Are we really in a new era of doubt as Stack claims?

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, sjdawg said:

Why drag Dehlin into this?   

I doubt he would mind. He is trying to drag himself into everything to stay noticed. I think he would appreciate the gesture.

[Thinking]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I already mentioned Sweden earlier. My eldest son is a missionary there now, and he has never mentioned anything about the Latter-day Saints there leaving the Church in epidemic proportions because of their doubts. In fact, the Church is stronger there now than it was when I was a missionary there 40 years ago.

How do you measure stronger?

If you would have said, "In my opinion..." I would not have replied, but you wrote "In fact..."

[Mystery Meat]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Did Elder Cook ever produce the demonstrably measurable figures to back this claim?  

 

I will repeat what I said last year.

I was made aware not long before conference weekend by someone who is employed by the Church that (a) activity rates were higher than ever; (b) there were more full tithe payers; and (c) there were more recommend holders. It was substantiated before my very eyes. I knew Elder Cook's talk was coming.

The reason his claim was so controversial had nothing to do with lack of numbers; it was because it directly contradicts the beloved assumption held by the Church's critics that the Church is in trouble. Had he provided numbers to support his claim, these same folks would have said they were doctored or cooked. This is how sure they are that the Church is shrinking and destined for obscurity. 

[Tacenda]

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3531822-155/kirby-all-the-details-of-my?fullpage=1

Kirby answered the survey in his own way, through an article.  It's serious and it's funny at the same time.  He pretty much sums it up that he takes the best parts of his religion, and leaves the rest alone.  

I think there are many in the church that do the same when they have a faith crisis.  They are free to think, do I believe this is the right thing to do or not, whether a church leader said it was or not.  And recently in some talks I'm hearing or the jibe I'm feeling, it's really follow the prophet no matter what, they are not teaching to listen to your own inner voice so much. 

Edited February 16, 2016 by Tacenda

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I was made aware not long before conference weekend by someone who is employed by the Church that (a) activity rates were higher than ever; (b) there were more full tithe payers; and (c) there were more recommend holders. It was substantiated before my very eyes.

If that "someone" is reporting accurate numbers, then why not release them?  That's all many are saying here.  Until then, this is hearsay (and I'm not doubting that you're only passing on what you heard from "someone").

But, when what one sees within their own wards and families, contradicts this, it would be great to have the actual numbers released.  

Activity rates in my own ward are down and so are the number of full tithe payers along with temple recommend holders (and our Stake President reports they are down stake wide).   Temple attendance is also way down for our local temple.  We have many programs and are working with members to get those numbers up and I'm hopeful this will happen.

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If that "someone" is reporting accurate numbers, then why not release them?  That's all many are saying here.  Until then, this is hearsay (and I'm not doubting that you're only passing on what you heard from "someone").

But, when what one sees within their own wards and families, contradicts this, it would be great to have the actual numbers released.  

Activity rates in my own ward are down and so are the number of full tithe payers along with temple recommend holders (and our Stake President reports they are down stake wide).   Temple attendance is also way down for our local temple.  We have many programs and are working with members to get those numbers up and I'm hopeful this will happen.

My ward/stake is probably the one they used as an example!!  So I'm not seeing the decline in activity etc.  But sounds like many on this thread are seeing otherwise.  But I don't believe we'll see the numbers, why would they want to do that, much like you won't see the financial records.  I don't think there is anything to really report that is going to hurt the church, but I believe they (leaders) think there are good reasons not to display them.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But I don't believe we'll see the numbers, why would they want to do that, much like you won't see the financial records.  I don't think there is anything to really report that is going to hurt the church, but I believe they (leaders) think there are good reasons not to display them.

I agree.  Why start releasing them if they've gotten along this far without releasing them.  Although more members are asking for them (especially the financial records), and transparency would be good (IMO).  I'm not holding my breath on that happening anytime soon, though!

[CA Steve]

Well I don't know about everyone else but I think this is an era of doubt because I really doubt we are in the last days.

[BlueDreams]

12 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I don't believe that this number is substantial in relation to the number of people just "leaving" the church whether that is by simply walking away or through resignation.  

