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

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

We discontinued (officially "suspended") the almanac because our Church News staff was reduced in the Deseret News corporate restructuring of 2010. After a year or two, there was nobody left on staff who was willing to put up with the extra, after-hours work that was required to produce it for the relatively meager contract pay that was offered.

 

They offered the job to me, and I refused for the above reason.

[jwhitlock]

We discontinued (officially "suspended") the almanac because our Church News staff was reduced in the Deseret News corporate restructuring of 2010. After a year or two, there was nobody left on staff who was willing to put up with the extra, after-hours work that was required to produce it for the relatively meager contract pay that was offered.

 

They offered the job to me, and I refused for the above reason.

 

Dang.  We use the older almanacs we have on a regular basis.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

It's a positive trait if, and only if, the faith is in divine truth.

 

And to say that if it's true, it ought to be definitively proven is begging the question.

 

It won't be definitively proven (for now), because part of the truth is that faith needs to be developed.

[Teancum]

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."

 

Sure. Neither can be proven.  But faith is often used to bolster religious beliefs that lack evidence is it not?

[Scott Lloyd]

Dang.  We use the older almanacs we have on a regular basis.

I think they should turn the whole project over to the Church History Department -- which, all along, has given invaluable assistance by providing numbers and other content.

 

But I don't call the shots.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Sure. Neither can be proven.  But faith is often used to bolster religious beliefs that lack evidence is it not?

Yes. But again, that's begging the question.

[Teancum]

It's a positive trait if, and only if, the faith is in divine truth.

 

And to say that if it's true, it ought to be definitively proven is begging the question.

 

It won't be definitively proven (for now), because part of the truth is that faith needs to be developed.

 

So faith in divine truth is positive and faith in false claims is negative.  You as a Mormon have deep faith that your faith is placed in divine truth. So may a Baptist, Catholic or radical follower of the ISIS view of Islam.  It seems a lot of people have faith their divine truth is THE ONE where faith should be placed.

[Teancum]

Yes. But again, that's begging the question.

 

 

Please tell me how it is begging the question?

[JulieM]

How much do you think lowering the missionary age has to do with an increase in those holding temple recommends or paying tithing to be worthy to go to the temple or serve a mission? I know there was a huge increase in both young men and young women going out into the mission field. This could have even re-activated some of their parent too (or motivated them to pay tithing and go to the temple).

[Scott Lloyd]

Please tell me how it is begging the question?

Begging the question is circular reasoning.

 

"Your faith is a negative attribute."

 

"Why is it a negative attribute?"

 

"Because you can't prove empirically that your religion is true."

 

"But part of my religious belief is to develop faith, and if I could prove it, there would be no need for faith."

 

"But your faith is a negative attribute."

 

"Why is it a negative attribute?"

 

And so forth.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

How much do you think lowering the missionary age has to do with an increase in those holding temple recommends or paying tithing to be worthy to go to the temple or serve a mission? I know there was a huge increase in both young men and young women going out into the mission field. This could have even re-activated some of their parent too (or motivated them to pay tithing and go to the temple).

This was brought up earlier.

 

The surge brought on by the change in ages is now over, yet the number of missionaries is still significantly higher than pre-surge levels.

 

It's true that the missionaries from the surge period will hold temple recommends two years after their release date, but that shouldn't be seen as artificially inflating the number of temple recommend holders unless those missionaries go inactive within two years after their missions.

 

I doubt very many of them go inactive that soon.

[JulieM]

This was brought up earlier.

 

The surge brought on by the change in ages is now over, yet the number of missionaries is still significantly higher than pre-surge levels.

 

It's true that the missionaries from the surge period will hold temple recommends two years after their release date, but that shouldn't be seen as artificially inflating the number of temple recommend holders unless those missionaries go inactive within two years after their missions.

 

I doubt very many of them go inactive that soon.

Thanks.

So it would have created a recent surge or increase but maybe not long term? Is that what you are saying?

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

A friendly and TRUSTing audience. I couldn't have stated it better. However, in this day and age, information reaches beyond such audiences. We're not talking golden plates here, the information about membership is a matter of numbers. Numbers that are neither sacred nor should they be secret. And such numbers are not hard to provide, but the messengers are unwilling to provide those numbers. Does anyone have an answer to the Why?

