an unfounded opinion not based on any supporting evidence).

Be that as it may, prevention of inactivity in the first place strikes me as being as great a cause for celebration as remedying the inactivity after the fact.

 

We don't typically view it that way, but perhaps we ought.

 

"The worth of souls is great in the sight of God," and it occurs to me that a soul is just as valuable to God if he remains faithful as he is if he falls away for a time and then returns.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I believe Pres. McKay's bio by Prince and the other guy (can never remember his name, my bad) related that there was a time period where a GA was sent out to clean up after some similar procedures they might remove names if it turned out the individual or the patens hadn't realized the baptism meant membership, but that was over 50 years ago iirc. It would have to be a pretty widespread cleanup to make as significant of a difference as Scott is pointing out can likely be concluded, it seems to me unless the numbers are quite small...which would be significant in another way then.

 

You are probably right. I personally think that the number of name removals the church gets each year is probably very tiny compared to the size of the church. Most people who leave (especially in other countries I'd guess) just don't care enough to do it, or do not want to take that last step for whatever reason.

[Scott Lloyd]

But they would be on record as TR holding even if they left shortly after coming home, at least until they didn't renew it at the end of the two year period....

So that gives more missionaries out with more recommends whose age group in previous years would not have had TRs and more returned missionaries, some of who have already gone inactive but have current TR to add to the total number of current TR holders.

At least that is how I understand the reasoning.

I get that. (I read what Seeking Understanding added to his post after I responded.)

 

But are the returned missionaries who go inactive largely doing so within the first two years after their return? It would surprise me if that were the case and, If it persisted over time, would be quite alarming and would definitely make an impact on the total, which Elder Cook says has actually risen dramatically over what it was in the past.

 

Or are missionaries called at younger ages more apt for some reason to go inactive within two years after they return home? That would be surprising also.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But they would be on record as TR holding even if they left shortly after coming home, at least until they didn't renew it at the end of the two year period....

So that gives more missionaries out with more recommends whose age group in previous years would not have had TRs and more returned missionaries, some of who have already gone inactive but have current TR to add to the total number of current TR holders.

At least that is how I understand the reasoning.

 

You have understood the reasoning I presented, but I just wanted to make clear that I am not making any claims about whether this is a significant factor. If someone wanted me to conclude that the church was stonger than ever, these are the types of things I would like to know.

[Calm]

You are probably right. I personally think that the number of name removals the church gets each year is probably very tiny compared to the size of the church. Most people who leave (especially in other countries I'd guess) just don't care enough to do it, or do not want to take that last step for whatever reason.

My experience (purely reports of people on line): those who remove their name are doing so for an emotional reason (as in it is important to them emotionally rather than for a practical reason), they need to make a statement of separation to add weight to that separation. Most people just not attending is enough of a statement or they dont even need such a statement in their mindset (doesnt occur to them there is any issue to be concerned about). Or there are a few who see asking for a name removal implies that there is some meaning to membership or that the Church has power over one and by refusing to follow the Church's procedure they are showing the Church is a fraud.

Edited April 6, 2015 by calmoriah

[ALarson]

Then why hasn't it continued, if the Church is in such a crisis state as some would have us believe?

I didn't state that.  I said it was during and after prop 8 (maybe I should have said "right after").  I personally know of 5 people who asked to have their names taken off the roles during those months.  None of them were active prior to this but it's what prompted them to make the request.

Edited April 6, 2015 by ALarson

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I will add that one of the strongest data based indicators that I have seen against the church being stronger than ever is the steady climb of members per stake or members per ward. This number has increased every year since 1998. This could be due to an intentional change about the ideal unit size, but the gradual nature and longevity of the trend seem to point against this. (in 1998, 408 members per ward/branch compared to 519 in 2015).

Edited April 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't state that.  I said it was during and after prop 8 (maybe I should have said "right after").  I personally know of 5 people who asked to have their names taken off the roles during those months.  None of them were active prior to this but it's what prompted them to make the request.

If they were inactive beforehand, then their using a name-removal request as a form of protest is not an indicator of increased weakness in the Church so much as an indication that this episode made them angry enough to do what they would have been indifferent about doing previously.

[ALarson]

If they were inactive beforehand, then their using a name-removal request as a form of protest is not an indicator of increased weakness in the Church so much as an indication that this episode made them angry enough to do what they would have been indifferent about doing previously.

And?  Their resignations would still count in the stats.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Be that as it may, prevention of inactivity in the first place strikes me as being as great a cause for celebration as remedying the inactivity after the fact.

 

We don't typically view it that way, but perhaps we ought.

 

"The worth of souls is great in the sight of God," and it occurs to me that a soul is just as valuable to God if he remains faithful as he is if he falls away for a time and then returns.

 

I don't disagree with anything you put here, but I would find the statistic of adult reactivation much more surprising and as a much stronger indicator that the church was stronger than ever. Just a personal interpretation if you will.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If they were inactive beforehand, then their using a name-removal request as a form of protest is not an indicator of increased weakness in the Church so much as an indication that this episode made them angry enough to do what they would have been indifferent about doing previously.

 

 

And?  Their resignations would still count in the stats.

 

Which is why it would be interesting to see the numbers. 

[Scott Lloyd]

And?  Their resignations would still count in the stats.

They would be an anomalous bubble within the 25 year period that Elder Cook was using for comparison.

[Peppermint Patty]

I will add that one of the strongest data based indicators that I have seen against the church being stronger than ever is the steady climb of members per stake or members per ward. This number has increased every year since 1998. This could be due to an intentional change about the ideal unit size, but the gradual nature and longevity of the trend seem to point against this. (in 1998, 408 members per ward/branch compared to 519 in 2015).

 

Could it also be those numbers go up when the number of active members go down?

[ALarson]

They would be an anomalous bubble within the 25 year period that Elder Cook was using for comparison.

Yes.

[JulieM]

Scott Lloyd (or anyone who knows),

Who added the footnotes? Were they mentioned in conference (the info in them)? Sorry, but I was unable to listen to that session of conference. Thanks!

Edited to add:

Do you have a link to where you found this written copy including the footnotes?

Edited April 6, 2015 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott Lloyd (or anyone who knows),

Who added the footnotes? Were they mentioned in conference (the info in them)? Sorry, but I was unable to listen to that session of conference. Thanks!

Like other working news media professionals, I was privy to a written text of the talk before it was delivered.

 

The footnote information was not delivered as part of the spoken sermon, but presumably it will be included in written versions on line and in print.

[ALarson]

Like other working news media professionals, I was privy to a written text of the talk before it was delivered.

 

The footnote information was not delivered as part of the spoken sermon, but presumably it will be included in written versions on line and in print.

When will that be, do you know?  It'll be interesting to see if it's the same (it should be, I'd imagine):

 

" 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"