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

[stemelbow]

This is on the lds.org page (I think this is the right thread…my apologies if not):

• 24. 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.

  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/the-lord-is-my-light?lang=eng

That'd be quite impressive if the actual number of members leaving has decreased. The problem is, I dont' know how he knows that's true. Most people leaving just quietly disappear without any notice, it seems to me.

[canard78]

 

This is on the lds.org page (I think this is the right thread…my apologies if not):

 

1. 24. 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.

   https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/the-lord-is-my-light?lang=eng

 

 

This is indeed the right thread. Thanks for sharing it Cal.

 

It's good to know what the timeframe is that they're referencing.

• It would be nice to know what "leaving" means.

  - Is it resignations+excommunications?

  - Is it resignations only?

  - Does it factor in activity rate or only people whose names are removed from the records?

• Is it a % of total membership? Total adult membership? Total active membership?
• Is the reason for a reduction due to stronger testimonies? Or cultural differences?
• What's different about the membership profile in 2014 vs 1989 (if that's our reference point). Is the membership profile different? Are the members in developing markets more prone to leave but not remove their name/resign?
• Does the fact they stop attending but don't resign represent "strength"?
• Are members in the growing membership areas (e.g. latin america/africa) more or less likely to simply stop attending but never worry about having their name removed from the list?
• If we were to weight the membership demographic profile today to match the demographic profile of 1989 would the % reduction being greatly reduced remain true?
• If we were to look at the number of members who are not regularly attending vs 1989 would that be higher? If 65% inactivity is real (as reported by Deseret News last year) then does that mean that the numeric value of people baptised and not attending is higher than 25 years ago. Has that inactivity rate increased? Or decreased? The actual number and the % value?

 

So yes, these might seem like simple statements of fact to most people. I'm simply trying to illustrate that the way one processes and approaches data will have a huge impact on the way one interprets the data.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

This is on the lds.org page (I think this is the right thread…my apologies if not):

 

1. 24. 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.

   https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/the-lord-is-my-light?lang=eng

 

Thanks.

 

Of course, I already gave everyone who read this thread a preview of this footnote, as I included it in my opening post. (I was working from an advance copy of the text that had been distributed to the media.)

[Scott Lloyd]

This is indeed the right thread. Thanks for sharing it Cal.

 

It's good to know what the timeframe is that they're referencing.

• It would be nice to know what "leaving" means.

  - Is it resignations+excommunications?

  - Is it resignations only?

  - Does it factor in activity rate or only people whose names are removed from the records?

• Is it a % of total membership? Total adult membership? Total active membership?
• Is the reason for a reduction due to stronger testimonies? Or cultural differences?
• What's different about the membership profile in 2014 vs 1989 (if that's our reference point). Is the membership profile different? Are the members in developing markets more prone to leave but not remove their name/resign?
• Does the fact they stop attending but don't resign represent "strength"?
• Are members in the growing membership areas (e.g. latin america/africa) more or less likely to simply stop attending but never worry about having their name removed from the list?
• If we were to weight the membership demographic profile today to match the demographic profile of 1989 would the % reduction being greatly reduced remain true?
• If we were to look at the number of members who are not regularly attending vs 1989 would that be higher? If 65% inactivity is real (as reported by Deseret News last year) then does that mean that the numeric value of people baptised and not attending is higher than 25 years ago. Has that inactivity rate increased? Or decreased? The actual number and the % value?

 

So yes, these might seem like simple statements of fact to most people. I'm simply trying to illustrate that the way one processes and approaches data will have a huge impact on the way one interprets the data.

If you look at the excerpt from the text that I provided in the OP, you'll see that the footnote (also in the OP) refers to a point in the text where he was talking about requests for name removals. So I think that's how Elder Cook is defining resignations in this context.

 

However, bear in mind that he talked about indicators of strength, such as "dramatic" increases in current temple recommend holders, tithe payers and people worthy to serve full time missions.

 

So, brief as it is, taken in total, I think Elder Cook has given a credible statement here, notwithstanding some people's dissatisfaction at not being furnished spreadsheets and ledgers.

 

Furthermore, the Church employs its own number crunchers, and I'm confident Elder Cook would not be making a statement like he did openly in general conference without having thoroughly checked into it and without being quite certain he was on solid ground.

