Mass Exodus from Church?

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, Thinking said:

These are the same young men who (while they are trying to hide their phones from me) ask "When am I ever gonna use this?"

If all they are going to do is play video games, what I am teaching them is useless.

Yep. 

[Bernard Gui]

51 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Without real numbers and transparency in reporting, we are left to wonder.  The leadership in any organization that is not transparent has a reason for being so.  The question we should be asking is why is the leadership of the church so reluctant to be transparent.  Transparent in their financials, transparent in membership numbers, transparent in their five year plan.  Total honesty calls for for this.  We know much more about public companies than we do about the church.  IMO this is backwards.  

What would change for you if you were given all this secret information?

[sunstoned]

2 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

In what field? If you don't mind me asking?

The topic of reversals in policy and doctrine is well documented. Most of this has been hashed and rehashed on this and other discussion boards. We can start with the concept of the everlasting covenant.  What JS and By and others practiced has been disavowed by modern leaders.  Most notability, GBH when he said"

Quote

I condemn it [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. (9/9/98 Larry Ling Live).

The past racist policies have been reversed and long standing teachings of less valency in the pre-existence have been disavowed. (BY, Journal of Discourses 7:282)

And on the lighter side, even the long standing ban on drinking caffeine soda drinks was reversed once presidential candidate Mitt Romney was seen with a coke in is hand.(http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/54797595-78/church-drinks-caffeine-lds.html.csp)

 

 

[rodheadlee]

1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

The topic of reversals in policy and doctrine is well documented. Most of this has been hashed and rehashed on this and other discussion boards. We can start with the concept of the everlasting covenant.  What JS and By and others practiced has been disavowed by modern leaders.  Most notability, GBH when he said"

The past racist policies have been reversed and long standing teachings of less valency in the pre-existence have been disavowed. (BY, Journal of Discourses 7:282)

And on the lighter side, even the long standing ban on drinking caffeine soda drinks was reversed once presidential candidate Mitt Romney was seen with a coke in is hand.(http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/54797595-78/church-drinks-caffeine-lds.html.csp)

 

 

Say what?

[Bernard Gui]

42 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

How about having Elder Cook produce numbers rather than just platitudes.  Having some GA stand up in conference and state something with a quiver in his voice is not enough.  History has shown that there has been many heart felt proclamations made by church leadership that have been reversed at later times because of social or political pressures.   

So, do you think Elder Cook is prevaricating? What social or political pressure would you like to see put on him?

[sunstoned]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What would change for you if you were given all this secret information?

I would have more respect for those in office.  I am of the opinion that you present everything honestly and let the chips fall where they may.  Secrets are for spies, political hacks, and MLM con men.  Not for apostles of god.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The topic of reversals in policy and doctrine is well documented. Most of this has been hashed and rehashed on this and other discussion boards. We can start with the concept of the everlasting covenant.  What JS and By and others practiced has been disavowed by modern leaders.  Most notability, GBH when he said"

The past racist policies have been reversed and long standing teachings of less valency in the pre-existence have been disavowed. (BY, Journal of Discourses 7:282)

And on the lighter side, even the long standing ban on drinking caffeine soda drinks was reversed once presidential candidate Mitt Romney was seen with a coke in is hand.(http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/54797595-78/church-drinks-caffeine-lds.html.csp)

 

 

You are engaging in the favorite anti-Mormon pastime of out-of-context quotation and distortion. In the context of that Larry King interview, President Hinckley was speaking of polygamy as it is practiced illegally today by apostate splinter groups from Mormonism. The official position of the Church is and always has been that plurality of wives is forbidden unless authorized/commanded by God. The practice of it in the pre-Manifesto days has never been disavowed by President Hinckley or anyone else in authority. 

There never was a ban in the Church on consuming soda with caffeine. You spoke falsely. Its use has at times been discouraged. That was and remains good advice in my opinion. But it is only advice and was never anything else. 

Of course, you with your vaunted PhD must have understood all this already. 

Speaking of which, you never did answer the question of what field your doctorate is in. As an advocate of transparency, surely you don't object to disclosing it. 

And while you're at it, could you tell us the identity of your employer and your approximate annual salary? And maybe link us to your online curriculum vitae. All in accordance with presenting everything and letting the chips fall where they may, you know. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course, you with your vaunted PhD must have understood all this already. 

Where did Sunstoned "vaunt" his PhD?

He simply stated that he had a PhD and only stated that once.

Vaunt definition: "To boast about or praise (something), especially excessively."

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by JulieM

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

 And BTW I do have a PhD, so don't talk down to me.

I wasn't talking down to you, just explaining why I care about statements such as 'History has shown'. It would appear that history may not be the only area where you interpret data according your expectations.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, your evidence that he is a prevaricator is that you can't imagine General Authorities acting any other way?

Come on Bernard, you're better than that.