 

I know that in my own immediate family here are the statistics

7 Children - 4 Active, 3 not active.   All went through the temple and the inactive ones left after temple marriage.  2 of the in-actives (myself included) are returned missionaries.  I can't speak for anyone else but I know I will never return to the LDS Church.  I have no plans to resign my membership though.  I simply don't see the point and I"m not interested in following the process.

In my wife's immediate family

7 Children - 4 Active, 3 not active.  Again, all went through the temple and the inactive ones left after temple marriages.   2 of the in-actives are returned sister missionaries.

We were all raised in multi-generation LDS homes with FHE, family prayer and scripture study, etc.    I don't know if we are representative of the typical demographics of those leaving the church or not but I would say my active LDS mother certainly thinks the LDS Church is in an era of doubt when she looks at her family.

Anecdotal evidence isn't really helpful because each ward/family will likely differ drastically. For example, my own family....

I have 22 aunts and uncles on my mom's side, who are also multi-gen and pioneer stock (this number is including in-laws). So including mom and step that's 24. Out of those, 1 has left the church, another is mormon but probably on the doubting/bitter end of things, the rest are in some degree of activity and would consider themselves LDS.  Of my generation, there's only a few of us that are adults. Of those, two lines come from the one that left the church and the bitter one. They're mostly inactive or do not consider themselves mormon in the first place. The rest are a mixed bag. 1 I know for sure doesn't consider herself LDS (she would fit the survey pretty well too), another not sure about (technically a teen though). Another is inactive, though again not for doubt....he's just kinda lost in life in general. most are still active though (I've got 60+ cousins on that side...trying to count just the adults is a pain).

In my immediate family, 2 are inactive and 2 are active (me and my bro) who are adults. Neither of the inactive adults are really about doubt. One it's about priorities in general (money is his god). The other...it's complicated, but the initial pull would have been the reasons most find stereotyped for inactive members (ie. Sin...doubt crept in well after he was inactive, but he's also not completely opposed to coming back). The active brother comes from non-lds parents and a LDS step-mom. My parents were not FHE, family prayer/scripture study people.   

So for me and my peoples, saying it's an era of doubt would be a stretch. Though doubt are among the reasons for leaving/inactivity, it certainly isn't the only one or the most prominent. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, sjdawg said:

In the absence of any firm statistics from either side there is really no way to judge that.  If you are basing it on your trust of Elder Cook as a person that is fine.  I agree he should be in a position to know however he didn't share anything concrete to back up his claim nor do I think it was necessary given the purpose/audience of his talk

Take what you might from these numbers but the average ward has grown from an average membership of 386 in 1980 to an average size of 520 in 2014.  Now there may be many reasons for this increase in members per ward numbers but one of them is certainly fewer active members per ward thus requiring larger ward numbers. 

[canard78]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The challenges are no doubt real, and the Church is taking useful steps to meet them.

But the same information-age availability that you say is "creating challenges in faith/testimony among members" might be contributing to an overblown perception of a problem.

It had almost become the conventional wisdom not too long ago that people were apostatizing from the Church "in droves" until Elder Quentin L. Cook gave us the reality check a couple of  conferences ago, pointing out that, by standard indicators of faithfulness, the Church has never been stronger and that the requests for name removals, never a very high percentage in the first place, have actually decreased over time, even as the Church has doubled in size.

(And I know we went the rounds here with some people insisting Elder Cook can't be taken seriously without the Church releasing "the numbers." But the fact is, we now have a definitive word from a high-ranking Church leader in a position to know, whereas before, we were at the mercy of ill-informed naysayers based on nothing more than their own suppositions and anecdotal evidence.)

And the Church will soon dedicate its 150th operating temple. The first temple dedication I ever covered was the St. Louis Missouri Temple back in 1997. That was temple number 50, and it hasn't been that long ago -- not even two decades.

This is exactly the big question.

The leaders are human too and, like everyone else, will have their perceptions and priorities influenced by their environment. The discourses of 1850s prophets and apostles are clearly influenced by the perception that the U.S. government was attacking/persecuting them. Whether this was a reality or not is now a debate only available to historians. The essay on "1800s violence" (I can't remember the full title) acknowledges that the perception of threat led to more defensive rhetoric from leaders.

