stemelbow Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 Just now, Johnnie Cake said: What? No body died or resigned in 1999? I suspect there were some overlap errors between 97-99. Somehow 98 being extra high for surrounding years says something. 99 being negative is a red glad. 97 was way low too. The average of the 3 comes out to 33,618. Seems possible considering the succeeding years.
The Nehor Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, Analytics said: 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. The bit about it profiting a man nothing to gain the whole world and lose their soul, yeah, if that happens it is the exception. Most people throw away their soul and get nothing in return. I suspect that is the situation here. You are assuming a degree of rationality in this decision. Why?
Analytics Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 hour 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. I was simply explaining what I was talking about. If you don't think anybody in the church could or would express that leaving the church would result in bad things happening to you and your family, that is your prerogative.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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 are primarily servants to the King. They serve the people consistent with His directive, His doctrine, His revelation, His mind and His will. They are not politicians beholden to an electorate. A very important distinction, that. 1
Analytics Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: The bit about it profiting a man nothing to gain the whole world and lose their soul, yeah, if that happens it is the exception. Most people throw away their soul and get nothing in return. I suspect that is the situation here. You are assuming a degree of rationality in this decision. Why? Yes, I assume that attorneys will behave rationally when practicing law, especially when they know they'll get publicity in a specific case. I'm not assuming rationality as much as I'm assuming that somebody that is smart enough and sacrificed enough to get a license to practice law will act in a self-serving manner. Is that really that naïve of me?
UtahTexan Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 This may have already been addressed here....but why did anyone need an attorney? When I left the Church in 1989, I just left. As an attorney, this looks to me like grandstanding unless things have changed and attorneys are now needed 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Analytics said: I was simply explaining what I was talking about. If you don't think anybody in the church could or would express that leaving the church would result in bad things happening to you and your family, that is your prerogative. By way of review, you were talking about alleged threatening letters being written to people who were resigning from the Church. This was TrespassersW's request: Quote 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. Edited February 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
HappyJackWagon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 8 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 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. I understand why you say that but I would say they serve the savior by serving us. I realize it's a minor difference. In a recent conference talk Elder Cook said the church has never been stronger yet offered no support for his statement. We might all have different metrics for how we define strong but it would seem to me a vast increase in resignations would belie the claimed strength. Others have been on record saying we are experiencing a great apostasy similar to what was seen in Kirtland. Again, this would suggest increasing strength. There is so much speculation about these things based, at least in part, on statements of leaders. If the picture is really rosier than many of us think it would be helpful for the church to explain. Let's see a real State of the Church talk by a prophet, seer and revelator, honestly talking about the strengths and the weaknesses. When they act as though everything is peachy it reduces their credibility in the eyes of many of the members they are called to serve. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Analytics said: 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. It used to be your church. Quote 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? What constitutes "due care"? Sounds to me like you ascertained that he is pretty much taking people at their word who sign up on his website. Quote I just don't see the gain. What are these allegedly vicious allegedly lying anti-Mormons going to do with this alleged lie? I've already explained. The popular anti-Mormon/apostate narrative these days is that "people are resigning in droves." If you already believe that's the case anyway, why not stuff the box a bit to help drive the point home publicly? Or so the thinking might go. Edited February 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
