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

[california boy]

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.

 

I know of several people who did essencially the same thing.  They had been inactive for quite some time.  But when the church got involved in Prop 8, these people asked for their names to be removed.  It was a protest thing, not a change in belief.  They felt it was one way they could send a message to the church that what the church was doing was terribly wrong.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

If I understand you correctly, I think this is the most likely explanation. I.e. Active members per ward stays constant which means the number of inactive people per ward would be increasing. No way to know for sure though.

[Scott Lloyd]

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"

Customarily, the proceedings of the April conference are in the May issue of the Ensign.

 

My memory is that the written versions appear on lds.org six days after the conference, but I haven't double-checked that.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Customarily, the proceedings of the conference are in the May issue of the Ensign.

 

My memory is that the written versions appear on lds.org six days after the conference, but I haven't double-checked that.

Thank you, I'll watch for it to be available online.

[Scott Lloyd]

If I understand you correctly, I think this is the most likely explanation. I.e. Active members per ward stays constant which means the number of inactive people per ward would be increasing. No way to know for sure though.

Why couldn't it be that members per ward overall are increasing, not just inactive members? A dramatic increase in the activity indicators Elder Cook mentioned (current temple recommends, tithe paying, worthiness for missionary service) would result in more active members per ward.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

I know of several people who did essencially the same thing.  They had been inactive for quite some time.  But when the church got involved in Prop 8, these people asked for their names to be removed.  It was a protest thing, not a change in belief.  They felt it was one way they could send a message to the church that what the church was doing was terribly wrong.

 

anecdotal stories to the contrary the Church is thriving in my area.

[Scott Lloyd]

anecdotal stories to the contrary the Church is thriving in my area.

And in mine.

 

A temple in a given area is one of the best indicators of Church strength in that area (the Church doesn't place temples where they can't be supported and you can't support a temple without a critical mass of active members).

 

I am starting to lose count of all the temples along Utah's Wasatch Front. For most of my life, there were four or fewer: Ogden, Salt Lake, Jordan River and Provo.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

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.

Thanks for your response and help!

[omni]

Why couldn't it be that members per ward overall are increasing, not just inactive members? A dramatic increase in the activity indicators Elder Cook mentioned (current temple recommends, tithe paying, worthiness for missionary service) would result in more active members per ward.

Because as the wards grow in size, they split. If the church had decided per policy to increase the number of members/unit you would see one large increase rather than the gradual increase we have been seeing for years.

Edited April 7, 2015 by omni

[Scott Lloyd]

Because as the wards grow to a certain size they split. If the church had decided per popicy to increase the number of members/unit you would see one large increase instead of the gradual increase we have been seeing for years.

Not necessarily. The Church could consolidate wards or gradually slow down the rate at which new wards are formed.

[Calm]

There is a summary of conference talks online that has the quote iirc.

Add-on:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/quentin-l-cook-the-lord-is-my-light?lang=eng

Not sure that quote is in there...

Edited April 7, 2015 by calmoriah

[omni]

Not necessarily. The Church could consolidate wards or gradually slow down the rate at which new wards are formed.

I'm not sure why it would make sense to gradually increase the members/unit every year for decades. It seems the more likely reason for the increase is the growing number of inactives.

[Calm]

Edited: I see I responded to the wrong thing...the question is why it was gradual...

Perhaps it was decided to slow grow to allow for people to get used to larger sizes over time or perhaps they are trying to keep costs per ward at a certain average and as costs go up this drives up the size of the wards.

Per spe ulation of course, but reasonable I think.

Edited April 7, 2015 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

And in mine.

 

A temple in a given area is one of the best indicators of Church strength in that area (the Church doesn't place temples where they can't be supported and you can't support a temple without a critical mass of active members).

 

I am starting to lose count of all the temples along Utah's Wasatch Front. For most of my life, there were four or fewer: Ogden, Salt Lake, Jordan River and Provo.

 

 

I've heard that and in principle I agree with you. There is a however. My area is getting a Temple, it was announced four years ago and it still isn't approved yet.There is only one stake here and unless something dramatic happens not likely to grow to support it. One theory that a high councilor put forth is that Pres. Monson called our then Stake President (which he said he did call him) and asked him if our stake could support a Temple and he said yes, when in reality we can't. Our stake can barely staff the callings and some have more than one calling as it is. It's the STP all over the place. A Temple would bury us, unless we get more people here. We have only about 500 people who could attend the Temple for sessions and that's everyone in a province and a branch in Ontario

Edited April 7, 2015 by Duncan

[Stargazer]

He said the Church has doubled in size in the past 25 years as the requests for name removal have diminished.

Hadn't thought this before, but the question presents itself "Has the church activity rate changed over the past 25 years?"

If we allow that the activity rate has not changed over 25 years, then in absolute terms the number of active members has doubled over the last 25 years, too. That's still progress. Those who are not active are essentially those spoken of by the Savior in the parable of the sower, as the seed that has fallen on rocky ground, that sprouted but because it has no deep soil soon withered away. It's predicted. It doesn't dismay me.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Stargazer

[why me]

This must be a mormon thing to be concerned about numbers. The GA made a simple statement. It could have been rhetorical. It could have been based on evidence that he has seen as his travels throughout the world. It could have been about personal observation. Or it could have been just a simple statement, coming from his own personal beliefs. In certain parts of the world, inactives are coming back to church. I know this first hand. So, then the church is becoming stronger in that area. People who experienced the world and come back, are usually stronger from the experience. It is really no big deal.

 

I would hate to be a GA where every sentence is analysed and quibbled over. I wonder if people actually have lives these days.