Never once have I said he is a prevaricator. In fact I've defended against the assumption that if he's not absolutely correct he must be lying. But it is demonstrably true that church leaders have not been completely forthcoming with all information as they've structured the official narrative. Are you arguing against that truth? If so, we may have to return to step 1 to review the evidence.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This thread, Scott Lloyd and all things Mormon bore me.  I've posted a total of 2-3 times in the last 6 weeks...seems like Admin's decision to ban me have been a rather helpful part in my healthy recovery from Mormonism. Every day that passes reminds me of just how insignificant the church is in both my life and the grand scheme of things that actually matter.  In hind sight,  I thank you and good bye

Best to you Johnnie and to your family.  I have a suspicion we'll run into each other again some time.  'Til then, my good man.  ...

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Come on Bernard, you're better than that.

Never once have I said he is a prevaricator. In fact I've defended against the assumption that if he's not absolutely correct he must be lying. But it is demonstrably true that church leaders have not been completely forthcoming with all information as they've structured the official narrative. Are you arguing against that truth? If so, we may have to return to step 1 to review the evidence.

No, Jack. I start from the assumption that the General Authorities are honest men. I have no reason to suspect Elder Cook is not. Because he or others don't meet your demands does not make them otherwise.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, Jack. I start from the assumption that the General Authorities are honest men. I have no reason to suspect Elder Cook is not. Because he or others don't meet your demands does not make them otherwise.

no one is saying Elder Cook is not honest, though.  You could be an honest person and still mislead.  It happens.  But, in the end, every single person has lied.  So we have to consider the grayness in all of this.

As it is, as has been explained, as per his claim of a drastic increase in missionaries--not really substantiated.  We can't verify the other claims.  So we're left wondering what he meant exactly.  It's likely by stronger he means bigger, more people, a further reach.  That's not necessarily stronger to some. 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

no one is saying Elder Cook is not honest, though.  You could be an honest person and still mislead.  It happens.  But, in the end, every single person has lied.  So we have to consider the grayness in all of this.

As it is, as has been explained, as per his claim of a drastic increase in missionaries--not really substantiated.  We can't verify the other claims.  So we're left wondering what he meant exactly.  It's likely by stronger he means bigger, more people, a further reach.  That's not necessarily stronger to some. 

I don't think it should be controversial that general authorities will put the most positive spin on things when talking about the church. That's kind of a part of their function, right?

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What would change for you if you were given all this secret information?

It's impossible to know what a reaction would be to new information. It would largely depend on the new information. Perhaps I would see that Elder Cook is exactly right in his assessment or maybe I'd see that his interpretation of the facts available to him is flawed. I may find that he doesn't have access to all the data. I may find that he is expert at data analysis. It's impossible to say.

But I would definitely have more respect for how leaders communicate with members. I would definitely have greater respect if leaders were transparent with the information instead of constantly playing the "trust me" card. I've mentioned this before, but in a world where information and technology are advancing so rapidly, organizations  are expected to be communicate more effectively and be radically transparent.  It's the reality of the world but the church is dragging it's heels trying to avoid this reality. The slower the church is to accepting this change and adjusting it's authoritarian philosophy about the role of leaders to members, the more damage the church will self-inflict.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, Jack. I start from the assumption that the General Authorities are honest men. I have no reason to suspect Elder Cook is not. Because he or others don't meet your demands does not make them otherwise.

I feel like you are either unaware of previous pages on this thread or you're just ignoring them. I'm not sure which. But you seem to be assuming that if GA's are wrong, they must also be liars. I've tried very hard to explain how that isn't necessarily the case. Yet there is no transparency. No checks or balances of leaders by the members. As members we are given almost zero information about the functioning of the church. Again, it doesn't mean they are lying, it means they have a communication strategy that belongs in the last century.

Elder Cook can be both honest and wrong. Yet we continue to be left with the problem of verifiability. Leaders could verify their claims by providing information. They choose not to. That is the only reason we don't know and are left to assume that because they are "honest" they must also be "correct".

 

[Bernard Gui]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Elder Cook can be both honest and wrong. Yet we continue to be left with the problem of verifiability. Leaders could verify their claims by providing information. They choose not to. That is the only reason we don't know and are left to assume that because they are "honest" they must also be "correct."

Would equivocators be a better choice to define your view of Church leaders? Growth or shrinkage of Church membership are not causes of concern for me.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, Jack. I start from the assumption that the General Authorities are honest men. I have no reason to suspect Elder Cook is not. Because he or others don't meet your demands does not make them otherwise.

In fact, that's pretty much the model we follow in the Church of Jesus Christ. It has served us well for 186 years.

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would equivocators be a better choice to define your view of Church leaders? Growth or shrinkage of Church membership are not causes of concern for me.

