Mass Exodus from Church?

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

 

Thank you for clarifying. I try to choose my words carefully. Prevarication is not synonymous with equivocation. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Yes, he is likely in a position to know which places more responsibility on him to share information. But even that is an assumption because we don't know how the church operates at the highest echelons. Maybe you know what information he has access to, but I don't. As others have stated, when you compare Elder Cook's statement to Elder Jensen's, there seems to be a contradiction. It would be nice if they addressed that contradiction between 2 GA's who likely have access to information informing their statements.

So I am left to decide which of the two seem more reliable. I can only base this on my experience and what I see among friends, family, fellow ward/stake members. I see a massive increase in doubt and dissatisfaction with the church so Elder Jensen's statement rings more true. But I'd be willing to change my opinion if the data were released and it proved Elder Cook's position. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. The only reason we don't know is because they don't tell us.

Also, I'm not sure you saw this.

Quote

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

 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for clarifying. I try to choose my words carefully. Prevarication is not synonymous with equivocation. 

Actually, according to three dictionary definitions I looked up the two were listed as synonyms in each case. I was surprised, but I still disagree. After all, what does Websters know?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, Gray said:

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. 

What you see as a "hot topic" I see as a loving and caring ministry for those who need to be rescued. That we care about these folks and reach out to them does not mean the Church is on the verge of collapse.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What you see as a "hot topic" I see as a loving and caring ministry for those who need to be rescued. That we care about these folks and reach out to them does not mean the Church is on the verge of collapse.

I don't think the church is on the verge of collapse. But that does suggest to me that faith crisis and leaving the church is becoming more prevalent. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

 

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

 

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. 

This piece by Stephen W. Smoot on the FairMormon blog gives some much needed perspective to this reported statement from Elder Jensen which, unfortunately, has become a favorite anti-Mormon meme.

Let me ask you a question. Next time you cite this quotation from Elder Jensen, will you also include this follow-up clarification from Elder Jensen that was published later in the Washington Post?

Quote

Jensen insists critics overstate the LDS exodus over the church’s history. “To say we are experiencing some Titanic-like wave of apostasy is inaccurate,” he said.

Smoot goes on  to provide this quote from the Washington Post:

Quote

Church officials say the growth of [certain Internet sites] does not point to a corresponding growth in the number of Mormons leaving the church, whose membership has burgeoned to more than 6 million in America. “Those leaving the church are a fraction of 1 percent each year and it is a trend that is decreasing rather than increasing,” said Michael Purdy, a church spokesman.

So, in the future, in your haste to cite this old quote from Elder Jensen, will you include that essential clarification? Will you do it in the interest of accuracy and, um, transparency? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

And, all things considered, including context, do you really think Elder Jensen and Elder Cook contradict each other? I really don't see it. Elder Cook's statement came much later, and in a more authoritative setting (general conference vs. an off-the-cuff Q and A after a fireside). Has Elder Jensen come forward since then to dispute what Elder Cook said?

As Smoot pointed out:
 

Quote

 

The first myth that must be dispelled is the claim that Elder Jensen said members of the Church are leaving “in droves”. In fact, Elder Jensen said no such thing. Rather, it was at a fireside in November of 2011 at Utah State University that Elder Jensen, in responding to someone else in the audience saying members of the Church were leaving “in droves”, acknowledged that the role of the Internet in bringing up controversial aspects of Mormon history and doctrine has become significant, and has led to what he called a period of apostasy in the Church.

... Elder Jensen was clearly concerned with the many individuals leaving the Church after encountering negative information about the Church, but nowhere does he say members are leaving “in droves”. In fact, as reported by Peggy Fletcher Stack with the Washington Post, Elder Jensen himself was careful to later clarify his off-the-cuff remarks at the fireside.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think the church is on the verge of collapse. But that does suggest to me that faith crisis and leaving the church is becoming more prevalent. 

Hence the effort to rescue those who are thus challenged, even as we keep things in proper perspective: People are not leaving the Church "in droves." According to the OP of this thread, those who do leave are not even registering much of an uptick.

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Also, I'm not sure you saw this.

