Missionary number has shown 29 percent net increase since latter 2012

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Now then, as can be seen from your link, my use of "prophecy" was in the thread title only, not in the thread itself. My use of it in the thread title was purely in jest. That is, I was poking fun at John Dehlin. I assumed that would have been clear, but perhaps not for everyone, so I'll state directly here and now that's what it was. (I think, in fact, you raised this issue last year and I dealt with it then.)

 

Sorry, but there is a well-accepted methodology of conveying when a word is being used "purely in jest."  Namely, you put it in quotes.  If you don't, then it's expected that the word is being used in its normal sense.  As one who is so well versed in the actual meaning of the word and literary communications in general, that should have been pretty obvious.  And statements made in thread titles carry as much weight (or even more) than statements made in the thread itself.

For example, if I started a thread titled "Scott Lloyd is guilty of car theft", but then argued that I didn't make the actual claim in the thread, but instead was only alluding to the great deal you got when you bought your last car, I suspect you wouldn't buy an explanation based on the premise that claims made in thread titles don't count, and should be understood as having an alternate meaning even when that alternate meaning isn't evident from the title itself (especially since, as with newspaper headlines, not everyone reads the article or thread searching for the alternate meaning).

And while we're on the subject, can you please provide the exact quote for what Dehlin "predicted"?  Oddly, in all your discussion of this I can't find where you actually quote what he said.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would not have used the word prophesy as a noun; it is a verb.

You probably meant the word prophecy, which is a noun. Prophesy and prophecy are two different words. They are pronounced differently, and they designate different parts of speech. 

Now then, as can be seen from your link, my use of "prophecy" was in the thread title only, not in the thread itself. My use of it in the thread title was purely in jest. That is, I was poking fun at John Dehlin. I assumed that would have been clear, but perhaps not for everyone, so I'll state directly here and now that's what it was. (I think, in fact, you raised this issue last year and I dealt with it then.)

 

Oh, and just to be clear, you also called it a "prophecy" (without quotes, thus implying the regular usage of the word) in this post.

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

I agree with you, I think we have hard working missionaries with strong desires to serve.  I don't think the decrease in baptisms can, in any way, be put at their feet.

I'll second this. We have fantastic, dedicated, faithful, hardworking missionaries in our ward. We've also had a minimum of one convert baptism per month for the past four months, and we have two investigators preparing for baptism this month, though I suspect one won't be ready till May. This time last year, we also had fantastic, dedicated, faithful, hardworking missionaries in our ward, and we had only four convert baptisms all last year.

I can only speak for my own ward, but for me the difference is clear. Last year heaps of families in our ward were rocked by difficulties, most of them stemming from one or both of the partners violating commandments/covenants. We've come through that now, and our ward is healing. And now the work of conversion has resumed.

As ward mission leader, it is my responsibility to lead our ward in providing quality teaching opportunities for our six full-time missionaries. When we do that, our Elders and Sisters are brilliant and capable preachers of the gospel. When we don't/can't do that, they're still brilliant and capable preachers of the gospel, but we've robbed them, ourselves, and those the Lord has called us to minister to.

Our area president last year told us in a training session that a great divide is occurring in our area right now. Wards (and stakes) that are taking seriously the work of salvation are growing and thriving. Those that aren't are shrinking.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[sjdawg]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. There was a large and rapid surge in the number of missionaries due to the fact that there was a double cohort of missionaries in the field for a time by reason of the changes in age of eligibility. It was always expected that surge would taper off. It took a while to do that fully, and now, it appears the number has stabilized at 75,000 or so.

What prophecy (not "prophesy") do you mean?

Maybe prophecy is not the right word.  I don't actually know who you are tracking.  I think someone said the missionary number would reduce and I thought you set a timer.   I'm not sure on the parameters.   

[ALarson]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

To stemelbow and ALarson:

I hope you noticed a little while ago that, in the annual statistical report given in general conference, the 74,079 figure for total missionaries serving was identified as being "as of Dec. 31, 2015," just as I have been saying all along.

IIRC, that's what we were all saying in this older thread (but I'm not going back and looking up every post).  We all agreed that 74,079 was the 2015 year end figure that had been published by the church.