[rockpond]

We discontinued (officially "suspended") the almanac because our Church News staff was reduced in the Deseret News corporate restructuring of 2010. After a year or two, there was nobody left on staff who was willing to put up with the extra, after-hours work that was required to produce it for the relatively meager contract pay that was offered.

They offered the job to me, and I refused for the above reason.

Bummer but understandable... I can't imagine that thing would make a profit. Good suggestion in recommending that the Church History dept take it over. Maybe they'll get around to it at some point.

[Scott Lloyd]

A friendly and TRUSTing audience. I couldn't have stated it better. However, in this day and age, information reaches beyond such audiences. We're not talking golden plates here, the information about membership is a matter of numbers. Numbers that are neither sacred nor should they be secret. And such numbers are not hard to provide, but the messengers are unwilling to provide those numbers. Does anyone have an answer to the Why?

I don't know that they are unwilling. I don't think you know that either.

[Teancum]

Begging the question is circular reasoning.

 

"Your faith is a negative attribute."

 

"Why is it a negative attribute."

 

"Because you cant prove empirically that your religion is true."

 

"But part of my religious belief is to develop faith, and if I could prove it, there would be no need for faith."

 

"But your faith is a negative attribute."

 

"Why is it a negative attribute?"

 

And so forth.

 

Got it.  Thanks

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks.

So it would have created a recent surge or increase but maybe not long term? Is that what you are saying?

Sort of.

 

But I'm in hopes the increased number of missionaries will be sustained and even grow going into the future. And, of course, I hope that these missionaries remain temple worthy throughout their lives.

[rockpond]

Thanks.

So it would have created a recent surge or increase but maybe not long term? Is that what you are saying?

Well, we essentially lowered the endowment age, so all things equal, we'd expect a long term increase in TR holding members.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, we essentially lowered the endowment age, so all things equal, we'd expect a long term increase in TR holding members.

True.

[teddyaware]

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? 

 

The Restored Gospel is easy to believe in if one has true faith because it is the one perfect form of religion on earth; a perfect spiritual system of government actually worthy of a God of true wisdom and perfect love. But if one doesn't have faith, the fact that the Restored Gospel is the one  perfect religion on earth that's worthy of a God of true wisdom and perfect love doesn't amount to a anthill of beans.

 

The same holds true for the Book of Mormon: For those with living faith, the Book of Mormon is a miracle as great as the raising of Lazarus from the dead or the opening of the Red Sea, because the eye of faith plainly reveals to the believer that no man unaided by God, especially a semi-literate farm boy, could have produce such an elaborate and improbable Christ-centered masterpiece. But for those who lack faith, placing the Book of Mormon in a genuinely miraculous light amounts is nothing more than self-deceit and wishful thinking. 

 

For those with living faith, the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel is as obvious as the blazing noonday summer sun; but for those without living faith, the Restored Gospel is about as real and impressive as the Coca-Cola Santa Clause. 

 

So the Restored Gospel is very believable if one believes a miraculous God of perfect wisdom and love actually exists, because there is no other system of religion on earth worthy of such a being. But if one gravely doubts or outright disbelieves there is a living God of perfect wisdom and love, then no amount of spiritual truth will be able to penetrate the barrier of doubt -- reason being the things of God are always going to be fanciful foolishness to intellectually oriented natural men. And so it will always be, worlds without end. But whether a intellectually oriented natural man wants to believe in God or not, he will have no choice but to believe on the day of visitation.

Edited April 9, 2015 by teddyaware

[Teancum]

The Restored Gospel is easy to believe in if one has true faith because it is the one perfect form of religion on earth; a perfect spiritual system of government actually worthy of a God of true wisdom and perfect love. But if one doesn't have faith, the fact that the Restored Gospel is the one  perfect religion on earth that's worthy of a God of true wisdom and perfect love doesn't amount to a anthill of beans.

 

The same holds true for the Book of Mormon: For those with living faith, the Book of Mormon is a miracle as great as the raising of Lazarus from the dead or the opening of the Red Sea, because the eye of faith plainly reveals to the believer that no man unaided by God, especially a semi-literate farm boy, could have produce such an elaborate and improbable Christ-centered masterpiece. But for those who lack faith, placing the Book of Mormon in a genuinely miraculous light amounts is nothing more than self-deceit and wishful thinking. 

 

For those with living faith, the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel is as obvious as the blazing noonday summer sun; but for those without living faith, the Restored Gospel is about as real and impressive as the Coca-Cola Santa Clause. 

