Mass Apostasy Under Way? Lawyer Claims to Have Processed 6,500 Resignations

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've answered this already as well.

The number given on the Newsroom site is more than likely a year-end 2015 figure. That is the pattern the Church follows. The statistical report given at April general conference always reflects the numbers as they stood at the end of the prior calendar year. Undoubtedly, the number of missionaries had already increased to 75,000 by the time the Worldwide Missionary Broadcast occurred in latter January, as that's the number that was announced at the beginning of the broadcast.

Three weeks later?  To be taken seriously here, you need to stop using a rounded off number (stated as being approximately how many may be watching the conference).  I'll stick with the exact numbers just published on the church's website prior to the conference.  But continue using the estimate in order to raise the percentage.  It's not accurate or precise, but that's fine and your right to do. 

I'd imagine if the estimate had been lower than the year end number published by the church, you'd be using the published number.  

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[TrespassersW]

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

As an example of what I'm talking about, consider what Cold Steel said (quoted below).  If somebody eventually comes to the conclusion that something she had dedicated a significant portion of her life to is a fraud, she might just want to walk away without having to get lectured somebody who thinks that the decision to be honest with herself will result in her and her family, being consigned to a fiery HELL...forever!!!!

Sure, you might think that isn't a threat--just much-needed information about the eternal price of aligning your church membership records with your sincere beliefs.  But to us, it can come across as threats and manipulation that we might prefer to avoid.

Ah. Thank you. If that's the sort of "threats" we're talking about, then I'm satisfied that I understand the situation.

[Analytics]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church is entitled to establish its own reasonable administrative procedures in this as in other matters.

Of course the Church can have its own administrative procedures.  Likewise, individuals have the right to resign without convincing a specific dissenting local volunteer to fill out and submit paperwork.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Analytics

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Three weeks later?

.

Why not? With such wide swings in totals we have seen since latter 2012 (starting at 58,000 and peaking at nearly 90,00 a couple of years later), it is not unreasonable to think there would be an increase of nearly a thousand by the end of a month. In my son's Sweden-bound missionary group that entered the MTC in September, there were a dozen missionaries. According to the year-end report on LDS Newsroom, there were 421 missions. Multiply that by 12, and you get over 5,000. The net could easily increase by a thousand within a month.

Quote

 To be taken seriously here, you need to stop using a rounded off number (stated as being approximately how many may be watching the conference).

As I pointed out before, if the number is just over 74,000, it is more reasonable to round it off at 74,000 than 75,000. But the approximate figure given was 75,000 which indicates it is close to that number.

Quote

 I'll stick with the exact numbers just published on the church's website prior to the conference.

How long are you going to keep doing that, when there is fresher information offered? If the numbers in that report remain unchanged throughout the year, are you going to continue to insist on "sticking" with them regardless of whether there is new information offered?

Quote

 But continue using the estimate in order to raise the percentage.  It's not accurate or precise, but that's fine and your right to do

I've explained my calculation. I believe it is reasonable and reasonably accurate. 

Quote

I'd imagine if the estimate had been lower than the year end number published by the church, you'd be using the published number.

I would be using the number announced at the meeting. It is the freshest information.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I've explained my calculation. I believe it is reasonable. 

I don't.  I'd rather not use a rounded off number or an estimate or approximate number when the actual number was just published by the church.

But continue using whatever number you wish as again, that is certainly your right to do so.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't.  I'd rather not use a rounded off number or an estimate or approximate number when the actual number was just published by the church.

 

Will you still be doing that in July or September or December? That's a long time away.

And do you really think it unreasonable to take the figure announced at the beginning of the worldwide broadcast as being the more up-to-date and accurate? That's what you just said here.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you know what I'm saying, but let me be more precise.

The number that has been given by a the executive directorl of the Missionary Department was about 58,000 at the time the age changes were announced in October 2012 general conference. At the Worldwide Missionary Broadcast in January, it was announced the broadcast was being carried to 75,000 missionaries. By my calculation, that is a net increase of just over 29 percent.

