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

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

And I don't know why you think it wouldn't make sense or why your assumption is "the more likely reason."

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Every bit as reasonable as the assumption that the number of inactive members is increasing.

[ALarson]

 

 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.

I agree.  

Edited April 7, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

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

It makes sense that the Church would delay constructing a temple until the saints in the contemplated temple district are able to support it.

 

Incidentally, it occurred to me going home last night that, if (as I believe) there is no better indicator of Church strength than temple construction, we are missing an obvious indicator that the Church is stronger today than ever before: the steady and dramatic increase in the number of temples over the last two decades.

 

The first temple dedication I covered for the Church News was the St. Louis Missouri Temple in 1997. It was the 50th operating temple in the Church.

 

I don't recall off hand the number of operating temples in existence today (perhaps someone can look it up for me) but I'm fairly certain the number has tripled since I attended the dedication in St. Louis.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 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.

He didn't say all is well in Zion, and he even added that we need to rescue everyone we can.

 

But 25 years is neither vague nor very long in terms of the history of the Church.

 

And ill-informed and panicky observations such as "People are leaving the Church in droves" are not helpful in "dealing with the problems appropriately."

[stemelbow]

It makes sense that the Church would delay constructing a temple until the saints in the contemplated temple district are able to support it.

 

Incidentally, it occurred to me going home last night that, if (as I believe) there is no better indicator of Church strength than temple construction, we are missing an obvious indicator that the Church is stronger today than ever before: the steady and dramatic increase in the number of temples over the last two decades.

 

The first temple dedication I covered for the Church News was the St. Louis Missouri Temple in 1997. It was the 50th operating temple in the Church.

 

I don't recall off hand the number of operating temples in existence today (perhaps someone can look it up for me) but I'm fairly certain the number has tripled since I attended the dedication in St. Louis.

The Church has 144 operating right now, according to LDS.org.

I was on my mission in MO and KS from 95-97. The members there were very excited about the pending St Louis Temple--dedicated after I Came home. Going to the temple and carrying a TR was not common for the active back then. Some did, for sure, but it was not all that common. They all scurried when temple trips came to get an updated TR, which expired one year later. I think temple trips were every 3-5 year or so for most members. They had to travel to either Dallas or Chicago, before St Louis. Now they have a Temple in KC. Anyway, I think it clear, the drastic increase since 25 years ago in temple attendance, TR holders and even tithing, in order to hold TR, is because of the great addition of so many temples--A great reason to celebrate for sure.

[stemelbow]

He didn't say all is well in Zion, and he even added that we need to rescue everyone we can.

That was a general comment, not intended to respond to Elder Cook's words.

 

But 25 years is neither vague nor very long in terms of the history of the Church.

Depends on what we're talking about. It's way long in terms of internet use and activity--and many would argue the internet, I believe Cinepro brought it up earlier in this thread, has been a big cuase for the problems we see, in terms of testimony difficulties.

 

And ill-informed and panicky observations such as "People are leaving the Church in droves" are not helpful in "dealing with the problems appropriately."

I don't know who you're quoting. But, I think Jensen's assessment still holds merit. People are leaving. Whether their names are removed, or not, doesn't matter. We all see it and learn of new people leaving or feeling disaffected, disappointed, and hurt each passing month or so, it seems. It's no fun when it happens in your family.

[ALarson]

But 25 years is neither vague nor very long in terms of the history of the Church.

I agree, but I'd imagine that when most heard Elder Cook state "in recent years" they weren't thinking of 25 years ago.  In recent years (especially with all that's on the internet now), most have seen friends and family members leave the church.  That's what comes to mind.  Now, with the clarification in the footnote (which I assume came from Elder Cook?), what he stated makes more sense and is accurate.

Edited April 7, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree, but I'd imagine that when most heard Elder Cook state "in recent years" they weren't thinking of 25 years ago.  In recent years (especially with all that's on the internet now), most have seen friends and family members leave the church.  That's what comes to mind.  Now, with the clarification in the footnote (which I assume came from Elder Cook?), what he stated makes more sense and is accurate.

Yes, the footnote came from Elder Cook. It was in his written text that was distributed in advance to news media organizations.

[Duncan]

I gave  a talk last year or the year before about what was happening 25 years ago in the Church. the Iron curtain wasn't down yet and now they have a Temple in the Ukraine. Canada only had two Temples, Cardston and Toronto and now we have 8 operating with one announced and that's all I remember!

[Scott Lloyd]

Depends on what we're talking about. It's way long in terms of internet use and activity--and many would argue the internet, I believe Cinepro brought it up earlier in this thread, has been a big cuase for the problems we see, in terms of testimony difficulties.