Earlier Jonnie Cake (mis)quoted Elder Jensen's "not since Kirtland" fireside comment. Based on what has unfolded since that comment it is likely (though speculative) that Elder Jensen's perspectives were, in part, influenced by the junk data in Dehlin's exmormon survey.

At at the risk of a tangent, Dehlin's 2012 (??) research on doubting Mormons was a poor research study, with dodgy sampling and leading questionnaire. The fact that it was backed by UofU (I think??) makes no difference. The data was junk. 

Despite it being junk, Dehlin managed to present it in a very compelling way. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he believed that the results were reliable and representative. They weren't, but perhaps he's simply a better podcaster than he is a quantitative researcher and genuinely believed the results. 

It's possible that these results, of seen, might have influenced the views of other General Authorities (Elder Jensen, perhaps Elder Holland and President Uchtdorf if the rumours are true).

So what are we left with? What evidence is there that Mormonsim is in a new era of doubt? The fact that there are a selection of essays addressing history or a selection of talks on doubt might be. Or perhaps they are the response of leaders who perceive there to be an issue. Either that or the fact that we (and PFS) spend a disproportionate amount of time in an environment where doubters are more vocal means that we read more into the essays and talks than we ought to. 

Take this forum as an example. I joined in 2012. In 4 years, how many "doubters" have joined the conversation? I can count a handful. If I look at the "other board" it's the same old gang. Some Facebook groups like "a thoughtful faith" are not growing exponentially. 

Where is the actual, substantial evidence of vast doubt beyond anecdotes and perception? I'm simply not seeing it. That doesn't mean it isn't there or that doubt isn't real, but I'd like to see some evidence before I consider this to be a reality. 

Edited February 16, 2016 by canard78

[canard78]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Take what you might from these numbers but the average ward has grown from an average membership of 386 in 1980 to an average size of 520 in 2014.  Now there may be many reasons for this increase in members per ward numbers but one of them is certainly fewer active members per ward thus requiring larger ward numbers. 

"...almost certainly..." would be more accurate. You can't be certain as it's membership, not activity. 

[Johnnie Cake]

34 minutes ago, canard78 said:

This is exactly the big question.

The leaders are human too and, like everyone else, will have their perceptions and priorities influenced by their environment. The discourses of 1850s prophets and apostles are clearly influenced by the perception that the U.S. government was attacking/persecuting them. Whether this was a reality or not is now a debate only available to historians. The essay on "1800s violence" (I can't remember the full title) acknowledges that the perception of threat led to more defensive rhetoric from leaders.

Earlier Jonnie Cake (mis)quoted Elder Jensen's "not since Kirtland" fireside comment. Based on what has unfolded since that comment it is likely (though speculative) that Elder Jensen's perspectives were, in part, influenced by the junk data in Dehlin's exmormon survey.

At at the risk of a tangent, Dehlin's 2012 (??) research on doubting Mormons was a poor research study, with dodgy sampling and leading questionnaire. The fact that it was backed by UofU (I think??) makes no difference. The data was junk. 

Despite it being junk, Dehlin managed to present it in a very compelling way. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he believed that the results were reliable and representative. They weren't, but perhaps he's simply a better podcaster than he is a quantitative researcher and genuinely believed the results. 

It's possible that these results, of seen, might have influenced the views of other General Authorities (Elder Jensen, perhaps Elder Holland and President Uchtdorf if the rumours are true).

So what are we left with? What evidence is there that Mormonsim is in a new era of doubt? The fact that there are a selection of essays addressing history or a selection of talks on doubt might be. Or perhaps they are the response of leaders who perceive there to be an issue. Either that or the fact that we (and PFS) spend a disproportionate amount of time in an environment where doubters are more vocal means that we read more into the essays and talks than we ought to. 

Take this forum as an example. I joined in 2012. In 4 years, how many "doubters" have joined the conversation? I can count a handful. If I look at the "other board" it's the same old gang. Some Facebook groups like "a thoughtful faith" are not growing exponentially. 

Where is the actual, substantial evidence of vast doubt beyond anecdotes and perception? I'm simply not seeing it. That doesn't mean it isn't there or that doubt isn't real, but I'd like to see some evidence before I consider this to be a reality. 

