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

[Scott Lloyd]

So without evidence no one should ask any questions?

It's not asking questions that I'm calling them to account for. It's making a priori assertions. It's rumor mongering. It's drawing invalid conclusions from anecdotes and self-selected samples. It's engaging in sophistry.

 

By giving people a pass on doing such things and making demands on a Church leader for contradicting them, you are demonstrating a rather brazen double-standard.

 

Ask questions?

 

They asked their questions and they got an answer.

 

Supposed I asked you if you cheated on your taxes last year. Would a simple "no" answer be sufficient, or should I demand that you prove it?

 

If I did, you would be justified, at the very least, in refusing to take me seriously and ignoring me.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

Are you saying the Church typically constructs temples even in places where there are not enough temple-worthy members to justify the expenditure of resources?

 

 

Given such leniency, virtually any area in the Church would be a candidate for placement of a temple.

 

Obviously, with limited resources, the Church cannot build temples everywhere, so it makes sense that they would be placed in locales where the people would be likely to keep them busy through their worthiness and frequency of attendance.

 

As for the temples in Utah, I very clearly recall President Hinckley saying at the groundbreaking for the Draper Utah Temple that he had been asked why another temple was being built in the Salt Lake Valley and he explicitly gave the answer that it was because it was needed to accommodate the number of temple-going people.

 

I assure you the Church would not be building more temples in Utah if the numbers didn't justify it.

 

Edited to add:

 

I looked up my report of the groundbreaking of the Draper Utah Temple.

 

President Hinckley said on that occasion:

 

 

I agree.  But if Temples are also built to relieve "pent up demand", then their being built isn't a reliable indicator of growth or strength over a period of time. 

[stemelbow]

This doesn't make sense in light of what Elder Cook said.

 

He said resignations are actually lower than 25 years ago, and that other metrics -- current temple recommend holders, tithepayers and people qualified to serve missions -- argue against the notion that people are drifting into inactivity more than ever before.

It makes sense. 25 years ago, less temples, less people able to get to the temple regularly. Thus, the rate of recommend holders was lower. And without recommends, tithing might have been coming in at a lower rate. None of that argues against people drifting into inactivity more than ever. Indeed, considering we have more people as members on record, it stands to reason that more people drift into activity. Thus, we might have far more apostasy then we did 25 years ago, and still, in some sense, be stronger.

I've decided we don't need to have the two statements, a few years apart, to be competing statements. It's certainly possible they are both right.

[ALarson]

But logic says he doesn't need to provide any data until the doomsayers provide evidence to back up what they are saying. Their assertions collapse on their own from their lack of substantiation.

 

Your logic or what may seem logical to you is that Elder Cook doesn't need to provide any data, but to others releasing some stats does seem logical.  The same applies to asking for numbers or data to back up what Elder Jensen stated.

 

Bottom line is that until and if the church releases the data, we can go back and forth all day about this and we'll still have differences of opinion and only our own experiences to back them up.

Edited April 9, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

It makes sense. 25 years ago, less temples, less people able to get to the temple regularly. Thus, the rate of recommend holders was lower. And without recommends, tithing might have been coming in at a lower rate. None of that argues against people drifting into inactivity more than ever. Indeed, considering we have more people as members on record, it stands to reason that more people drift into activity. Thus, we might have far more apostasy then we did 25 years ago, and still, in some sense, be stronger.

I've decided we don't need to have the two statements, a few years apart, to be competing statements. It's certainly possible they are both right.

This is what I believe too.

 

And, there are just too many variables that can be applied to work the stats to fit any given scenario.

[teddyaware]

It's hard to provide evidence when it is held by the church and they don't release it. Only the church can provide the evidence. Scott, perhaps as a member of the press you can request they release the information about the number of resignations for each year. That would put it to rest one way or the other.

 

 

 

and again Elder Cook did so without providing any data at all. Nor does his footnote. He may be right, he may be bloviating.  I don't know either way.

 

If I were the Lord, I would command the General Authorities to not reveal the statistical evidence that would back up the assertion that the Church is stronger than ever. It will be a very bad thing if the Church leaders start down the road of trying to placate the critics, skeptics and sign-seekers with evidence, because no amount of evidence will ever be enough for those who don't want to believe and who get carnal pleasure out of harassing the prophets and the faithful. The doubters will continue to question everything and demand more and more information, but because their hearts are hardened no amount of information will ever be enough. Seeing the rotting corpse of Lazarus rise from the dead with their own eyes wasn't enough for the sign seekers of the Lord's day and similar displays of evidence will not be enough for the willful doubters of the last days. When faith is absent, sin lies in wait at the door. For those who will not believe until the acceptable day of the Lord is over, they will eventually have all the evidence they could want, but it will be revealed unto their condemnation.

Edited April 9, 2015 by teddyaware

[rockpond]

Nicer than if the Church hadn't published the essays at all?

 

What is it you want?

 

I'd love essays that explain the issues without causing crises of faith.  Call me crazy.

[rockpond]

It will be a very bad thing if the Church leaders start down the road of trying to placate the critics, skeptics and sign-seekers with evidence, because no amount of evidence will ever be enough for those who don't want to believe and who get carnal pleasure out of harassing the prophets and the faithful. The doubters will continue to question everything and demand more and more information, but because their hearts are hardened no amount of information will ever be enough.

 

Gee... last I checked nearly all of us here were active church members having a discussion.  I assume your reference to "critics, skeptics, and sign-seekers" must be from some other discussion.

[stemelbow]

I'd love essays that explain the issues without causing crises of faith.  Call me crazy.