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Therefore, it could not have been an up-to-date figure in latter January, when the worldwide missionary broadcast was held

Yeah, 3 weeks later 

 

When they state that a number is "around" or "approximately" or "about", what do you think that means?  Or do you actually believe there are exactly 75,000 missionaries serving today?  I'm sure that number goes up and down.

For example, in the same article, it states:

Quote

Today, Nielson said, about 20,000 young women are in the missionary force, or nearly 27 percent.

Was he using the 74,079 figure or the 75,000 figure to come up with "about" 20,000 or "nearly" 27 %? 

(This also means that the number of young men serving has not gone up much between the announced age change and today's number, with a surge in between...if I'm figuring correctly.)

And, from the Mormon Newsroom, it states that young women make up "around" 30% of the force:

Quote

In addition, 20,000 sisters are serving missions, which is around 30 percent of the missionary force.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-nielson-provides-mormon-missionary-update-after-surge

As far as I know, the announced number is the official number.  But it's fun to play with estimates and obviously numbers can be rounded up and rounded down.  As you can see, they've done this too (with the different percentages quoted of sisters serving).

I'm not going back and forth with you again on this, as far as I can see, nothing has changed and the 75,000 is still just an estimate vs. the actual announced official number of 74,079.

(I also don't understand why this is such a big deal to you?)

.

Edited April 3, 2016 by ALarson

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, sjdawg said:

Maybe prophecy is not the right word.  I don't actually know who you are tracking.  I think someone said the missionary number would reduce and I thought you set a timer.   I'm not sure on the parameters.   

Apparently, John Dehlin said somewhere that he thinks that the Church might make significant changes on its policies towards SSA and SSM within the next 40 years.  Scott thought this was especially notable, and set a 40-year countdown timer to track whether Dehlin's idea is correct.  He also has, at least twice, referred to it as a prophecy.  As far as I can tell, he never shared the source of the actual claim.

The incongruity is that Scott doesn't do this with people who actually call themselves "prophets, seers and revelators".

[sjdawg]

16 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Apparently, John Dehlin said somewhere that he thinks that the Church might make significant changes on its policies towards SSA and SSM within the next 40 years.  Scott thought this was especially notable, and set a 40-year countdown timer to track whether Dehlin's idea is correct.  He also has, at least twice, referred to it as a prophecy.  As far as I can tell, he never shared the source of the actual claim.

The incongruity is that Scott doesn't do this with people who actually call themselves "prophets, seers and revelators".

I don't know what changes may or may not happen to policy in the next 40 years but I have noticed Mr. Lloyd has a propensity to make little digs at Dehlin on occasion.   I'm no Dehlin fan however it seems over the top

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

Sorry, but there is a well-accepted methodology of conveying when a word is being used "purely in jest."  Namely, you put it in quotes.  If you don't, then it's expected that the word is being used in its normal sense. 

This is nonsense. What you are talking about is scare quotes. People write things in jest all the time wiithout using scare quotes. You do it yourself when you're lampooning something or somebody.

Quote

And while we're on the subject, can you please provide the exact quote for what Dehlin "predicted"?  Oddly, in all your discussion of this I can't find where you actually quote what he said.

Sure. During his disciplinary proceedings, Dehlin secretly recorded (or claimed to have secretly recorded) a meeting he had with his stake president. He transcribed the alleged recording and released the transcription to news media.

The transcription has been preserved by the New York Times on this page.

I can't link you to the specific page -- you'll have to scroll down like I did -- but the statement in question from Dehlin is on page 26, and it reads as follows:

Quote

And I just want you to know, as my priesthood leader, that I honestly do believe that in 30 or 40 years, we're going to have the same type of thing happen where past statements about gays and lesbians are going to be reversed. So it's a matter of conscience that I ... that I ... and it's based on my clinical time spent with these people. Those are were [sic] my sympathies come from.

(Elllipses in original.)

Now, granted Dehlin didn't go into detail here and talk about, say, gay marriages being solemnized in the temple. But that could be inferred from what he said here. And some on this board, who have supported Dehlin's projected time frame, have predicted such a thing will happen.