HappyJackWagon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It used to be your church. What constitutes "due care"? Sounds to me like you ascertained that he is pretty much taking people at their word who sign up on his website. I've already explained. The popular anti-Mormon/apostate narrative these days is that "people are resigning in droves." If you already believe that's the case anyway, why not stuff the box a bit to drive the point home publicly? Or so the thinking might go. The church could put the speculation to bed by releasing the numbers. It would be very easy. If things are better than ever I would expect to see a downward trend in resignations. But then again, maybe releasing that information would be very disturbing to some people.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I understand why you say that but I would say they serve the savior by serving us. I realize it's a minor difference. They don't serve the Savior by accommodating anyone's whim, wise or not, righteously motivated or not. Surely you can see that. Quote In a recent conference talk Elder Cook said the church has never been stronger yet offered no support for his statement. This is not true. He didn't give numbers, but he did mention indicators, two of which I have already alluded to: a proliferation of temples and rising numbers of missionaries. Quote We might all have different metrics for how we define strong but it would seem to me a vast increase in resignations would belie the claimed strength. Nothing has been "belied" yet. Whether there has been a "vast increase in resignations" remains to be seen. Quote Others have been on record saying we are experiencing a great apostasy similar to what was seen in Kirtland. Without citing your source, you are alluding to what Elder Jensen said. As has been pointed out to you and others, he on a later occasion clarified his comment to say the Church is not experiencing any great wave of apostasy. Edited February 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
The Nehor Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 16 minutes ago, Analytics said: Yes, I assume that attorneys will behave rationally when practicing law, especially when they know they'll get publicity in a specific case. I'm not assuming rationality as much as I'm assuming that somebody that is smart enough and sacrificed enough to get a license to practice law will act in a self-serving manner. Is that really that naïve of me? Yes. As evidencewe have another thread on this board where a lawyer is suing Supreme Court justices over the gay marriage decision. This is a bad career move.
Analytics Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 8 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: This may have already been addressed here....but why did anyone need an attorney? When I left the Church in 1989, I just left. As an attorney, this looks to me like grandstanding unless things have changed and attorneys are now needed For some people, formally resigning and having the Church recognize the resignation is important. If you want to formally resign, you are subject to the church's policies of how it will be done as interpreted, implemented and too often ignored by local leaders. The time, hassle, discomfort, and uncertainty associated with that can be circumvented if you are represented by an attorney.
Analytics Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: By way of review, you were talking about alleged threatening letters being written to people who were resigning from the Church. Yes, and I subsequently clarified what I meant by "threatening."
HappyJackWagon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: They don't serve the Savior by accommodating anyone's whim, wise or not, righteously motivated or not. Surely you can see that. This is not true. He didn't give numbers, but he did mention indicators, two of which I have already alluded to: a proliferation of temples and rising numbers of missionaries. Nothing has been "belied" yet. Whether there has been a "vast increase in resignations" remains to be seen. With citing your source, you are alluding to what Elder Jensen said. As has been pointed out to you and others, he on a later occasion clarified his comment to say the Church is not experiencing any great wave of apostasy. Did I say anything about anyone's whim? Didn't think so. If I buy a new car and my wife wears nice clothing, does that mean I'm doing well financially? Maybe, maybe not. Citing an increase in missionaries immediately following the change in age requirement doesn't give an accurate snapshot of the situation. In both cases he may be right that they are positive indicators but not necessarily. Yes- vast resignations remains to be seen. Why? Because they don't tell us. That's the whole point. They could tell us and then we would know. Elder Jensen's reversal reminds me of the Poleman change. It's hard to understand something as a clarification when it is the opposite of what was originally said.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 27 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: 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 In taking "this tack," the Church of Jesus Christ has been very consistent. Any sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage between an man and a woman is a grievous sin, a violation of the Lord's law of chastity. When judicial edict declared that homosexual "marriage" was legal, the Church responded by clarifying that entering into such "marriage" by anyone professing membership in the Church would be viewed as an act of apostasy. The Church has not changed in this respect, society has. So to frame in terms of the Church taking "this tack" is pure spin. Over a year has now gone by since Dehlin made his infamous prediction that within 40 years, the Church of Jesus Christ would capitulate to societal pressures, declare homosexual behavior non-sinful, and even solemnize it in the sacred House of the Lord. The clock is still running on that 40-year prediction. Here is the current reading as I write this: 38 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 5 hours, 5 minutes and 9 seconds.