 

I saw it.

The Church is not a government agency and is not obliged to open all of its records to public gaze. As a Latter-day Saint, I'm not bothered when they don't. And as a news journalist, I've learned not to waste time chasing every conspiracy theory or cynical conjecture that comes down the pike.

And incidentally, I'll give you the same challenge I just gave stemelbow: In the future, if and when you dredge up that quote from Elder Jensen, in the interest of accuracy and (ahem) transparency, will you include the followup clarification where he said critics had overblown what he had said on that occasion? That there has been no "titanic wave" of apostasy? Will you acknowledge that he, himself, never said people are leaving in droves and, in fact, figures show the rate of departure is about a tenth of a percent per year?

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hence the effort to rescue those who are thus challenged, even as we keep things in proper perspective: People are not leaving the Church "in droves." According to the OP of this thread, those who do leave are not even registering much of an uptick.

 

"In droves" isn't a number, and so far they've only commented on resignations, which I don't think is typically a first step people take when they leave the church. 

Bottom line - if there weren't a significant uptick in the number of people leaving the church (even informally) over faith crisis issues, I don't think we'd see the increase in attempts to keep people "in the boat". Where there is smoke, there is fire. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

"In droves" isn't a number, and so far they've only commented on resignations, which I don't think is typically a first step people take when they leave the church. 

Bottom line - if there weren't a significant uptick in the number of people leaving the church (even informally) over faith crisis issues, I don't think we'd see the increase in attempts to keep people "in the boat". Where there is smoke, there is fire. 

As I tried to make clear to you in my prior post, the concern I see is for saving souls, not a panic-driven rush to safeguard the institution.

And if there was a "fire," I don't think Elder Cook would have made a point of saying over the pulpit that the Church has never been stronger. Or perhaps you will read something into that as well. So if he says something, there is suspicion, if he remains silent, there is suspicion. Yet another case where, in the minds of the antagonists and critics, the Church is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

Let me pose this question. If, as member of the Church's hierarchy, you wanted to reach out in a general setting to those, however few they might be, who are having their faith challenged when encountering information that is new to them, but at the same time, you wanted to avoid conveying or feeding the false impression that the Church is suffering a critical loss of its membership, when in fact, the Church is as strong as it has ever been, what would you do?

I think what I might do is to prepare and present caring, loving and pastoral sermons directed at those who might be experiencing faith crises, while, at the same time, giving the authoritative assurance from the same pulpit that the Church has never been stronger. Which is precisely what has happened.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I tried to make clear to you in my prior post, the concern I see is for saving souls, not a panic-driven rush to safeguard the institution.

And if there was a "fire," I don't think Elder Cook would have made a point of saying over the pulpit that the Church has never been stronger. Or perhaps you will read something into that as well. So if he says something, there is suspicion, if he remains silent, there is suspicion. Yet another case where, in the minds of the antagonists and critics, the Church is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

Let me pose this question. If, as member of the Church's hierarchy, you wanted to reach out in a general setting to those, however few they might be, who are having their faith challenged when encountering information that is new to them, but at the same time, you wanted to avoid conveying or feeding the false impression that the Church is suffering a critical loss of its membership, when in fact, the Church is as strong as it has ever been, what would you do?

I think what I might do is to prepare and present caring, loving and pastoral sermons directed at those who might be experiencing faith crises, while, at the same time, giving the authoritative assurance from the same pulpit that the Church has never been stronger. Which is precisely what has happened.

It would seem an obvious response would be a talk or two, an ensign article etc would be appropriate to address a minor need.

But like Gray, I am seeing a lot more than just a talk or two. It feels more like 60% of the talks are focused in one way or another about doubt. It seems to be a major uptick.

Quote

The Church is not a government agency and is not obliged to open all of its records to public gaze. As a Latter-day Saint, I'm not bothered when they don't. And as a news journalist, I've learned not to waste time chasing every conspiracy theory or cynical conjecture that comes down the pike.