Boy, we've entered an alternative universe...what exactly makes you make such a bold assertion of Dehlin's work?  Calling the survey junk with dodgy sampling and leading questions...while this certainly may be your opinion which you are certainly welcome to...for the benefit of the rest of us can you provide anything to support  your assertion?  I'm not pulling an CFR on you I'm just curious to know how and why you've been so dismissive of Dehlin's survey.  The church certainly wasn't as dismissive as you.

As far as misquoting Jenson...here is the quote in full...so please point out where I have misquoted him... [church leaders]..."realize that, maybe, since Kirtland we've never had a period of, I'll call it apostasy, like we're having right now, largely over these issues"

While paraphrasing I said, note the absence of quotation marks...

Quote

...I think Elder Jensen said it best. That it's the greatest period of apostasy in the church since the days of Kirtland

How are these two statements demonstrably different?  Both are conveying the notion that the church has not seen this level of apostasy since the days of Kirtland

Edited February 16, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

34 minutes ago, canard78 said:

"...almost certainly..." would be more accurate. You can't be certain as it's membership, not activity. 

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the church released actual attendance numbers...which they do keep...then there would be no doubt of how much doubt there is in church membership

[cinepro]

29 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Boy, we've entered an alternative universe...what exactly makes you make such a bold assertion of Dehlin's work?  Calling the survey junk with dodgy sampling and leading questions...while this certainly may be your opinion which you are certainly welcome to...for the benefit of the rest of us can you provide anything to support  your assertion?  I'm not pulling an CFR on you I'm just curious to know how and why you've been so dismissive of Dehlin's survey.  The church certainly wasn't as dismissive as you.

 

I'm pretty sure one of the bedrock principles of statistics is that self-selected samples are a *terrible* basis for study.  Even if the questions were good, unless Dehlin showed some very convincing compensation for the self-selection bias, the survey doesn't tell us much about anything other than the specific experiences of the kinds of people who respond to survey requests from John Dehlin.

Self-selection Bias

 

Quote

In statistics, self-selection bias arises in any situation in which individuals select themselves into a group , causing a biased sample with nonprobability sampling. It is commonly used to describe situations where the characteristics of the people which cause them to select themselves in the group create abnormal or undesirable conditions in the group. It is closely related to the Non-response bias, describing when the group of people responding has different responses than the group of people not responding.

Edited February 16, 2016 by cinepro

[Johnnie Cake]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm pretty sure one of the bedrock principles of statistics is that self-selected samples are a *terrible* basis for study.  Even if the questions were good, unless Dehlin showed some very convincing compensation for the self-selection bias, the survey doesn't tell us much about anything other than the specific experiences of the kinds of people who respond to survey requests from John Dehlin.

Self-selection Bias

 

Thanks...this makes sense

[Calm]

Canard, it was USU.

Johnnie, this is canard's field of expertise.  He has written quite a bit on the problems with the Dehlin survey in the past, a search would probably quickly pull them up.

[canard78]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Boy, we've entered an alternative universe...what exactly makes you make such a bold assertion of Dehlin's work?  Calling the survey junk with dodgy sampling and leading questions...while this certainly may be your opinion which you are certainly welcome to...for the benefit of the rest of us can you provide anything to support  your assertion?  I'm not pulling an CFR on you I'm just curious to know how and why you've been so dismissive of Dehlin's survey.  The church certainly wasn't as dismissive as you.

As far as misquoting Jenson...here is the quote in full...so please point out where I have misquoted him... [church leaders]..."realize that, maybe, since Kirtland we've never had a period of, I'll call it apostasy, like we're having right now, largely over these issues"

While paraphrasing I said, note the absence of quotation marks...

How are these two statements demonstrably different?  Both are conveying the notion that the church has not seen this level of apostasy since the days of Kirtland

Ok... On the survey from Dehlin. I know it's junk data because market research is my full time job. I'm a qualified member of the Market research society, have worked in the industry for 15 years and currently am the lead researcher on a multi-$million client where we conduct 1000s of interviews per week. I'm answerable to the client's head of consumer research for our data and fieldwork quality. In the last year we've done a significant volume of 'research on research' as part of their innovation plan. This isn't supposed to be a boast but rather a reassurance that this is a rare occasion when I really am qualified to know what I'm talking about.