 

If that's the case, then the Church has done remarkably well to have made the gains it has made in the last quarter-century (which corresponds roughly to the length of the cyber age).

 

I don't know who you're quoting. But, I think Jensen's assessment still holds merit. People are leaving. Whether their names are removed, or not, doesn't matter. We all see it and learn of new people leaving or feeling disaffected, disappointed, and hurt each passing month or so, it seems. It's no fun when it happens in your family.

 

 

I do believe Elder Jensen is to be credited for what he has done. The sense I get is that the topical essays on lds.org are largely there as a result of his influence.

[Scott Lloyd]

The Church has 144 operating right now, according to LDS.org.

 

Thank you.

 

I believe if you add in the temples that are under construction and those that have been announced, it puts the number above the 150 mark.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Thank you.

 

I believe if you add in the temples that are under construction and those that have been announced, it puts the number above the 150 mark.

 

144 Operating (5 of which are being renovated)

13 Under construction

13 Previously Announced and in preparation phase

3 Newly Announced

173 Total

[Kenngo1969]

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

Sorry to hear that.  Still, I wish them well.

[canard78]

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.

How much work do you do with data? You are aware that data and the interpretation thereof is subjective?

I remember being in a training session a couple of years ago. There were about 10 market research professionals - director/VP level (5-10+ years experience each). We were split into two groups and given the same data set to analyse and come up with summaries, conclusions and recommendations for the moderator who would stand in and act as the client.

The two groups presented their findings and recommendations. We were a little surprised that with an identical data set we came up with completely contradictory conclusions and recommendations. This was not the intention of the exercise and was not even commented on by the moderator, it was only afterwards that a colleague and I were discussing the training and remarked on the significant differences in the conclusions.

Were we deceptive? Certainly not, it was a case study training exercise, we had no reason to be.

Were we incompetent? Absolutely not. Each group had at least 50 years of market research experience between each group, several research qualifications and were the account leads for well over $20mn of annual revenue.

Why was that? The interpretation of data and the conclusions reached by analysing that data is hugely dependent on your hypotheses, your assumptions, your personal perspectives. What might be seen as "good" by one person could be considered the opposite by another.

As long as we are solely dependent on Elder Cook presenting only his conclusion and not the data behind his conclusion we simply can't know whether that conclusion is genuinely valid.

I know of no client in my 10+ years of research that would only want the conclusions without being able to see how we've reached that conclusion. Not because they consider me incompetent and not because they would accuse me of being deceptive but because that's simply a reasonable way of working with data.

[Scott Lloyd]

How much work do you do with data?

 

Not a lot. I'm fairly certain Elder Cook is much more skilled at it than I.

 

You are aware that data and the interpretation thereof is subjective?

 

 

I would think that depends a great deal on the data being interpreted.

As long as we are solely dependent on Elder Cook presenting only his conclusion and not the data behind his conclusion we simply can't know whether that conclusion is genuinely valid.

 

Whatever it's limitations, it strikes me as more reliable than anything so far from the ill-informed doomsayers who have asserted that members are "leaving the Church in droves."

 

I know of no client in my 10+ years of research that would only want the conclusions without being able to see how we've reached that conclusion. Not because they consider me incompetent and not because they would accuse me of being deceptive but because that's simply a reasonable way of working with data.

 

 

OK. Have you been equally as demanding with the doomsayers up to now? If not, why not?

[Gray]

 

Whatever it's limitations, it strikes me as more reliable than anything so far from the ill-informed doomsayers who have asserted that members are "leaving the Church in droves."

 

 

 

To be fair, the characterization that members are leaving "in droves" seems to have been confirmed directly by Marlin K. Jenson in this familiar quote:

 

(ETA: Of course, what counts as a drove is entirely subjective. )

 

 

Did the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints know that members are "leaving in droves?" a woman asked.

 

"We are aware," said Jensen, according to a tape recording of his unscripted remarks. "And I'm speaking of the 15 men that are above me in the hierarchy of the church. They really do know and they really care," he said.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/01/30/uk-mormonchurch-idUKTRE80T1CP20120130

 

 

Edited April 7, 2015 by Gray

[canard78]

Not a lot. I'm fairly certain Elder Cook is much more skilled at it than I.

Perhaps. But the point I was making was that the people in the other group in my workshop were not more or less skilled than I was, we simply approached the same data set with different perspectives and hypotheses.

I would think that depends a great deal on the data being interpreted.

Whatever it's limitations, it strikes me as more reliable than anything so far from the ill-informed doomsayers who have asserted that members are "leaving the Church in droves."

OK. Have you been equally as demanding with the doomsayers up to now? If not, why not?