 

Edited to add:

 

Also, I mentioned that the number of the Church's temples has more than tripled in the last quarter-century if we include those under construction and those announced. I think it pretty obvious that construction of a temple is an indicator of strength in an area, as the Church does not build temples where they cannot be supported, and Church members cannot support a temple without a recommend of faithfulness and worthiness.

 

Is a 300 percent increase in temples over the past 25 years not an indication that "the Church has never been stronger"?

Edited April 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

But He has also allowed just enough troubling historical information, teachings that seem out of step with human reason and lack of convincing scientific evidence to persuade those who don't learn how to hear and heed the voice of the Spirit of revelation to lose faith and thereby find themselves mired in faith destroying and spiritually debilitating doubt.

 

Now that we can't deny the troubling aspects of LDS history, let's reclassify them as part of some great test by God to see if we can tune out the noise and hear the real message.

[Scott Lloyd]

Now that we can't deny the troubling aspects of LDS history, let's reclassify them as part of some great test by God to see if we can tune out the noise and hear the real message.

To cynically depict teddyaware's comments as some sort of backpedaling strategy shift is a distortion of reality.

 

I have long been aware of the principle that the Lord would leave just enough uncertainty regarding whether the claims of the Church are true or false to make it necessary for sincere and humble seekers to exercise faith.

[Thinking]

I have long been aware of the principle that the Lord would leave just enough uncertainty regarding whether the claims of the Church are true or false to make it necessary for sincere and humble seekers to exercise faith.

 

Is this principle pseudo doctrine or can you point me to an authoritative source?

[cinepro]

Is a 300 percent increase in temples over the past 25 years not an indication that "the Church has never been stronger"?

 

But over the same period, Church membership grew from 7.7M (1990) - 15M (2014). 

 

So what conclusion are we supposed to draw from there being a "300 percent" increase in temples over a period when there is a 200 percent increase in membership? 

 

Obviously the "members / temple" number has dropped, but how is that a de facto indicator of "strength", instead of just an indicator that Church leaders decided to build more temples with fewer members for each Temple?

[Scott Lloyd]

Is this principle pseudo doctrine or can you point me to an authoritative source?

I probably could. But you are hi-jacking my thread.

 

Start another thread for this subject. I may or may not contribute to it.

[Calm]

Thanks.

 

Of course, I already gave everyone who read this thread a preview of this footnote, as I included it in my opening post. (I was working from an advance copy of the text that had been distributed to the media.)

Someone was wondering if it would turn up the same, iirc. Just confirming that it did...no more, no less.

[Scott Lloyd]

But over the same period, Church membership grew from 7.7M (1990) - 15M (2014). 

 

So what conclusion are we supposed to draw from there being a "300 percent" increase in temples over a period when there is a 200 percent increase in membership? 

 

Obviously the "members / temple" number has dropped, but how is that a de facto indicator of "strength", instead of just an indicator that Church leaders decided to build more temples with fewer members for each Temple?

It's an indicator, because the presence of a temple is not supported by sheer membership numbers, but rather, the number of people who are eligible for a temple recommend.

 

Ergo, more temples indicate more people who meet the requirements for temple worship. That is to say, more people who meet the requirements of faithfulness and devotion. That's the real measure of Church strength.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Someone was wondering if it would turn up the same, iirc. Just confirming that it did...no more, no less.

Understood.

 

And thanks.

[rockpond]

So, brief as it is, taken in total, I think Elder Cook has given a credible statement here, notwithstanding some people's dissatisfaction at not being furnished spreadsheets and ledgers.

 

Hasn't that been your same complaint about those who have stated differently than Elder Cook?  I know... he's an apostle - so it's different.  But I'm just saying -- the complaints about a lack of data seem to be flowing both directions.

[rockpond]

Is a 300 percent increase in temples over the past 25 years not an indication that "the Church has never been stronger"?

 

It's one metric.  And it is one of the few (that we have) that could be trending positively.  The one factor to consider in that 3x increase in temples vs 2x increase in members is that it includes the time that we were building the smaller temples.  I'm not sure how to compare capacity of a smaller temple vs. that of the "standard" size temple (4 endowment rooms?).  On the other hand, it doesn't include the expansion of temples, such as was done to the Buenos Aires temple.