When the survey results were published I reviewed the sampling technique and the questionnaire. I probably still have a copy of it somewhere. Throughout my faith transition I have always maintained the same position: the data is junk and tells us very little.

It is/was junk because:

- the sampling approach was skewed based on the way he recruited sample from forums that were already discussing the issues he assumed were problematic. He made little or no visible attempt to survey people who were less active but not engaged in Mormon social media (the so-called bloggernacle). This meant that the sample was not representative of all doubting / ex-Mormons, it was representative of Dehlin's Mormon Stories followers and a few other forums and online groups. It also used snowballing sampling (tell your friends after completing it).  This is also notoriously unreliable because it means that the already non-random and non-representative first-wave sampling approach only gets worse because those who feel strongly about the issue will recruit similar, like-minded people. Even if the survey had been good, the sample was already causing issues.

- The survey design was also poor. In order to understand motives and perspectives you usually need to observe or derive it. We humans are terrible at recalling and ranking importance. It's better done via a regression or a max-diff approach. A system 1 (subconscious/gut reaction) measure would also be useful (something like emotional priming).

Instead Dehlin's questions were very naive and were clearly influenced by his own bias and assumptions. I would guess that Dehlin's hypotheses, perhaps unknowingly, influenced his questions. Dehlin assumed that "hidden" history/polygamy/race/equality etc were the major issues. No coincidence that these were the top results in the data. The questions were leading and not well structured.

Jan Hofmeyr has written (and researched) extensively about religious conversion.  Although he now applies it to consumer research, the original foundation in religious transitions is well worth a look. We convert into and out of religion for a whole range of complex reasons.

Dozens of people on this forum know as much (or more) about polygamy, book of Abraham, "whitewashing" etc as you and I and yet are still believing. 

You and I are non-believing Mormons and, if Dehlin's research were accurate and representative, then the very things that are our biggest influences for leaving are having no effect on the faith of Calm, mfbukowski and Scott etc. That simple fact, aside from everything else I've said, should be enough to show that Dehlin massively over simplified the causes of doubt. Conversion into and out of religion is far more complex than his oversimplification and misrepresentative generalisation.  

[canard78]

46 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm pretty sure one of the bedrock principles of statistics is that self-selected samples are a *terrible* basis for study.  Even if the questions were good, unless Dehlin showed some very convincing compensation for the self-selection bias, the survey doesn't tell us much about anything other than the specific experiences of the kinds of people who respond to survey requests from John Dehlin.

Self-selection Bias

 

"Even if the questions were good..."

and that's the problem. You're right that the sampling was terrible but the questions were even worse. 

[cinepro]

15 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Instead Dehlin's questions were very naive and were clearly influenced by his own bias and assumptions. I would guess that Dehlin's hypotheses, perhaps unknowingly, influenced his questions. Dehlin assumed that "hidden" history/polygamy/race/equality etc were the major issues. No coincidence that these were the top results in the data. The questions were leading and not well structured. 

So, pretty much like the questions in an average MormonStories interview?

[cinepro]

15 minutes ago, canard78 said:

"Even if the questions were good..."

and that's the problem. You're right that the sampling was terrible but the questions were even worse. 

My favorite question was this one:

6b.  What was the main reason you lost your testimony, and why was it "mean apologists"?

 

I also liked this one:

11. If you were excommunicated, was it for not hating gay people, or did they pretend it was for something else?

Edited February 16, 2016 by cinepro

[Johnnie Cake]

16 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Ok... On the survey from Dehlin. I know it's junk data because market research is my full time job. I'm a qualified member of the Market research society, have worked in the industry for 15 years and currently am the lead researcher on a multi-$million client where we conduct 1000s of interviews per week. I'm answerable to the client's head of consumer research for our data and fieldwork quality. In the last year we've done a significant volume of 'research on research' as part of their innovation plan. This isn't supposed to be a boast but rather a reassurance that this is a rare occasion when I really am qualified to know what I'm talking about.

When the survey results were published I reviewed the sampling technique and the questionnaire. I probably still have a copy of it somewhere. Throughout my faith transition I have always maintained the same position: the data is junk and tells us very little.