So I'm tracking the whole package with my countdown clock. Which, by the way, as of this writing stands at 38 years, 10 months, 1 week, 8 hours, 56 minutes and 25 seconds.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

Oh, and just to be clear, you also called it a "prophecy" (without quotes, thus implying the regular usage of the word) in this post.

OK. So I used the word in jest again, this time in a post.

Shall I get after you next time you are mocking somebody and you don't use scare quotes in doing so?

How long did it take you to track down that post, cinepro? You really are obsessing over this thing. Let it go. It's undignified.

[JulieM]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sure. During his disciplinary proceedings, Dehlin secretly recorded (or claimed to have secretly recorded) a meeting he had with his stake president. He transcribed the alleged recording and released the transcription to news media.

The transcription has been preserved by the New York Times on this page.

I can't link you to the specific page -- you'll have to scroll down like I did -- but the statement in question from Dehlin is on page 26, and it reads as follows:

(Elllipses in original.)

Now, granted Dehlin didn't go into detail here and talk about, say, gay marriages being solemnized in the temple. But that could be inferred from what he said here. And some on this board, who have supported Dehlin's projected time frame, have predicted such a thing will happen.

So I'm tracking the whole package with my countdown clock. Which, by the way, as of this writing stands at 38 years, 10 months, 1 week, 8 hours, 56 minutes and 25 seconds.

 

So, you're tracking something that could have been "inferred" in an "alleged" recording that you've never heard?

But, you are not tracking a prediction stated by a Prophet, Seer and Revelator when you have their direct, specific quote?

Is this correct?

 

Edited April 3, 2016 by JulieM

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

OK. So I used the word in jest again, this time in a post.

Shall I get after you next time you are mocking somebody and you don't use scare quotes in doing so?

How long did it take you to track down that post, cinepro? You really are obsessing over this thing. Let it go. It's undignified.

That is the funniest thing I've ever read from you, Scott.  You are keeping a countdown clock running on your phone or tablet to track the church's progress to a statement that John Dehlin made to his stake president and you have the nerve to tell Cinepro that he is obsessing and undignified.  Haha. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, sjdawg said:

Maybe prophecy is not the right word.  I don't actually know who you are tracking.  I think someone said the missionary number would reduce and I thought you set a timer.   I'm not sure on the parameters.   

You must be referring to Mike Reed's prediction.

Near the height of the surge last year, he said he suspected that within the next two or three years the number would drop back down.

Thing is, it was already dropping back down. The surge had begun to taper off, as everyone expected it would. The remarkable thing was the total number was still higher than what the Missionary Department had expected it would be for that point in time.

So it wasn't very meaningful to predict that the number would drop back down. It was already doing so and would continue to do so for a while.

So, in a response post, I asked Mike how far it would fall. Would the number drop back to what it was at the time the age changes were announced in 2012, or would the reduction be only a couple of thousand from the peak of the surge (which had already happened by then)? Mike would not say.

So I reasoned that, for the prediction to be meaningful, any reduction would have to erase all the gains that had come about in the surge -- in other words, go back down to 2012 levels or below.

So I set the countdown timer for two years. As of this writing, the countdown stands at 9 months, 6 days, 7 hours, 53 minutes and 44 seconds.

According to Elder Brent H. Neilson, executive director of the Missionary Department, the number of missionaries has stabiliized at about 75,000 and is expected to climb gradually from there. In October 2012, the number was about 58,000. So, even if the number had not yet bottomed out, it would take a precipitous drop indeed for it to descend that far within the next nine months.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

I don't know what changes may or may not happen to policy in the next 40 years but I have noticed Mr. Lloyd has a propensity to make little digs at Dehlin on occasion.   I'm no Dehlin fan however it seems over the top

Dehlin has built a career out of making digs at the Church of Jesus Christ. That's not OK with me.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'm not going back and forth with you again on this, as far as I can see, nothing has changed and the 75,000 is still just an estimate vs. the actual announced official number of 74,079.

(I also don't understand why this is such a big deal to you?)

.

Come November of this year, if the Missionary Department says the number of missionaries has risen by, perhaps, 5,000, will you still be robotically insisting that it is only 74,000 because that was the number given at year-end 2015?