I wouldn't call them that (mostly because it sounds funny) but there is some truth to it. It has certainly happened in the past. It's harder to know if it's happening currently since time hasn't had time to test the results of their claims. I would never claim an absolute that ALL are equivocators. I have no way of knowing and that approach could vary by individual based on the leader's belief about the value of vagueness or the desire to maintain wiggle room should things change. Things always change so maintaining wiggle room is smart. There is a lot of wisdom in equivocation. Personally, I don't consider "prevaricate" to be a very accurate synonym because I view prevarication to be more intentionally deceitful. I may be wrong about the precise definitions but that's why I was responding to your "prevaricate" statements the way I did.

Quote

e·quiv·o·cate

VERB

1. use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself:

 

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would equivocators be a better choice to define your view of Church leaders? Growth or shrinkage of Church membership are not causes of concern for me.

What Elder Cook did was to set the record straight by contradicting what critics and antagonists had been asserting without evidence or substance for a while: that the Church was dying/hemorrhaging/suffering a "mass exodus" of members.

His assurance is quite enough for me. We'll leave the naysayers to quibble over numbers or lack thereof to assuage their idle curiosity.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What Elder Cook did was to set the record straight by contradicting what critics and antagonists had been asserting without evidence or substance for a while: that the Church was dying/hemorrhaging/suffering a "mass exodus" of members.

His assurance is quite enough for me. We'll leave the naysayers to quibble over numbers or lack thereof to assuage their idle curiosity.

Yes. He contradicted unsubstantiated claims with unsubstantiated claims of his own.

My only beef here is that presumably he could substantiate his claims but chooses not to.

ETA- Scott, as a newspaper man, wouldn't you like to see more transparency? Isn't that a pillar of news media?

Edited November 30, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes. He contradicted unsubstantiated claims with unsubstantiated claims of his own.

My only beef here is that presumably he could substantiate his claims but chooses not to.

The difference is that he is in a position to know and to speak authoritatively; the adversaries and critics were not. So there is no functional equivalency. I'm incredulous that you can't see that.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What Elder Cook did was to set the record straight by contradicting what critics and antagonists had been asserting without evidence or substance for a while: that the Church was dying/hemorrhaging/suffering a "mass exodus" of members.

His assurance is quite enough for me. We'll leave the naysayers to quibble over numbers or lack thereof to assuage their idle curiosity.

 

 

If there wasn't something going on, why all the talk about doubt and faith crisis in general conference as of late? It seems to be a hot topic in conference talks and Ensign articles. 

[Bernard Gui]

At one point in his ministry almost all those who followed Jesus walked away from him. His response to his chosen apostles was a simple question...."Will you also leave?" When he was crucified only a handful of the thousands he fed cared enough to support him. His response..."Please take care of my mother." Within a few decades, the Church he established fell into apostasy. His response...."It will come back."

Throughout the Book of Mormon the numbers of the faithful waxed and waned dramatically. A pattern emerged in the narrative....the times of great prosperity were also the times of great apostasy. The Lord's response....send another prophet to try it again.

We have experienced overall continual growth in the Church since its restoration, but there is no reason to insist it will continue to do so in some manner we think or wish it should. We are in an era of great prosperity. Our response...do what we can to spread the word.

The truth is found in the parable of the sower who simply continues to sow the seeds and the seeds either grow or they don't as they so choose. In the end he will gather in the harvest. After all, it is his field.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What Elder Cook did was to set the record straight by contradicting what critics and antagonists had been asserting without evidence or substance for a while: that the Church was dying/hemorrhaging/suffering a "mass exodus" of members.

His assurance is quite enough for me. We'll leave the naysayers to quibble over numbers or lack thereof to assuage their idle curiosity.

 

 

 

Quote

Some have asserted that more members are leaving the Church today and that there is more doubt and unbelief than in the past. This is simply not true. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never been stronger. The number of members removing their names from the records of the Church has always been very small and is significantly less in recent years than in the past.²⁴ The increase in demonstrably measurable areas, such as endowed members with a current temple recommend, adult full-tithe payers, and those serving missions, has been dramatic. Let me say again, the Church has never been stronger. But, “remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God.”²⁵ We reach out to everyone.

I'm curious how we measure how many are leaving the Church?  What he means by past?  And how he knows if there is not more doubt and unbelief (for instance he has no clue that my wife and I have experienced different levels of doubt and unbelief over the years)?  I'm also curious who is asserting what he claims.  How many members have had their names removed and how many in what past have removed their names? 

I love the details because often in viewing them different conclusions are reached.  While his conclusion is "the Church has never bene stronger", mine might be something else.  Whatever the case, it'd be nice to know. 

Of course, let's not forget the confirmation some feel has been made already.  Elder Jensen in 2012 said,
 

Quote

The fifteen men really do know, and they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I'll call it apostasy, like we're having right now; largely over these issues.

Which seems to contradict Elder Cook's claim of not having as many names being removed as in the past, unless of course Elder Cook was referring to the very short past--meaning in 2011-12 we did have far more names being removed then in 2015, or something.  But we dont' know.  Kind of tough to piece this all together.  I'm not sure blaming people for trying is the right approach though. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by stemelbow