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

[Scott Lloyd]

Were you really an atheist?  If so you certainly have done a 180 degree switch which just is amazing....

Impressive, to be sure, but certainly not unprecedented.

 

Consider the words to the autobiographical hymn "Amazing Grace" and the story of the man who wrote them.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Agreed.

 

I think they were both stating what they believe to be true and I also believe they could both be accurate.

I was speaking sarcastically.

 

But I think you knew that.

[rockpond]

For now, it is quite enough to deny claims that had no substance to them in the first place.

 

That's fine if that's the approach he wants to take.  But the stats that the church has released don't really support Elder Cook nor the anonymous critics' statements that you reference.

Edited April 9, 2015 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

That's fine if that's the approach he wants to take.  But the stats that the church has released don't really support Elder Cook nor the anonymous critics' statements that you reference.

For reasons I have already explained, a 300 percent increase in number of temples in the past 25 years supports the belief that the Church is stronger than ever.

 

To reiterate, the Church doesn't build temples were there isn't a sizable enough contingent of people to support them. And people can't support temples without attesting to and demonstrating personal faithfulness and devotion.

[ALarson]

That's fine if that's the approach he wants to take.  But the stats that the church has released don't really support Elder Cook nor the anonymous critics' statements that you reference.

But that's all we have for now.  Hopefully if the church has stats that support what Elder Cook stated, they'll be releasing them.

[Scott Lloyd]

But that's all we have for now.  Hopefully if the church has stats that support what Elder Cook stated, they'll be releasing them.

And if, for whatever reason, the Church leaders don't, are you going to continue to believe ill-substantiated, a priori declarations that the Church is suffering mass apostasy?

[Russell C McGregor]

What about the claims that Elder Jensen made?

Elder Jensen compared the present time to the Kirtland period. A lot of people apostatised at that time.

A lot more people joined the Church and gathered with the Saints. The Kirtland period was a time of both growth and apostasy, with the growth outstripping the apostasy by a considerable margin.

I'm sure Elder Jensen knows that.

Regards,

Russell

[Teancum]

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.

 

Why?  Why do you give a pass to unsubstantiated claims? The critics cannot access the data because the Church restricts it.  They can only go on observation as well as cobbling together what data is there. Would you give such a pass to the execs of Enron or to Bernie Madoff? No.  Yet you have a different standard for the Church and its leaders. Why is that? 

 

Really it demonstrates what is clearly a blind faith to follow the LDS leaders no matter what they say. .But we know you defer to them constantly because many of your posts constantly proclaim your fealty.

[Teancum]

Wow... you are obsessed with critics.  I'm not even talking about critics.  I'm not concerned with them.  I'm concerned with members of the church.  Not all of us are engaged in this battle vs. nameless critics like you.

 

 

For Scott you are a critic because you ask questions and don't toe the party line....

[Scott Lloyd]

Why?  Why do you give a pass to unsubstantiated claims? The critics cannot access the data because the Church restricts it. 

Once again, they have no business spreading ill-founded rumor unless they can back it up.

[Teancum]

Thank you for quoting teddyaware's insightful post. I had missed it.

 

 

Well at least I did one thing to please you.  What a rare event.

[Teancum]

Impressive, to be sure, but certainly not unprecedented.

 

Consider the words to the autobiographical hymn "Amazing Grace" and the story of the man who wrote them.

 

 

I really did think it amazing. Maybe there is hope for me this member turned skeptic and critic yet... aye....?

[rockpond]

For reasons I have already explained, a 300 percent increase in number of temples in the past 25 years supports the belief that the Church is stronger than ever.

 

To reiterate, the Church doesn't build temples were there isn't a sizable enough contingent of people to support them. And people can't support temples without attesting to and demonstrating personal faithfulness and devotion.

 

That's one metric.  How many of those temples were of the smaller variety?  Has there been a 300% capacity increase?  Or was it closer to 200%?

 

And then there are the other metrics such as the declining growth rate and the declining convert baptism rate.  There are also the confounded metrics like the jump in deaths/removals and the steadily increasing number of members of record required to staff a ward/stake.

 

It's fine if you want to hang your hat on the one data point.  But you can't pretend that it provides solid statistical support for Elder Cook's statement anymore than the other metrics provide solid statistical support for the anonymous critics you reference.

[Mystery Meat]

I really did think it amazing. Maybe there is hope for me this member turned skeptic and critic yet... aye....?

 

Always! Without a doubt!

 

However, I have yet to meet a person who received the answers they were long awaiting who didn't first turn away from their skepticism and cease from being a critic.

Edited April 9, 2015 by lvjd66

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

I see. So you don't know him personally, but are just assuming that since he was a lawyer, he's just prone to deceit. 

 

Lots of assumptions you're making there - without any real evidence.

[Teancum]

Always! Without a doubt!

 

However, I have yet to meet a person who received the answers they were long awaiting who didn't first turn away from their skepticism and cease from being a critic.

 

 So one has to have faith only and cast of critical thinking, reason, rational thought and accept it on faith even when evidence screams other wise.  Why does religion always fall back to "just have faith...."

[ALarson]

Elder Jensen compared the present time to the Kirtland period. A lot of people apostatised at that time.

A lot more people joined the Church and gathered with the Saints. The Kirtland period was a time of both growth and apostasy, with the growth outstripping the apostasy by a considerable margin.

 

CFR

 

I'm asking because I truly want to know about this.  What do you consider the Kirtland period?  1831 through 1838?  

[Mystery Meat]

 So one has to have faith only and cast of critical thinking, reason, rational thought and accept it on faith even when evidence screams other wise.  Why does religion always fall back to "just have faith...."

 

Teancum,

 

That is not what I said. You have mentioned in the past being misunderstood on this board. Part of the problem may be snarky responses to an honest effort to bridge the gap. FWIW.