Edited April 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Come November of this year, if the Missionary Department says the number of missionaries risen by, perhaps, 5,000, will you still be robotically insisting that it is only 74,000 becuase that was the number given at year-end 2015?

I'm not the one who resurrected an old thread, to robotically repeat the same numbers and estimates yet again.  I was just responding to your post directed at me.  

I believe the most accurate way to figure the statistics is to wait for another year-end total to be released from the Mormon Newsroom, posted on their site, and then announced.  That is when an exact comparison can be made with the 74,079 year-end number instead of trying to do this with rounded off numbers, and approximates.  I look forward to seeing what the total number is for the 2016 year-end figure.  I'll be happy if the numbers are up.

.

 

Edited April 3, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

So, you're tracking something that could have been "inferred" in an "alleged" recording that you've never heard?

But, you are not tracking a prediction stated by a Prophet, Seer and Revelator when you have their direct, specific quote?

Is this correct?

 

It's my journalistic training coming through, I suppose. I tend to use the word alleged a lot -- to a fault perhaps. Look at the New York Times page I linked to; you'll find they do the same thing:

Quote

John P. Dehlin released what he said was a transcript of a recording he surreptitiously made ....

But if Dehlin himself released the transcript, he wouldn't be misquoting himself, would he? Or quoting himself as saying something he didn't say or didn't mean.

And I believe my inference is a reasonable one. Moreover, others on this board have supported Dehlin's statement and time frame and made it clear they believe the implication is that same-sex marriage will one day be recognized by the Church and solemnized in the temple. As I said, I'm tracking the whole package -- Dehlin's prediction and others' -- with my countdown timer. It has been over a year now; if anything, the Church is farther than ever from doing what Dehlin and his sympathizers have predicted.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That is the funniest thing I've ever read from you, Scott.  You are keeping a countdown clock running on your phone or tablet to track the church's progress to a statement that John Dehlin made to his stake president and you have the nerve to tell Cinepro that he is obsessing and undignified.  Haha. 

I've already said I'm doing it for my own amusement.

And it's even funnier watching cinepro and others hyperventilate over it.

Want another countdown reading? 38 years, 10 months, 1 week, 7 hours, 20 minutes.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You must be referring to Mike Reed's prediction.

Near the height of the surge last year, he said he suspected that within the next two or three years the number would drop back down.

And, it has.  

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thing is, it was already dropping back down. The surge had begun to taper off, as everyone expected it would. The remarkable thing was the total number was still higher than what the Missionary Department had expected it would be for that point in time.

So it wasn't very meaningful to predict that the number would drop back down. It was already doing so and would continue to do so for a while.

So, in a response post, I asked Mike how far it would fall. Would the number drop back to what it was at the time the age changes were announced in 2012, or would the reduction be only a couple of thousand from the peak of the surge (which had already happened by then)? Mike would not say.

So I reasoned that, for the prediction to be meaningful, any reduction would have to erase all the gains that had come about in the surge -- in other words, go back down to 2012 levels or below.

Just because you decided his prediction wasn't "meaningful" or felt you needed to put your own special spin on it, or added your own qualifications to his prediction (the part I put in bold above), that doesn't mean his prediction as he stated it has not come true.  Unless you have a quote by him that is as specific as your prediction, your countdown is pretty meaningless, IMO.  Do you have such a quote?

I doubt you'd like anyone doing to you what you are attempting to do here with Mike Reed.

If Mike stated his prediction as it's stated above, it has already has come true   

Edited April 3, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not the one who resurrected an old thread, to robotically repeat the same numbers and estimates yet again.  I was just responding to your post directed at me.  

I believe the most accurate way to figure the statistics is to wait for another year-end total to be released from the Mormon Newsroom, posted on their site, and then announced.  That is when an exact comparison can be made with the 74,079 year-end number instead of trying to do this with rounded off numbers, and approximates.  I look forward to seeing what the total number is for the 2016 year-end figure.  I'll be happy if the numbers are up.

.

 

At year end, in the same statistical report, it was announced that the number of currently operating temples in the Church stood at 149. A couple of weeks ago, the Provo City Center Temple was dedicated, bringing the number to an even 150. Do you insist that there are still only 149 operating temples in the Church?