You misunderstood what I meant by subside. And you have stubbornly disregarded me whe I have endeavored to clarify.

One online dictionary gives a definition of subside as "to become smaller or less prominent, as swelling" and gives decrease as a synonym. It gives another definition as "to become less intense, active or severe."

Those definitions are closer to my intended meaning than what you are insisting. I didn't say last year that the surge had bottomed out, and that is not necessarily what subside means.

I didn't stubbornly disregard you.  I apologize if I missed something.  You are correct in thinking when you told me post-surge and end of surge, and coupled that with the surge had subsided, I took that to mean you were talking about after the surge.  If that's not what you meant, then I don't know what you meant when you used the language of "post-surge" or end of surge, or "the surge had subsided".  Last year it didn't feel like it was over and I argued that it wasn't--that, although the age change will likely result in an overall net gain, it appears we will yet see a drop in numbers. 

Anyway, if by terms like "post-surge" or the like you don't mean after the surge, then I'm happy to learn we're in agreement, at least in some measure. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Of course the Church can have its own administrative procedures.  Likewise, individuals have the right to resign without convincing a specific dissenting local volunteer to fill out and submit paperwork.

I said "reasonable" administrative procedures. The frequency with which a scenario such as you describe actually happens is pure speculation on your part.

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Yes, those are Scott's estimates and rounded numbers (from the recent conference where the number of those watching was approximated and rounded off).  He's not using the statistics released by the church over on their website.  The percentage is lower when using actual, verified numbers (from just a few weeks before the conference).

.

That's what I thought, so I was surprised to see him claim the percent increase didn't come from his calculation using estimates but from the missionary department.  I think he's saying he didn't mean what he said, in this case.  Which I'm fine with. 

[ERMD]

35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I disagree.  In essence, it is an administrative matter. If somebody doesn't recognize the ecclesiastical authority of the Church, the legal rights of freedom of religion and freedom of association dictate that he has the right to disassociate himself from a church without going through the ecclesiastical mumbo jumbo of the church. 

 

So now the Church is violating their constitutional rights?

I think you go too far.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Will you still be doing that in July or September or December? That's a long time away.

Unless an updated number has been published by the church or an update is officially announced.  

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, ALarson said:

Unless an updated number has been published by the church or officially announced.  

As it was in latter January?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's what I thought, so I was surprised to see him claim the percent increase didn't come from his calculation using estimates but from the missionary department.  I think he's saying he didn't mean what he said, in this case.  Which I'm fine with. 

I meant what I said. You misinterpreted the meaning of subside, and then you refused to accept my clarification.

[Sleeper Cell]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The church use to do this very thing.  The only way you could leave the church was through excommunication.  The church was sued over this, and hence the change.

People can sue over anything.  Did the church make the change because it felt that the plaintiff had a valid case?  Or did the church make the change because it concluded that resignation was really a form of self-excommunication;  therefore winning the case wouldn’t be worth the legal expenses that would be required?

[Analytics]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I said "reasonable" administrative procedures. The frequency with which a scenario such as you describe actually happens is pure speculation on your part.

 

I haven't speculated on the frequency.  However, there are hundreds of stories readily available by real people documenting the details of their resignation experiences--data does in fact exist.

 

38 minutes ago, ERMD said:

So now the Church is violating their constitutional rights?

I think you go too far.

No, I'm not making that accusation.  The Church can request that resignations be handled ecclesiastically through volunteer ecclesiastical leaders.  Likewise, the person resigning can request that resignations be handled in face-to-face confrontations with an apostle.  But in both cases, these are just requests.  There is nothing unconstitutional about making a request.

However, if the person resigning makes it clear that he will not go through the hoops of the ecclesiastical process and wants the request handled without further hassle, the church does in fact have the obligation to accommodate them.  The Church does in fact do this.  However, the Church does have the track record of pushing this to the limit, and the person resigning usually needs to threaten legal action or engage the services of a lawyer in order to bypass the unnecessary ecclesiastical process.

[stemelbow]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I meant what I said. You misinterpreted the meaning of subside, and then you refused to accept my clarification.

I accepted your clarification on subside, post-surge, and end of surge.  I totally thought you had meant after the surge when you used those terms. 

I admit I don't think it wise to use the rounded figures to stick to a certain percent increase.  Much better to go with actual figures reported and confirmed at this point.  But if the increase continues and we reach 100,000 in 2019 then this is all moot, no?  That'd be awesome.  I'd expect some major change for that to happen kind of like how the age change brought an increase. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I accepted your clarification on subside, post-surge, and end of surge.  I totally thought you had meant after the surge when you used those terms. 

I admit I don't think it wise to use the rounded figures to stick to a certain percent increase.  Much better to go with actual figures reported and confirmed at this point.  But if the increase continues and we reach 100,000 in 2019 then this is all moot, no?  That'd be awesome.  I'd expect some major change for that to happen kind of like how the age change brought an increase. 

Why is it "much better" to go with an old report? Are you still going to be doing that come November? What if the Missionary Department says there has been an increase of several thousand by then? Will you still insist on going by what was written down in December? That is a robotic attitude. 

And surge, according to an online dictionary, means "to rise suddenly to an excessive or abnormal value" as in "the stock market surged to a record high," so any time during the period of decline following the peak of a surge could reasonably be regarded as post-surge whether or not the decline has leveled out and begun to rise again.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why is it my "much better" to go with an old report? Are you still going to be doing that come November? What if Missionary Department says. There has been an increase of several thousand by then? Will you still insist on going by what was written down in December? That is a robotic attitude. 

I've already answered this.  It's much better to go with reported, verifiable, numbers rather than rounded numbers.  I thought that obvious.  Numbers often mean something and it's best, in my experience, to go with precise numbers rather than rounded numbers.  There are too many variables not satisfied by rounded numbers. 

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, ERMD said:

This is not a legal matter, but an ecclesiastical matter, and as a result does not involve law but priesthood keys.  That is why it is incumbent upon the bishop to confirm the individual's desires.  It is not uncomfortable nor drawn out.  I handled many resignations.  They went smoothly and in a very friendly, well-accepted manner.  All parted on good terms.

If all resignations went as smoothly as the ones that involved you as the church representative, there would not be such a big deal made about needing an attorney.

[ERMD]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

...and the person resigning usually needs to threaten legal action or engage the services of a lawyer in order to bypass the unnecessary ecclesiastical process.

Your evidence for this is?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I've already answered this.  It's much better to go with reported, verifiable, numbers rather than rounded numbers.  I thought that obvious.  Numbers often mean something and it's best, in my experience, to go with precise numbers rather than rounded numbers.  There are too many variables not satisfied by rounded numbers. 

Is it "much better" even when the information is old and has been superseded by fresh reports from a reliable source? Why is that "much better"? Because you say so? That's not good enough.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Thinking said:

If all resignations went as smoothly as the ones that involved you as the church representative, there would not be such a big deal made about needing an attorney.

I doubt that. I perceive that there is enough rampant ill will that many who intend to resign would take advantage of the free services of an opportunistic attorney regardless of how reasonable and friendly local priesthood officers were in processing a resignation request.

 

[Thinking]

Critics wouldn't care about verifying numbers if the Church didn't make such a big deal about those numbers.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is it "much better" even when the information is old and has been superseded by fresh reports from a reliable source? Why is that "much better"? Because you say so? That's not good enough.

Stating a rounded number is not a fresh report.  But if you think it is, I say have fun with that.  I'll just disagree and probably say so. 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Your evidence for this is?

Bitter exit stories on RfM, probably.