 

Back to the points you make. Faith is the first principal of the gospel. The trouble I see with how you have defined critical thinking, reason and rational thought is that they are explicitly contrary to faith. However, I believe that I use all of the above tools in my life in very real and meaningful ways without destruction to my faith. The reason why folks like me always come back to faith is because faith is truly is the first principal of the gospel. If there is no room for faith, there is no room for hope. By law there is no hope without faith. Additionally, my most powerful and memorable spiritual experiences have come as a result of the exercise of faith NOT "critical thinking" or "reason." 

 

"For my ways, are not your ways."

 

No amount of our best "critical thinking" (and I suspect that in the grand scheme of things such critical thinking from even the best of us is worth about the cost of a tin of Spam) will ever result in revealed truth without an abundance of faith.

 

Edit to Add: If you are hoping to find answers from above through reason, logic and critical thinking there truly is no hope. Such answers come only by faith.

Edited April 9, 2015 by lvjd66

[Teancum]

Teancum,

 

That is not what I said. You have mentioned in the past being misunderstood on this board. Part of the problem may be snarky responses to an honest effort to bridge the gap. FWIW.

 

Back to the points you make. Faith is the first principal of the gospel. The trouble I see with how you have defined critical thinking, reason and rational thought is that they are explicitly contrary to faith. However, I believe that I use all of the above tools in my life in very real and meaningful ways without destruction to my faith. The reason why folks like me always come back to faith is because faith is truly is the first principal of the gospel. If there is no room for faith, there is no room for hope. By law there is no hope without faith. Additionally, my most powerful and memorable spiritual experiences have come as a result of the exercise of faith NOT "critical thinking" or "reason." 

 

"For my ways, are not your ways."

 

No amount of our best "critical thinking" (and I suspect that in the grand scheme of things such critical thinking from even the best of us is worth about the cost of a tin of Spam) will ever result in revealed truth without an abundance of faith.

 

Edit to Add: If you are hoping to find answers from above through reason, logic and critical thinking there truly is no hope. Such answers come only by faith.

 

 

But you still fail to answer why faith has to trump everything else. All religions do and have used this  and it seems to be used when there are no good answers.

[Mystery Meat]

But you still fail to answer why faith has to trump everything else. All religions do and have used this  and it seems to be used when there are no good answers.

 

I don't think I have failed to answer. Faith trumps everything because it is the first principal of the gospel. It is the first principal of the gospel, because faith is what is required of us in the life to become more like God, precisely because our best, mortal critical thinking will often be in conflict with God's will, intelligence and knowledge. Sometimes God withholds answers. I don't know the why to that question. So I won't attempt to speak to it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

That's fine if that's the approach he wants to take.  But the stats that the church has released don't really support Elder Cook nor the anonymous critics' statements that you reference.

 

 

For reasons I have already explained, a 300 percent increase in number of temples in the past 25 years supports the belief that the Church is stronger than ever.

 

To reiterate, the Church doesn't build temples were there isn't a sizable enough contingent of people to support them. And people can't support temples without attesting to and demonstrating personal faithfulness and devotion.

 

 

That's one metric.  How many of those temples were of the smaller variety? 

 

Not very many as it turned out.

 

The last ones that stand out in my memory are the ones in Palymyra, New York; and Winter Quarters, Nebraska, and both of them were larger than the first one in Monticello, Utah. In fact I don't think any have been as small as the one in Monticello.

 

And as I pointed out earlier, the presence of a smaller temple is not an indicator of lack of faithfulness or flagging faith of the people in the area. Rather, the smaller temples are built to accommodate saints who live in rural or far-flung areas and who might not have convenient access to a temple otherwise.

 

Has there been a 300% capacity increase?  Or was it closer to 200%?

 

Even 200 percent would support the statement that the Church has never been stronger.

 

 

And then there are the other metrics such as the declining growth rate and the declining convert baptism rate.

 

As I've already pointed out, those are not necessarily an indication of lack of strength in the Church but, rather, could indicate an increasing state of wickedness in the world and resultant resistance to the message of the gospel.

 

There are also the confounded metrics like the jump in deaths/removals and the steadily increasing number of members of record required to staff a ward/stake.

 

 

Deaths are going to come no matter how strong the Church is. And I don't know what you mean by "removals." Do you mean resignations? Elder Cook said that number has decreased over the past 25 years. Where are you getting that information?

 

And the increasing number of members per ward has been dealt with. It has not been definitively established that it indicates increasing inactivity. I've never conceded that it does. There are conceivable reasons the Church might be increasing the optimum number of members per ward and doing it gradually.

 

 

It's fine if you want to hang your hat on the one data point.

 

I never said I was hanging my hat on it. It was a for-instance that I brought up to contest your assertion (see above) that "the stats that the church has released don't really support Elder Cook."

 

But you can't pretend that it provides solid statistical support for Elder Cook's statement ...

 

Again, if there are three times the number of temples there were 25 years ago, and if, as I contend, temples are a solid indicator of strength in the Church, then the compelling conclusion is that the Church is stronger.

 

 

... anymore than the other metrics provide solid statistical support for the anonymous critics you reference.

 

The "anonymous critics" are the ones who are in a tough spot, because they are the ones who have made assertions without support and which have now been semi-officially denied in general conference.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

I don't think I have failed to answer. Faith trumps everything because it is the first principal of the gospel. It is the first principal of the gospel, because faith is what is required of us in the life to become more like God, precisely because our best, mortal critical thinking will often be in conflict with God's will, intelligence and knowledge. Sometimes God withholds answers. I don't know the why to that question. So I won't attempt to speak to it. 

 

 

But the why is critical to the question as well as to who is really promoting this paradigm?

Edited April 9, 2015 by Teancum