 

I do think that 300% increase is an indication of strength but there are also some confounding factors to consider.

[Teancum]

With people being offended because the soil of faith in their souls wasn't deep enough for the gospel seed to take substantial root? That was happening before the advent of the essays.

And why do you say "supposed goals"? Do you think there have been bogus goals given? What are they, and why do you think they're bogus?

 

 

Or rather than not having deep soil they are rational enough to see their faith was based on a false premise.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hasn't that been your same complaint about those who have stated differently than Elder Cook?  I know... he's an apostle - so it's different.  But I'm just saying -- the complaints about a lack of data seem to be flowing both directions.

I don't know about others.

 

My complaint is relying too heavily on anecdotal information.

 

That and, perhaps, self-selected samples, such as Dehlin's famous survey.

[Scott Lloyd]

Or rather than not having deep soil they are rational enough to see their faith was based on a false premise.

But that can't be definitively proven.

 

So it boils down to a matter of choosing to believe or not to believe.

 

As Elder Maxwell put it, "no slam dunks."

[rockpond]

I don't know about others.

 

My complaint is relying too heavily on anecdotal information.

 

That and, perhaps, self-selected samples, such as Dehlin's famous survey.

 

Fair enough.

 

It should be noted, however, that even though it was a self-selected survey -- Dehlin did provide data to support his claims.  Elder Cook did not provide data but is, rather, relying on the weight of his position.  Which certainly works for a large number of people.

[ALarson]

Fair enough.

 

It should be noted, however, that even though it was a self-selected survey -- Dehlin did provide data to support his claims.  Elder Cook did not provide data but is, rather, relying on the weight of his position.  Which certainly works for a large number of people.

If the church has the numbers, they will hopefully release them.  One does have to wonder why they haven't already done so if they support what Elder Cook stated.

[Teancum]

Perhaps I should have used a different word than "offended"; "swayed," perhaps, or "disillusioned."

Perhaps you didn't recognize that I was alluding to the Savor's parable of the sower which he applies to one who "has no root in himself but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended" (Matthew 13:21). I believe this has application to those who forsake their faith after they hear something that is new and troubling to them.

I used "offended" because that's the word that was used in the scriptural passage. I think the word as used there has a bit of a different meaning than we are used to today or than the one that pushed your button and caused you to bring out the Uchtdorf quote to slap me down with it.

Furthermore, I don't concede that President Uchtdorf would deny the verity of the parable of the sower nor that he would reproach me for my application of it.

Goodness knows there are countless Latter-day Saints who have remained faithful after learning information such as that in the Gospel Topics essays. How better to explain the difference in reaction than to say the word has taken deeper root in some than in others?

 

Deeper roots or less courage to face consider that what they once believed may not in fact be true?

 

The true believer gives accolades to those who stay in the faith in spite of the evidence. They quote scripture like you do above to demean the person who leaves as not having faith, being weak and on and on. Many who have questions and doubts were perhaps like me.... the most devote of believers... never thinking they would ever leave or be skeptical, holding many positions and callings, giving thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars over decades.  Yet for you it seems the soil for them was not good soil or the seeds were not planted deep enough.

 

Nonsense.  Plain and simple nonsense.  People stay or go or stay in between for a variety of reasons. It is not as simple as you attempt to portray above.

 

But I am sure you won't understand this nor have any sympathy towards it. To do so is risky business.

[Teancum]

One thing many of the doubters and those caught up in faith crises will eventually have to come to terms with -- either in this world or the world to come -- is that Lord quite deliberately allowed the Restored Church to unfold and settle in the way it has so that the members of the Church, and the people of the world in general, could be tried by a challenging and fully rigorous test of faith. The Lords has allowed just enough spiritual evidence in favor of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel to remain so that those who learn to rely upon and heed the voice of the Spirit of revelation can gain a true testimony and obtain the wherewithal to inherit eternal life. But He has also allowed just enough troubling historical information, teachings that seem out of step with human reason and lack of convincing scientific evidence to persuade those who don't learn how to hear and heed the voice of the Spirit of revelation to lose faith and thereby find themselves mired in faith destroying and spiritually debilitating doubt.