 

So the Restored Gospel is very believable if one believes a miraculous God of perfect wisdom and love actually exists, because there is no other system of religion on earth worthy of such a being. But if one gravely doubts or outright disbelieves there is a living God of perfect wisdom and love, then no amount of spiritual truth will be able to penetrate the barrier of doubt -- reason being the things of God are always going to be fanciful foolishness to intellectually oriented natural men. And so it will always be, worlds without end. But whether a intellectually oriented natural man wants to believe in God or not, he will have no choice but to believe on the day of visitation.

 

 

Essentially you simple bore your testimony. Nothing more or nothing less. This is your faith and even your dogma. Why is your faith in your religious dogma any more well placed than my doubts and questions or the faith an evangelical Christian has that your faith is misplaced and their faith in an inerrant bible, the doctrine of faith only and all the other beliefs of reformed theology?  They are just as passionate as you are about their faith.

 

I really ought to stop asking the down the line true believers of Mormonism these questions. It is a fruitless and frustrating exercise for both.  But I have been where you are and have been just as passionate and convinced.  I do not know whether you have opened up your mind and heart to other possibilities.  Maybe you have and are still convinced which if so I am happy for you. If not.... well that is up to you as well.

[teddyaware]

Essentially you simple bore your testimony. Nothing more or nothing less. This is your faith and even your dogma. Why is your faith in your religious dogma any more well placed than my doubts and questions or the faith an evangelical Christian has that your faith is misplaced and their faith in an inerrant bible, the doctrine of faith only and all the other beliefs of reformed theology?  They are just as passionate as you are about their faith.

 

I really ought to stop asking the down the line true believers of Mormonism these questions. It is a fruitless and frustrating exercise for both.  But I have been where you are and have been just as passionate and convinced.  I do not know whether you have opened up your mind and heart to other possibilities.  Maybe you have and are still convinced which if so I am happy for you. If not.... well that is up to you as well.

 

I was once a raging, evangelizing atheist, spreading the gospel of despair and hopelessness with missionary zeal. I enjoyed trying to shake the faith of those who foolishly believed in the fantasy of God. Madeline Murray O'Hair was my hero. I thought believers were wishful thinking suckers who lacked the courage to admit to themselves that life and existence are ultimately meaningless.  Nihilism was my creed. So I'm very well acquainted with the "other side" and know from personal experience that believing in nothing stinks. But knowing what I went through, i truly hope you'll emerge out of the hopelessness of unbelief and the improbable notion that the miracle existence is nothing more than an accident without purpose, rhyme nor reason. 

Edited April 9, 2015 by teddyaware

[Shadrak]

I'd like a CFR on his info (an unsupported footnote does not count) but everything Elder Cook said was true. Every (almost) year there are more stakes and wards which must mean more real growth, more TR holders and endowed members than before, and the number of missionaries has been well publicized.

As for members leaving, that could also be true, but the corollary is also true. Over the last 25 years actual number of people joining the church is less now and the rate of growth is significantly less. One could say that fewer people care enough about mormonism to either leave or join.

Elder Cook speaks legalese and is now an executive of a multibillion dollar organization. He is very comfortable giving partial facts (courtesy of Dallin Oaks http://www.lds-mormon.com/oakslying.shtml)%C2'>

[jwhitlock]

Elder Cook speaks legalese and is now an executive of a multibillion dollar organization. He is very comfortable giving partial facts (courtesy of Dallin Oaks

 

I gather you know Elder Cook personally and thus are able to make this kind of character judgement?

[Shadrak]

I gather you know Elder Cook personally and thus are able to make this kind of character judgement?

Are you insinuating that he was a poor lawyer for 27 years and thus can't speak legalese? (living in Hillsborough, CA would say otherwise) Or a bad executive in the healthcare industry? Or as an apostle he is not an executive in the Corporation of the President (or Presiding Bishop) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (definitively multibillion dollar corporations)?

I would guess that the counsel given by Elder Oaks in a talk (link didn't post), Sept 12, 1993 to BYU law school, on when and how much truth to disclose (but never lie) is pretty standard for law students. He was also generally speaking to church members about the when and how much truth to tell. A general conference talk is not a place for full disclosure. The picture he paints is accurate if not complete, less than full disclosure. Without any data it is difficult to ascertain the full accuracy of his statement is all I am inferring-as well as inferring that executives have been known to be less than forthcoming with embarrassing data regarding their organization.