HappyJackWagon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: In taking "this tack," the Church of Jesus Christ has been very consistent. Any sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage between an man and a woman is a grievous sin, a violation of the Lord's law of chastity. When judicial edict declared that homosexual "marriage" was legal, the Church responded by clarifying that entering into such "marriage" by anyone professing membership in the Church would be viewed as an act of apostasy. The Church has not changed in this respect, society has. So to frame in terms of the Church taking "this tack" is pure spin. Over a year has now gone by since Dehlin made his infamous prediction that within 40 years, the Church of Jesus Christ would capitulate to societal pressures, declare homosexual behavior non-sinful, and even solemnize it in the sacred House of the Lord. The clock is still running on that 40-year prediction. Here is the current reading as I write this: 38 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 5 hours, 5 minutes and 9 seconds. You mean they've been consistent over the past 25 years. If we look at the totality of Mormon history "consistency" on matters of marriage is a bit sketchy. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: The church could put the speculation to bed by releasing the numbers. It would be very easy. If things are better than ever I would expect to see a downward trend in resignations. But then again, maybe releasing that information would be very disturbing to some people. Elder Cook did say there is a downward trend. Recall that he said the Church had doubled in size but there had been no commensurate increase in requests for name removal in that time.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Did I say anything about anyone's whim? Didn't think so. You effectively said so by insisting that the Church leaders ought to give people what they want whether or not doing so is consistent with the will of God.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Elder Jensen's reversal reminds me of the Poleman change. It's hard to understand something as a clarification when it is the opposite of what was originally said. If you believe he contradicted himself (and I don't concede that he did) you must not think he has much credibility. Is that why you have now taken to quoting him without citing him by name?
HappyJackWagon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Elder Cook did say there is a downward trend. Recall that he said the Church had doubled in size but there had been no commensurate increase in requests for name removal in that time. Let's see the numbers. It's easy. When they don't back up their statements it causes many to lose confidence in them. On the other hand, they could make a statement like Cook did and then release the #'s of resignations to prove their point. Also, I wonder if 10,000 convert baptisms, 30% of which will be active after a year (a generous assumption), is commensurate with 10,000 formerly active members/leaders resigned. They could show us # of resignations by demographics, priesthood office, tithe payer status. It would be interesting to see and according to Elder Cook we would likely be impressed by the strength of the church.
Danzo Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 46 minutes ago, Analytics said: Yes, I assume that attorneys will behave rationally when practicing law, especially when they know they'll get publicity in a specific case. I'm not assuming rationality as much as I'm assuming that somebody that is smart enough and sacrificed enough to get a license to practice law will act in a self-serving manner. Is that really that naïve of me? I have worked with many attorneys and have learned one should never assume rational behavior. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Let's see the numbers. It's easy. When they don't back up their statements it causes many to lose confidence in them. On the other hand, they could make a statement like Cook did and then release the #'s of resignations to prove their point. Also, I wonder if 10,000 convert baptisms, 30% of which will be active after a year (a generous assumption), is commensurate with 10,000 formerly active members/leaders resigned. They could show us # of resignations by demographics, priesthood office, tithe payer status. It would be interesting to see and according to Elder Cook we would likely be impressed by the strength of the church. Elder Cook was not trying to win a debate with a querulous contributor on an Internet message board. There may or may not come a time when he wants to do something like this. As it was, he was delivering a general conference sermon to a friendly congregation of believers who love and trust him and believe that in all likelihood what he said is the truth.
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 17 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Remember the lawyer has done all 6500 for free. The publicity he has generated is probably worth a million bucks for his business. He could not spend enough to get that kind of return. Yes WE see it as negative, but thousands will not see it that way at all. I am sure they will go to him for legal advice just because he is against the church in this matter. He could become the Gloria Allred of church apostates. http://www.gloriaallred.com/ 1
HappyJackWagon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You effectively said so by insisting that the Church leaders ought to give people what they want whether or not doing so is consistent with the will of God. CFR- Where did I say that?
Recommended Posts