Hey Rockpond, I think I get what you're saying, but I think that's impossible. No matter what we'll always see people facing a crises of faith. That is the nature of faith, it seems to me--up, down, steady, broken. Whether by the essays or something else people will experience it. But, as a matter of principle, I think the Church is far better off, int he long run, putting information out there about it's history, particularly that which some are seeing as the difficulty history. A much better policy to adopt for the Church is put it out there and let the chips fall where they may. Faith crises will always be around us.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

It will be a very bad thing if the Church leaders start down the road of trying to placate the critics, skeptics and sign-seekers with evidence, because no amount of evidence will ever be enough for those who don't want to believe

What you seem to be missing is that the church is already engaged in this. Elder Cook was actively trying to refute critics but provided no evidence even though it is reasonable to assume he has access to it. So he's already doing what you say he shouldn't and he's doing it poorly.

[rockpond]

But logic says he doesn't need to provide any data until the doomsayers provide evidence to back up what they are saying. Their assertions collapse on their own from their lack of substantiation.

 

Elder Cook made an independent claim.  He is not under any obligation to back it up but that doesn't mean that you can shift the burden of proof to someone else who also made a claim.  Especially when Elder Cook has access to the data and the others don't.

 

This position you've staked out is ironic:  You want those who don't have access to the relevant data to provide the data while stating the Elder Cook, who does have access to the data, should not have to reveal it.

Edited April 9, 2015 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Hey Rockpond, I think I get what you're saying, but I think that's impossible. No matter what we'll always see people facing a crises of faith. That is the nature of faith, it seems to me--up, down, steady, broken. Whether by the essays or something else people will experience it. But, as a matter of principle, I think the Church is far better off, int he long run, putting information out there about it's history, particularly that which some are seeing as the difficulty history. A much better policy to adopt for the Church is put it out there and let the chips fall where they may. Faith crises will always be around us.

 

If the choice is essays or no essays, I agree... let's get the essays out there.  Lack of disclosure about our history has already caused enough problems.

 

But I believe we should address the problematic aspects of the essays and then see if there are ways to improve them.

[HappyJackWagon]

If the choice is essays or no essays, I agree... let's get the essays out there.  Lack of disclosure about our history has already caused enough problems.

 

But I believe we should address the problematic aspects of the essays and then see if there are ways to improve them.

I agree but this only could happen through active engagement by the church. Providing static essays or conference talks doesn't really engage a discussion. We're all on the internet discussing this anonymously because there's no place else to do it. Either the church engages and maintains some level of influence on the process or they yield their voice to others.

[Scott Lloyd]

What you seem to be missing is that the church is already engaged in this. Elder Cook was actively trying to refute critics but provided no evidence even though it is reasonable to assume he has access to it. So he's already doing what you say he shouldn't and he's doing it poorly.

All he -- or the Church -- is obliged to do in the face of false assertions is to deny those assertions. They have no obligation to refute what has not been substantiated and what no reasonable observer will take seriously unless and until it has been substantated.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Elder Cook made an independent claim.  He is not under any obligation to back it up but that doesn't mean that you can shift the burden of proof to someone else who also made a claim.  Especially when Elder Cook has access to the data and the others don't.

 

This position you've staked out is ironic:  You want those who don't have access to the relevant data to provide the data while stating the Elder Cook, who does have access to the data, should not have to reveal it.

What burden of proof does he have against false assertions?

 

If I accuse you of embezzlement, who has the burden of proof, you or I?

[rockpond]

I agree but this only could happen through active engagement by the church. Providing static essays or conference talks doesn't really engage a discussion. We're all on the internet discussing this anonymously because there's no place else to do it. Either the church engages and maintains some level of influence on the process or they yield their voice to others.

 

Agreed.

[stemelbow]

I agree but this only could happen through active engagement by the church. Providing static essays or conference talks doesn't really engage a discussion. We're all on the internet discussing this anonymously because there's no place else to do it. Either the church engages and maintains some level of influence on the process or they yield their voice to others.

Both you and Rockpond make great points here with which I agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd love essays that explain the issues without causing crises of faith.  Call me crazy.

I've read those same essays, and they did not cause in me a crisis of faith. Call me crazy.

[HappyJackWagon]

All he -- or the Church -- is obliged to do in the face of false assertions is to deny those assertions. They have no obligation to refute what has not been substantiated and what no reasonable observer will take seriously unless and until it has been substantated.

And how would one sustantiate the claim if the church chooses to keep the evidence hidden?

[Scott Lloyd]

Agreed.

So you're saying that conference talks or published essays cannot be taken seriously unless an author is willing to engage in a public back and forth with critics and carpers?

 

That makes no sense.

[Scott Lloyd]

And how would one sustantiate the claim if the church chooses to keep the evidence hidden?

Why make a claim if you can't substantiate it? That strikes me malicious gossip and rumor mongering.

[stemelbow]

I've read those same essays, and they did not cause in me a crisis of faith. Call me crazy.

Not crazy, different. We're all different and we all react differently to different things. To some it wasn't he essays the caused their crises of faith. To others it was. And to many others there was no crises to deal with.

[rockpond]

What burden of proof does he have against false assertions?

 

If I accuse you of embezzlement, who has the burden of proof, you or I?

 

He doesn't have any burden of proof against false assertions.

 

He has the burden of proof for his own claims:  "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."

 

Now, it was a conference talk and so I don't think he's obligated to do anything.  But if you are going to say that anonymous "naysayers" have a burden of proof for their claims.  The same applies to him.

[rockpond]

I've read those same essays, and they did not cause in me a crisis of faith. Call me crazy.

 

Same here.  But we aren't all of the membership of the church.

[rockpond]

Why make a claim if you can't substantiate it? That strikes me malicious gossip and rumor mongering.

 

Elder Cook made a claim.