[Garden Girl]

In certain parts of the world, inactives are coming back to church. I know this first hand. So, then the church is becoming stronger in that area. People who experienced the world and come back, are usually stronger from the experience. It is really no big deal.

 

I would hate to be a GA where every sentence is analysed and quibbled over. I wonder if people actually have lives these days.

 

This was my own experience... After 30+ years of being inactive, I returned to Church, started all over, and regained my testimony stronger than ever.  And I know several in my ward who have done the same thing...

 

GG

[Kenngo1969]

... Per spe ulation of course, but reasonable I think.

"Pat, is there a 'c'?"

 

(I have a 'c' I can loan you (along with a 'u'), if you need it.  I'm always ready to help a sister out! )

 

Sorry; Couldn't resist!

Edited April 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Nephi Inspired]

The LDS church ABSOLUTELY MUST get stronger in order to survive existing in a Sodom & Gomorrah society headed towards extinction as a species!

 

I found a photo collage of my favorite Arnold Friberg paintings from the Book of Mormon:

 

https://youtu.be/ctB3oVMJuLE

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Edited: I see I responded to the wrong thing...the question is why it was gradual...

Perhaps it was decided to slow grow to allow for people to get used to larger sizes over time or perhaps they are trying to keep costs per ward at a certain average and as costs go up this drives up the size of the wards.

Per spe ulation of course, but reasonable I think.

Perhaps. This graph digs into the numbers a little more:

http://i1.wp.com/timesandseasons.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Members-Per-Unit-2002-2010.png

 

It looks like US and Canada ward size has remained steady while other country's unit sizes have grown. Since inactivity rates overseas tend to be higher, this very well could be an intentional move by the church to increase the number of strongly active members per unit before splitting the wards. Interesting.

Edited April 7, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Gray]

I know of several people who did essencially the same thing.  They had been inactive for quite some time.  But when the church got involved in Prop 8, these people asked for their names to be removed.  It was a protest thing, not a change in belief.  They felt it was one way they could send a message to the church that what the church was doing was terribly wrong.

 

My cousin and her husband were active/believing at the time, but Prop 8 ultimately caused them to leave the church

[ALarson]

My cousin and her husband were active/believing at the time, but Prop 8 ultimately caused them to leave the church

Yes, I know of many too.  These resignations (I read there were thousands over prop 8 ) would possibly cause a "recent" surge and of course there would be a drop off now.  Interesting that Elder Cook did use the word "recent" in his talk, but in the footnote it states "over the last 25 years":  

 

Elder Cook: 

"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."

 

 Footnote:

" 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."

 

Maybe 25 years is recent to some?  But in the discussions I've found online about this, people have not seen the footnote and are thinking he was talking about a time period closer to the present time.

Edited April 7, 2015 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

Of course the Church is much stronger than it was 25 years ago. There are far more members in the world and far more temples.

The problem that we face, it seems to me, is that people are learning things about the Church that they simply didn't imagine. It's hurting people and families. Some of these people are leaving absolutely, but it seems most are sticking around to some extent, leaving their membership names in tact, but disappearing from activity. I think people have been leaving in European countries, Australia, US and Canada. It'll probably catch up in many of the other countries where the Church is relatively strong, like Mexico and Brazil. I believe it's been reported that both of those countries, though with fairly large LDS populations (over a million) have extremely low activity rates--like in the 10% or less category. I guess we'll see.

So, as it is, in longer term trends, I can see how Elder cook makes the statement that the Church is stronger than ever. He sees many more temples stretched across the globe than 25 years ago. With that, far more members are going to these temples, see the need to be TR carrying folks. We'll probably continue to see some dips and maybe some gains in activity as the Church expands, I suppose. But that doesn't really address the problem we are seeing--our friends and families are losing faith as they learn things about the Church that they simply could not imagine. In my mind, we have to be far better at being open, honest, forthcoming with people and be far better at bridging gaps between secular and spiritual, science and faith. If we don't learn to address these problems and deal with them, we'll continue to see things get worse. Our lowest growth rate in years, contradicting the "success" of missionary surge, is perhaps just a start.

Doom and gloom? I guess. It just seems like reality to me, though. Stronger than ever? Sure. I can buy that, it is just a value judgment statement anyway. But are there problems potentially getting worse? Yes. Well let's be clear about these problems and learn how to address them.

[Gray]

Yes, I know of many too.  These resignations (I read there were thousands over prop 8 ) would possibly cause a "recent" surge and of course there would be a drop off now.  Interesting that Elder Cook did use the word "recent" in his talk, but in the footnote it states "over the last 25 years":  

 

Elder Cook: 

"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."

 

 Footnote:

" 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."

 

Maybe 25 years is recent to some?  But in the discussions I've found online about this, people have not seen the footnote and are thinking he was talking about a time period closer to the present time.

 

Interesting, thanks for the additional context!

[stemelbow]

Yes, I know of many too.  These resignations (I read there were thousands over prop 8 ) would possibly cause a "recent" surge and of course there would be a drop off now.  Interesting that Elder Cook did use the word "recent" in his talk, but in the footnote it states "over the last 25 years":  

 

Elder Cook: 

"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."

 

 Footnote:

" 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."

 

Maybe 25 years is recent to some?  But in the discussions I've found online about this, people have not seen the footnote and are thinking he was talking about a time period closer to the present time.

Interesting point. It does seem like he's being a little vague and thinking more in terms of the longer term trends. That's fine. It's worth noting that we're further down the road than we were 25 years ago, at least in some measures. But it doesn't mean, everything is well in Zion; that we have no problems amongst our ranks; nor that we are dealing with the problems appropriately.