 

Because He has made us free agents through the atonement of Christ, it is absolutely imperative that we be placed squarely in exact middle of the forces that minister either to faith and salvation on the one side and to unbelief and spiritual loss on the other, so that we have the opportunity to develop a fulness of spiritual talents that could not otherwise be developed without a truly challenging and highly risk-laden test of faith. In other words, the law of opposition in all things is also fully operational when it comes to gaining a testimony because a testimony of the Restored Gospel would be of little worth unless the children of men are exposed to powerful but not overwhelming countervailing forces that can adequately tempt them to draw either near to God's light of walk  away from it.

 

For those who have succumbed or are in the process of succumbing to the seemingly convincing array of evidences (or lack thereof) that undermine belief in the Restored Church and Gospel, such a test may seem as unnecessary as it is unfair; but it is extremely important to God that His people learn to clearly hear and diligently heed the voice of His Spirit of revelation in spite of the strong signals of interference that swirl around and encroach upon the voice of the Spirit at every side.

 

Lucifer and his beguiled host rebelled against the implementation of this great earthly trial of faith because they thought it was too risky and too unfair. But even God has no right to abridge the fullest expression of free agency, either unto goodness or unto evil. The greater and more risk-laden the trial of faith, the greater the potential for eternal reward. And since all but the sons of perdition are saved and made happy in the end, the institution of God's great and wisely-designed earthly trial of faith will prove to be just, fair and right after all.

 

So in spite of the fervent quest of the doubters to obtain convincing earthly signs and convincing earthly evidences that the Restored Church is true and it's leaders, past and present, were and are in harmony with the will of God, the only  divinely appointed way to arrive at the real gospel truth is to act upon Moroni's challenge with real sincerity and great faith. Any other course of action will inevitably lead to endless perplexities, endless frustrations and the loss of spiritual blessings that might have otherwise been obtained. 

 

 

I think believers make this argument on sheer speculation not on any thing factual nor with evidence to back it up.  I think confirmation bias plays a large role in viewpoints like this above. 

 

Why in the world would and God set it up to intentionally make it difficult to believe? 

[Scott Lloyd]

Fair enough.

 

It should be noted, however, that even though it was a self-selected survey -- Dehlin did provide data to support his claims.  Elder Cook did not provide data but is, rather, relying on the weight of his position.  Which certainly works for a large number of people.

Again, Elder Cook is not trying to make a legal or empirical case (which by virtue of his background, he certainly understands how to do, if he wanted).

 

Rather, his purpose, as I see it,was offering assurance to a friendly and trusting audience.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

If the church has the numbers, they will hopefully release them.  One does have to wonder why they haven't already done so if they support what Elder Cook stated.

 

Agreed.  My understanding is that they discontinued the almanac that provided more detailed geographic numbers than those that are presented in April conference.  Perhaps Scott can correct me if I'm wrong about that.

 

I could see, in the coming years, the introduction of stats related to the temple and family history in gen con.  I know that those numbers are accessible to stake leaders right now.

[Teancum]

The cause or a cause. There's a difference.

 

All other things being equal, if a Gospel Topics essay sends one person into a tailspin and another takes it in stride, the compelling conclusion is that one has a greater depth of faith than the other.

 

Sometimes a firm approach is what is called for and is what works best.

 

 

Is having a "greater depth of faith" an positive attribute or a negative attribute?  Why is faith seemingly the ultimate guiding principle for religions that seem to lack evidence to back up their claims?   These are honest questions not pot stirring questions. I am interested in heart felt answers.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's one metric.  And it is one of the few (that we have) that could be trending positively.  The one factor to consider in that 3x increase in temples vs 2x increase in members is that it includes the time that we were building the smaller temples.  I'm not sure how to compare capacity of a smaller temple vs. that of the "standard" size temple (4 endowment rooms?).  On the other hand, it doesn't include the expansion of temples, such as was done to the Buenos Aires temple.

 

I do think that 300% increase is an indication of strength but there are also some confounding factors to consider.

This might be correlated with Elder Cook's assertion about an increase in Church members with current temple recommends.