It is/was junk because:

- the sampling approach was skewed based on the way he recruited sample from forums that were already discussing the issues he assumed were problematic. He made little or no visible attempt to survey people who were less active but not engaged in Mormon social media (the so-called bloggernacle). This meant that the sample was not representative of all doubting / ex-Mormons, it was representative of Dehlin's Mormon Stories followers and a few other forums and online groups. It also used snowballing sampling (tell your friends after completing it).  This is also notoriously unreliable because it means that the already non-random and non-representative first-wave sampling approach only gets worse because those who feel strongly about the issue will recruit similar, like-minded people. Even if the survey had been good, the sample was already causing issues.

- The survey design was also poor. In order to understand motives and perspectives you usually need to observe or derive it. We humans are terrible at recalling and ranking importance. It's better done via a regression or a max-diff approach. A system 1 (subconscious/gut reaction) measure would also be useful (something like emotional priming).

Instead Dehlin's questions were very naive and were clearly influenced by his own bias and assumptions. I would guess that Dehlin's hypotheses, perhaps unknowingly, influenced his questions. Dehlin assumed that "hidden" history/polygamy/race/equality etc were the major issues. No coincidence that these were the top results in the data. The questions were leading and not well structured.

Jan Hofmeyr has written (and researched) extensively about religious conversion.  Although he now applies it to consumer research, the original foundation in religious transitions is well worth a look. We convert into and out of religion for a whole range of complex reasons.

Dozens of people on this forum know as much (or more) about polygamy, book of Abraham, "whitewashing" etc as you and I and yet are still believing. 

You and I are non-believing Mormons and, if Dehlin's research were accurate and representative, then the very things that are our biggest influences for leaving are having no effect on the faith of Calm, mfbukowski and Scott etc. That simple fact, aside from everything else I've said, should be enough to show that Dehlin massively over simplified the causes of doubt. Conversion into and out of religion is far more complex than his oversimplification and misrepresentative generalisation.  

Thank you... Your use of junk threw me...but given your background and expertise I understand now why you used that word. Thanks for clarifying 📉📈📊

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I'm pretty sure one of the bedrock principles of statistics is that self-selected samples are a *terrible* basis for study.  Even if the questions were good, unless Dehlin showed some very convincing compensation for the self-selection bias, the survey doesn't tell us much about anything other than the specific experiences of the kinds of people who respond to survey requests from John Dehlin.

Self-selection Bias

 

There are statistical methods for dealing with sampling problems.  I haven't studied the Dehlin survey to determine if those methods were employed.  But...

As has been pointed out here, there also may have been some problems with the questions.  And I am not aware of any statistical methods for dealing with problematic questions.

I do, however, think that the survey results can provide some useful insights.  They may not be statistically valid insights, so we have to be careful in how they are employed, but I do see them as useful insights.  And I believe (though I expect some will disagree) that Dehlin's body of work, including but not limited to the survey, influenced the creation of the Gospel Topics essays on LDS.org.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

This is how I feel too.  No one is accusing anyone of lying (certainly not Elder Jensen or Elder Cook).  But the church does not release the stats regarding church resignations and until they do, all any of us can go on is what is happening within our own circles (wards, families, friends).  And, I see a lot of doubt and a lot of members leaving and taking entire families with them.  I have not known many who have actually resigned though, so those numbers may not be reflecting what is actually happening.

.

 

No. You don't have to go on strictly anecdotal information. You are an agent unto yourself and not compelled to base your worldview on anecdotes, when a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has declared publicly, in general conference, the widest forum available to the Church, that the Church of Jesus Christ has never been stronger and that it is "simply not true" that there is more doubt and resulting apostasy than ever before.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I will repeat what I said last year.

I was made aware not long before conference weekend by someone who is employed by the Church that (a) activity rates were higher than ever; (b) there were more full tithe payers; and (c) there were more recommend holders. It was substantiated before my very eyes. I knew Elder Cook's talk was coming.

The reason his claim was so controversial had nothing to do with lack of numbers; it was because it directly contradicts the beloved assumption held by the Church's critics that the Church is in trouble. Had he provided numbers to support his claim, these same folks would have said they were doctored or cooked. This is how sure they are that the Church is shrinking and destined for obscurity. 

I'm afraid that would be the case. As determined as they are to cling to their own narrative, they're not going to change their tune regardless of whether "the numbers" are released and how compelling "the numbers" are.