I absolutely have. Where I see claims made on anecdote or conclusions based on insufficient or inaccurate data I have always called it out.

For example, I have consistently and repeatedly said Dehlin's study was weak research and provided very little meaningful information. I am surprised it has been given as much credibility as it has. If you were to look back through my posts (and I'm not suggesting you should) you'll find I've consistently said it's dodgy data.

I'm not saying Elder Cook is working with dodgy data. I'm just saying that I'd like to see the data given my experience of working with it and knowing how different conclusions can be reached by different people even when they're looking at the same information.

[Scott Lloyd]

To be fair, the characterization that members are leaving "in droves" seems to have been confirmed directly by Marlin K. Jenson in this familiar quote:

 

(ETA: Of course, what counts as a drove is entirely subjective. )

I already dealt with this in a post earlier in this thread.

 

In that post, I theorized that perhaps Elder Jensen, as were many others, might have been influenced and rattled in this regard to some degree by John Dehlin, with whom Elder Jensen reportedly was having interaction at that time.

 

But thank you for providing the quote. It has helped me see that it was not Elder Jensen who used the phrase "leaving in droves." Rather, it was a woman who posed a question to him during a Q and A.

 

Seeing it in context, I'm thinking now that in his eagerness to be responsive, Elder Jensen might not have been inclined to correct her phrasing. Rather, he was hastening to assure her that the high leadership of the Church were aware and do care that some people are being troubled by what is on the Internet and the Church leaders are taking steps to deal with that condition (including, as it turned out later, the publication of the now-famous essays on lds.org).

 

In any event, it seems to me that a statement prepared and delivered in general conference by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles trumps an off-the-cuff answer given by a member of the Seventy in a Q and A during a symposium with limited attendance and dissemination. (That assumes, of course, that the one is in need of trumping by the other; I really don't see a significant clash here, under the circumstances.)

Edited April 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I absolutely have. Where I see claims made on anecdote or conclusions based on insufficient or inaccurate data I have always called it out.

For example, I have consistently and repeatedly said Dehlin's study was weak research and provided very little meaningful information. I am surprised it has been given as much credibility as it has. If you were to look back through my posts (and I'm not suggesting you should) you'll find I've consistently said it's dodgy data.

 

OK. I commend you for that.

 

I'm not saying Elder Cook is working with dodgy data. I'm just saying that I'd like to see the data given my experience of working with it and knowing how different conclusions can be reached by different people even when they're looking at the same information.

 

I've made the point that I don't think Elder Cook saw himself as taking a combative or argumentative or defensive stance in making the statement he did; rather, I think he was endeavoring to give assurance to people like me who are inclined to trust him and who may have been troubled in the past by some statements of doomsayers.

 

With that said, I would welcome it as much as anyone else if data and numbers were to come from the Church and/or Elder Cook to back up his statement. I think I've already said as much on this thread.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gervin]

I'm just saying that I'd like to see the data ...

 

I don't think the request is unreasonable.  Understand, I have no dog in this fight, but I winced as I read the quote in the OP.  The language and terms are vague and, essentially, meaningless.  I review and edit reports professionally for a variety of disciplines and I never allow the use of the word "significant" or "significantly" unless the author can provide me with the significance criteria that justifies the use of the word.  In almost every instance the word ends up being stricken. 

 

I've bolded the words and phrases that wouldn't pass muster with me (and it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic - as I said, I have no interest in the facts, either way):

 

 

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I don't think the request is unreasonable.  Understand, I have no dog in this fight, but I winced as I read the quote in the OP.  The language and terms are vague and, essentially, meaningless.  I review and edit reports professionally for a variety of disciplines and I never allow the use of the word "significant" or "significantly" unless the author can provide me with the significance criteria that justifies the use of the word.  In almost every instance the word ends up being stricken. 

 

I've bolded the words and phrases that wouldn't pass muster with me (and it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic - as I said, I have no interest in the facts, either way):

 

 

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.

 

If the percentage who leave is less than half of what it was before, it has indeed been greatly reduced, by any reasonable reckoning.

[Gervin]

If the percentage who leave is less than half of what it was before, it has indeed been greatly reduced, by any reasonable reckoning.

Define "greatly."

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

Again only an anectdote...in my area we have one of the small temples. It is not busy, it sits empty more hours than full. Many of the sessions have only a few people in them and they often have temple workers participating.  Increasing attendance has been a constant theme, almost since the temple has been built and it has been around for a while.  

 

I wonder if other small temples that serve areas with sparse LDS populations like mine struggle as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

Define "greatly."

I already did. A reduction by more than half would fall under the description "great" to a reasonable mind.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd