ALarson Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: One might wonder how many of those 6,500 are part of the cohort that typically would resign anyway in a given year but have availed themselves of the services offered by Naugle for whatever reason. Thus the 6,500 might not reflect as great a spike as one might think. Of course, one could speculate that the availability of Naugle's services emboldened some individuals who possess neither the fortitude nor the drive to have resigned under more conventional procedures. But that's all it would be -- speculation. True. I imagine the 6500 include members from both groups that you describe above. I do think that it may be appealing to members who have thought about resigning but didn't want to have to contact their Bishop or go that route. This makes it much easier for them to resign.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: But what is equally disappointing is that so many member of this board don't seem to care either. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Who are the "many member{s} of this board" who don't care about the loss of so many people from the Church? Of course there is here manifested the fallacy of the false dilemma or false dichotomy. One can be saddened, concerned or care about the loss of the individual Church members without being thrown into a panic about the future course of the Church or its ongoing well-being and survival. As a corollary, one can have the conviction that the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders are pursuing the proper course consistent with the mind and will of God and, at the same time, be saddened, concerned and caring about the well being of individuals who are cutting themselves off from the Church and the blessings of God. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Of course there is here manifested the fallacy of the false dilemma or false dichotomy. One can be saddened, concerned or care about the loss of the individual Church members without being thrown into a panic about the future course of the Church or its ongoing well-being and survival. As a corollary, one can have the conviction that the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders are pursuing the proper course consistent with the mind and will of God and, at the same time, be saddened, concerned and caring about the well being of individuals who are cutting themselves off from the Church and the blessings of God. If only there were a way that church leadership could be asked these questions and put the issue to rest. I imagine there are a few investigative journalists in Utah with proximity to leadership who could ask the questions. Getting answers may be another story. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 36 minutes ago, Analytics said: I'd presume nobody is abusing these professional services by "resigning" from an organization of which they are not a member or by fraudulently submitting the names of third parties. And you may be right. But I don't think either the Church or Naugle can afford to be cavalier about verifying the accuracy of the submissions prior to the names being removed. Quote If anybody does, I'd be as inclined to think they are doing so in order to harass Naugle and make what he is doing look illegitimate. I see a more likely motivation among ill-disposed individuals to inflate the numbers and try to place the Church in a bad light publicly. If making Naugle's behavior look illegitimate is the motivation, trying to inflate his numbers is a funny way to go about it. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: If only there were a way that church leadership could be asked these questions and put the issue to rest. I imagine there are a few investigative journalists in Utah with proximity to leadership who could ask the questions. Getting answers may be another story. This makes no sense to me. How is posing questions to Church leadership going to determine empirically the answer to a subjective question such as whether or not Church members care about the welfare of those who fall away? Of course the leaders are going to respond in the affirmative. I would be astounded if any responded that they didn't care. At the same time, of course they are going to affirm that the course the Church is on is consistent with the mind and will of God. And of course, antagonists are going to accuse the Church leaders of lying. I see no way that what you suggest is going to "put the issue to rest." Edited February 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Cold Steel Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 What would be the motive of the church in not wanting to cut off someone? Removing someone from the rolls goes beyond just taking their names off. When one considers that the church holds the keys of binding in Heaven and Earth, the repercussions of being cut off are negligible to the person as far as he and the world are concerned; to the church, however, they are enormous. When the Lord threatened to destroy ancient Israel in the days of Moses, Moses risked angering the Lord by pleading for them. The Lord expected Moses to be in His corner in all things, and the prophet's family as well. Thus, when Aaron's recalcitrant sons used the "strange fire" in the Tabernacle and we're struck down by the Lord, Moses told Aaron, "Look, the Lord is royally ticked over this blatant lack of respect. In this present situation, your mourning them and wearing sackcloth and the bit would be sending the wrong message to both the people and the Lord. So though it's hard on you, it's better you stand with the Lord on this." But when it came to wiping out the lot of them, Moses would go to the mat to turn aside God's anger. When a person is baptized and makes sacred covenants in holy places, those commitments are written in Heaven and Earth. Those who do not receive those opportunities in the here and now may receive them at a later time. But if you're removed from the records on Earth, you will be loosed in Heaven -- and that gave the apostate church enormous influence over others who believed that those apostolic keys were passed on to the bishops. With a simple declaration, you or your family could, in their minds, be consigned to a fiery HELL...forever. Today, forcing the church to cut you off raises profound concern among church leaders who, in my view, understand the implications and consequences of the negative use of such keys. To our critics, this is ridiculous; the church simply wants to maintain the illusion that we're all one BIG happy family. 1
Analytics Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: And you may be right. But I don't think either the Church or Naugle can afford to be cavalier about verifying the accuracy of the submissions prior to the names being removed. I see a more likely motivation among ill-disposed individuals to inflate the numbers and try to place the Church in a bad light publicly. If making Naugle's behavior look illegitimate is the motivation, trying to inflate his numbers is a funny way to go about it. I suppose hypothetical "ill-disposed individuals" might think they could win something by stuffing the resignation mailbox with thousands of bogus resignations, but it's hard to imagine what, other than the ability to claim that they did so while pretending it's more than it is. But if it turned out Naugle wasn't taking due caution in verifying the identity of his clients and was submitting a significant number of bogus resignations, perhaps the church could turn around and sue him for harassment, and perhaps even complain to the bar. That would be quite the news headline. It isn't that difficult to imagine an ill-disposed apologist trying to embarrass Naugle and former believers this way.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Analytics said: I suppose hypothetical "ill-disposed individuals" might think they could win something by stuffing the resignation mailbox with thousands of bogus resignations, but it's hard to imagine what, other than the ability to claim that they did so while pretending it's more than it is. On the contrary it's not at all hard to imagine what they think they could gain. People who are vicious enough in their hatred for the Church of Jesus Christ will go to any lengths they think they can get away with to put it in a bad light, including falsifying, if they can, the number of people who are apostatizing from it. In fact, it has become a prominent part of the anti-Mormon narrative these days to claim a priori that people are "leaving the Church in droves." Anything to fortify that narrative is justifiable in the minds of some. One of the tactics of warfare is to make the enemy think, if you can, that his cause is all but lost already. In fact, that's a primary objective of wartime propaganda. Quote But if it turned out Naugle wasn't taking due caution in verifying the identity of his clients and was submitting a significant number of bogus resignations, perhaps the church could turn around and sue him for harassment, and perhaps even complain to the bar. Could and would are two different things. Perhaps Naugle recognizes that. Quote It isn't that difficult to imagine an ill-disposed apologist trying to embarrass Naugle and former believers this way. OK. Anytime you have anything by way of substantiation beyond your own cynical supposition, I'm all ears. Edited February 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Analytics Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 18 hours ago, TrespassersW said: I would very much like to read a sample of one of these letters if someone wouldn't mind sharing (redacted of any personal information, of course). I've known a good many stake presidents, and of course, they're only human, but I'd be very curious to see some examples of the threats and manipulation being employed. 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. 50 minutes ago, Cold Steel said: What would be the motive of the church in not wanting to cut off someone? Removing someone from the rolls goes beyond just taking their names off. When one considers that the church holds the keys of binding in Heaven and Earth, the repercussions of being cut off are negligible to the person as far as he and the world are concerned; to the church, however, they are enormous. When the Lord threatened to destroy ancient Israel in the days of Moses, Moses risked angering the Lord by pleading for them. The Lord expected Moses to be in His corner in all things, and the prophet's family as well. Thus, when Aaron's recalcitrant sons used the "strange fire" in the Tabernacle and we're struck down by the Lord, Moses told Aaron, "Look, the Lord is royally ticked over this blatant lack of respect. In this present situation, your mourning them and wearing sackcloth and the bit would be sending the wrong message to both the people and the Lord. So though it's hard on you, it's better you stand with the Lord on this." But when it came to wiping out the lot of them, Moses would go to the mat to turn aside God's anger. When a person is baptized and makes sacred covenants in holy places, those commitments are written in Heaven and Earth. Those who do not receive those opportunities in the here and now may receive them at a later time. But if you're removed from the records on Earth, you will be loosed in Heaven -- and that gave the apostate church enormous influence over others who believed that those apostolic keys were passed on to the bishops. With a simple declaration, you or your family could, in their minds, be consigned to a fiery HELL...forever. Today, forcing the church to cut you off raises profound concern among church leaders who, in my view, understand the implications and consequences of the negative use of such keys. To our critics, this is ridiculous; the church simply wants to maintain the illusion that we're all one BIG happy family.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 3 minutes 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. What Cold Steel wrote in no way substantiates what you claim about Church leaders writing threatening letters to one who wants to resign his membership. So I think TrespassersW still has a valid (and thus far unfulfilled) request.
smac97 Posted February 25, 2016 Author Posted February 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What Cold Steel wrote in no way substantiates what you claim about Church leaders writing threatening letters to one who wants to resign his membership. So I think TrespassersW still has a valid (and thus far unfulfilled) request. Cold Steel's remarks ("consigned to a fiery HELL...forever") also reflects a serious misunderstanding and/or distortion-to-the-point-of-falsehood of LDS doctrine. Thanks, -Smac
Damien the Leper Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 On 2/24/2016 at 0:15 PM, smac97 said: Well, percentage or otherwise, 6,500 seems to qualify as a "mass resignation." That said, it's hard to say what the actual number is. Mr. Naugle's website has no mechanism for checking on whether people using his website are members of the Church. As a sidenote, Mr. Naugle's website generates a form for the individual to sign and send back to him. The form includes an "Authorization as Agent" document which establishes an attorney-client relationship between the individual and Mr. Naugle, and states that "any contact, whether verbal, written, electronic, or via representatives of the Church must be directed to Mark A. Naugle, Attorney at Law." There's a wee little problem with this. It's called "Unauthorized Practice of Law." The form indicates that Mr. Naugle is licensed in Utah, Washington State and California. So if he is actively licensed in those three states, he can certainly proceed to create attorney-client relationships with clients who are residents of those three states, and those three states only. I don't think Mr. Naugle can legally create attorney-client relationships with residents of any other state (or any other country, even though his website is designed to allow foreign nationals to sign up with him as well). I hope Mr. Naugle has taken these considerations into account. At first glance, however, it appears he has not. If that is the case, and if he is now publicly bragging about having represented 6,500 people, and if some of those 6,500 people are not residents of states in which he is licensed to practice law, he may be soliciting hundreds (thousands?) of not-in-Utah-or-Washington-State-or-California clients and establishing attorney-client relationships with them when he is not authorized by law to do so. Thanks, -Smac If I were a law student, I'd like to have you as a prof.
HappyJackWagon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: This makes no sense to me. How is posing questions to Church leadership going to determine empirically the answer to a subjective question such as whether or not Church members care about the welfare of those who fall away? Of course the leaders are going to respond in the affirmative. I would be astounded if any responded that they didn't care. At the same time, of course they are going to affirm that the course the Church is on is consistent with the mind and will of God. And of course, antagonists are going to accuse the Church leaders of lying. I see no way that what you suggest is going to "put the issue to rest." You're right. What you're saying here makes no sense. We must have crossed wires because I wasn't suggesting what you say I am. What I am suggesting is that the church can definitively say how many people have left the church and what the trends look like over time. They can definitively show trends in tithing receipts. They're pretty simple questions. The only reason we don't know is because they don't say. Maybe the only reason they don't say is because they haven't been asked. Maybe someone could ask them. So instead of bloggernacle insinuations about the level of apostasy, resignations, tithing etc. they could give definitive answers.
The Nehor Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: If only there were a way that church leadership could be asked these questions and put the issue to rest. I imagine there are a few investigative journalists in Utah with proximity to leadership who could ask the questions. Getting answers may be another story. Yes, because the prime way of knowing if someone's course is correct is to throw it into the ring of public opinion.
HappyJackWagon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: Yes, because the prime way of knowing if someone's course is correct is to throw it into the ring of public opinion. What are you even talking about? The question is about how many people have resigned. The church can answer that question. The end.
The Nehor Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: What are you even talking about? The question is about how many people have resigned. The church can answer that question. The end. Why not wait for the statistical report?
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: You're right. What you're saying here makes no sense. We must have crossed wires because I wasn't suggesting what you say I am. What I am suggesting is that the church can definitively say how many people have left the church and what the trends look like over time. They can definitively show trends in tithing receipts. They're pretty simple questions. The only reason we don't know is because they don't say. Maybe the only reason they don't say is because they haven't been asked. Maybe someone could ask them. So instead of bloggernacle insinuations about the level of apostasy, resignations, tithing etc. they could give definitive answers. My response has been consistent whenever this recurring topic has been brought up: Two compelling, on-the-surface indicators that the Church of Jesus Christ has never been stronger are the unprecedented proliferation of temples and the dramatic increase since October 2012 in the number of people volunteering to serve missions. In the first instance, the Church won't build a temple unless there are sufficient temple-worthy members (which includes being a full tithe-payer) in the temple district to sustain it. In the second instance, one can safely assume that people ordinarily don't volunteer to serve missions unless they are deeply committed and dedicated to the cause.* *Edited to add: Increasing numbers of missionaries indicate not just high levels of dedication among those who are personally serving missions, but also among the broader network of those who are supporting them. By paying the monthly cost to support our son on his mission, my wife and I very much consider ourselves as partners with him in his missionary work. To a lesser extent, others who contribute to supporting him while on his mission are also his partners. And those who contribute to the general missionary fund are part of the great effort; their donations make full-time missionary service possible for many who otherwise could not engage in it. Edited February 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2
HappyJackWagon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Why not wait for the statistical report? Because the statistical report is vague and doesn't answer those questions. 1
USU78 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: The question is about how many people have resigned. The church can answer that question. Where does the duty to inform HJW [or anybody else] of the number of and reasons for 3rd parties' apostasy come from? Whence is it derived? How does it trump the Church's duty to keep confidential things confidential? 1
HappyJackWagon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 minute ago, USU78 said: Where does the duty to inform HJW [or anybody else] of the number of and reasons for 3rd parties' apostasy come from? Whence is it derived? How does it trump the Church's duty to keep confidential things confidential? Why should a number about how many people have left the church and what the trend line looks like be confidential? Seriously. Is there a reason for the confidentiality of this number? Please. Often "confidential" and "sacred" are code words for "I don't want to tell." Some things shouldn't be discussed because they ARE confidential and sacred. But those words cease to have meaning when they are casually used as excuses for not answering some pretty simple questions. I have not demanded the church answer me. But there are legitimate questions. One might ask why the church won't answer them. We are members of the church and church authorities are servant leaders, not kings. I believe leadership has a responsibility to communicate clearly with the people they serve. 2
The Nehor Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Why should a number about how many people have left the church and what the trend line looks like be confidential? Seriously. Is there a reason for the confidentiality of this number? Please. Often "confidential" and "sacred" are code words for "I don't want to tell." Some things shouldn't be discussed because they ARE confidential and sacred. But those words cease to have meaning when they are casually used as excuses for not answering some pretty simple questions. I have not demanded the church answer me. But there are legitimate questions. One might ask why the church won't answer them. We are members of the church and church authorities are servant leaders, not kings. I believe leadership has a responsibility to communicate clearly with the people they serve. They primarily serve the Savior, not us. They also serve others in their calling but not in any way where we can rightfully demand anything from them.
stemelbow Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Because the statistical report is vague and doesn't answer those questions. It's kinda tough. I had to devise a DENr number to account for the difference from year to year. But that means the dead, the excommunicated and the name removals are lumped together. It'd be nice to see them separate. To be clear the largest DENr number I had found from hear to year was from the latest reported year - 122,903. The previous 5 years averaged 82,783. This number has seen it's fair share of ups and downs over the course of the past 18 years: Year DENr 1997 17,064 1998 92,246 1999 -8,456 2000 39,548 2001 36,473 2002 37,244 2003 78,674 2004 49,541 2005 51,211 2006 59,114 2007 47,523 2008 74,585 2009 83,483 2010 86,729 2011 91,350 2012 53,476 2013 98,876 2014 122,903 3
Analytics Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: On the contrary it's not at all hard to imagine what they think they could gain. People who are vicious enough in their hatred for the Church of Jesus Christ will go to any lengths they think they can get away with to put it in a bad light, including falsifying, if they can, the number of people who are apostatizing from it.... Just be clear about the conversation. An attorney subject to professional standards has decided to give free legal representation to people who want to resign from your church. If he isn't exercising due care and is participating in the commission of fraud, he has a lot to lose. People can be mean and stupid, even exMormons. But come on man. What could anybody possibly gain from this alleged lie? I just don't see the gain. What are these allegedly vicious allegedly lying anti-Mormons going to do with this alleged lie? Start a billboard campaign that says, "Could 6,500 exMormons be wrong?" Have sound trucks drive up and down the neighborhoods of Salt Lake City saying, "The cause of Mormonism is lost! 6,500 Mormons have resigned around the world! The Church is doomed! No reason to go on Sunday--nobody will be there!" This seems like a tiny amount to gain and an incredible amount to lose. It would be simpler and more effective to just tell the truth about Joseph Smith's polygamy. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 5 hours ago, smac97 said: What are your thoughts about John 6? Apparently a significant number of Latter-day Saints may be resigning from the Church because it is teaching things that they cannot or will not accept. This situation, you suggest, is a "sad indictment of where the church is today." Do you likewise indict Christ for teaching principles which His followers in Palestine could not or would not accept? How do you differentiate the two situations? Who are the "many member{s} of this board" who don't care about the loss of so many people from the Church? Thanks, -Smac We can each throw out scriptures that support our worldviews...to what value...Cherry picking scriptures won't make those who've left want to come back...it was the policy of the church to exclude the children of gay couples from baptism that was the last straw for many of these 6,500...a policy that Elder Nelson claimed was the result of revelation...its a policy some other insiders have stated was done as a protective wall against law suit...either way...I find it unfortunate that the church has taken this tack 1
Johnnie Cake Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: It's kinda tough. I had to devise a DENr number to account for the difference from year to year. But that means the dead, the excommunicated and the name removals are lumped together. It'd be nice to see them separate. To be clear the largest DENr number I had found from hear to year was from the latest reported year - 122,903. The previous 5 years averaged 82,783. This number has seen it's fair share of ups and downs over the course of the past 18 years: Year DENr 1997 17,064 1998 92,246 1999 -8,456 2000 39,548 2001 36,473 2002 37,244 2003 78,674 2004 49,541 2005 51,211 2006 59,114 2007 47,523 2008 74,585 2009 83,483 2010 86,729 2011 91,350 2012 53,476 2013 98,876 2014 122,903 What? No body died or resigned in 1999?
Recommended Posts