The statistical report was never meant to imply the numbers are not in a state of flux, hence the qualiifier "as of Dec. 31, 2015."

Edited April 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At year end, in the same statistical report, it was announced that the number of currently operating temples in the Church stood at 149. A couple of weeks ago, the Provo City Center Temple was dedicated, bringing the number to an even 150. Do you insist that there are still only 149 operating temples in the Church?

We're done.  Go ahead and continue using estimates and approximate, rounded off numbers to figure your statistics.  I will use the year-end stats posted by the church's newsroom and announced in conference to do my comparisons between the year's numbers or totals for missionaries serving (to figure if that number is going up or down overall from one year to the next).  

Carry on...

Edited April 3, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We're done.  Go ahead and continue using estimates and approximate, rounded off numbers to figure your statistics.  I will use the year-end stats posted by the church's newsroom and announced in conference to do my comparisons between the year's numbers or totals for missionaries serving (to figure if that number is going up or down overall from one year to the next).  

Carry on...

So, in your view, there are only 149 operating temples in the Church then? Even though the rest of the Church now recognizes the total as being 150?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And, it has.  

Just because you decided his prediction wasn't "meaningful" or felt you needed to put your own special spin on it, or added your own qualifications to his prediction (the part I put in bold above), that doesn't mean his prediction as he stated it has not come true.  Unless you have a quote by him that is as specific as your prediction, your countdown is pretty meaningless, IMO.  Do you have such a quote?

I doubt you'd like anyone doing to you what you are attempting to do here with Mike Reed.

 

Had it been me, I think I would have responded, when asked, with a clarification defining what I meant with my prediction.

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It has been over a year now; if anything, the Church is farther than ever from doing what Dehlin and his sympathizers have predicted.

You've said that before, and I've responded before but I'll state it again:

It isn't a straight line path to Church acceptance of gay marriage.  Just as the anti-discrimination bill support was a Church change for the better, the policy of as a change for the worse.  And the pendulum keeps swinging ...probably to increasing extremes.  As it does, we'll see more and more change come about in both the membership and the leadership.

For example, I watched "the policy" galvanize two family members.  One who is an active church leader -- he has now become very vocal in support of LGBT members AND gay marriage.  He no longer believes that the Brethren have it right (whereas he did before).  Another family member who wasn't active was swayed the other way and official resigned her membership.  

The church is not further away from the 40-yr goal.  It just won't take a direct path to get there.  Along that path, many will grip tighter to anti-LGBT doctrine while many others will eschew it.  All part of the process. 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You've said that before, and I've responded before but I'll state it again:

It isn't a straight line path to Church acceptance of gay marriage.  Just as the anti-discrimination bill support was a Church change for the better, the policy of as a change for the worse.  And the pendulum keeps swinging ...probably to increasing extremes.  As it does, we'll see more and more change come about in both the membership and the leadership.

For example, I watched "the policy" galvanize two family members.  One who is an active church leader -- he has now become very vocal in support of LGBT members AND gay marriage.  He no longer believes that the Brethren have it right (whereas he did before).  Another family member who wasn't active was swayed the other way and official resigned her membership.  

The church is not further away from the 40-yr goal.  It just won't take a direct path to get there.  Along that path, many will grip tighter to anti-LGBT doctrine while many others will eschew it.  All part of the process. 

What you have recounted here is merely an example of individuals falling away as they heed the world more than they do the Church of Jesus Christ. It's tragic to be sure, but it is not an indication that the Church is abandoning or will abandon its doctrines, beliefs and values, circuitously or otherwise. It is simply a playing out of the scenario illustrated by Lehi's and Nephi's vision of the tree of life and the great and spacious building (see the thread I have just started on Bishop Waddell's quote about the great and spacious building).

Edited April 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Had it been me, I think I would have responded, when asked, with a clarification defining what I meant with my prediction.

But it wasn't you or your prediction.

Therefore you have a countdown going for a prediction that was not made.  That makes it meaningless, IMO (and I'd imagine Mike Reed feels the same about it).

There will be no "gotcha" moment if your clock runs down and the prediction you rewrote hasn't come true.  Who is going to care?