And incidentally, I'll give you the same challenge I just gave stemelbow: In the future, if and when you dredge up that quote from Elder Jensen, in the interest of accuracy and (ahem) transparency, will you include the followup clarification where he said critics had overblown what he had said on that occasion? That there has been no "titanic wave" of apostasy? Will you acknowledge that he, himself, never said people are leaving in droves and, in fact, figures show the rate of departure is about a tenth of a percent per year?

I never suggested they were a government agency compelled to be transparent. I'm arguing for the strong organizational model of increased communication and radical transparency. Just because they aren't compelled to share information doesn't mean they shouldn't for the good of the organization. IMO it is in their best interest and I expect that some day they will recognize that.

I don't think I ever quoted him as saying "people are leaving in droves". But he did say it is a time of great apostasy like unto the Kirtland era. He may have amended his statement later, but he did say it. We can guess why he "clarified" his statement but a clarification was needed because he said it and it wasn't flattering. "Apostasy" and "leaving in droves" are not synonymous. There could be a great apostasy without people officially leaving the church.

Quote

Maybe since Kirtland, we’ve never had a period of – I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having now,”

This is the quote I was specifically referencing and I don't see that the article you linked to walks back this statement at all.

He refutes "leaving in droves" and a "titanic" type exodus, but I don't see that he pulled back on his comparison of apostasy today to Kirtland. Am I missing that somewhere?

Edited November 30, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So if he says something, there is suspicion, if he remains silent, there is suspicion. Yet another case where, in the minds of the antagonists and critics, the Church is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

There is suspicion because he makes data driven claims without providing the data that would support the claims.

In any other venue you would be crying CFR, but because he's a GA he gets to make claims under a different set of rules.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Thinking

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I tried to make clear to you in my prior post, the concern I see is for saving souls, not a panic-driven rush to safeguard the institution.

I don't disagree. At the same time, the topic of faith crisis and doubt seems to dominate the discourse as it never has before, in my lifetime at least. 

 

Quote

And if there was a "fire," I don't think Elder Cook would have made a point of saying over the pulpit that the Church has never been stronger. Or perhaps you will read something into that as well. So if he says something, there is suspicion, if he remains silent, there is suspicion. Yet another case where, in the minds of the antagonists and critics, the Church is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

I don't disagree if he means there have never been more members of the church. But I don't think he said anything that would dispel the notion that leave-taking over faith crisis has increased. He seemed to choose his words carefully. 

Quote

Let me pose this question. If, as member of the Church's hierarchy, you wanted to reach out in a general setting to those, however few they might be, who are having their faith challenged when encountering information that is new to them, but at the same time, you wanted to avoid conveying or feeding the false impression that the Church is suffering a critical loss of its membership, when in fact, the Church is as strong as it has ever been, what would you do?

I think what I might do is to prepare and present caring, loving and pastoral sermons directed at those who might be experiencing faith crises, while, at the same time, giving the authoritative assurance from the same pulpit that the Church has never been stronger. Which is precisely what has happened.

 

 

All that may be true, but I suspect it's also true that the statement about "apostasy" from Elder Jenkins was also true. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Gray

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This piece by Stephen W. Smoot on the FairMormon blog gives some much needed perspective to this reported statement from Elder Jensen which, unfortunately, has become a favorite anti-Mormon meme.

I'm no anti-Mormon. 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Let me ask you a question. Next time you cite this quotation from Elder Jensen, will you also include this follow-up clarification from Elder Jensen that was published later in the Washington Post?

 

Quote

To say we are experiencing some Titanic-like wave of apostasy is inaccurate

I don't see the point.  I didn't claim anything near a Titanic-like wave of apostasy.  I merely quoted him.  He didn't indicate a Titanic-like wave of apostasy from what I quoted either.  This note doesn't change what was said at all.

 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Smoot goes on  to provide this quote from the Washington Post:

So, in the future, in your haste to cite this old quote from Elder Jensen, will you include that essential clarification? Will you do it in the interest of accuracy and, um, transparency? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

I'm not an anti-Mormon.  I have no interest but to discuss things pertaining to Mormonism here.  I'll offer that which I think is relevant.  No one is saying anything about a Titanic-like wave.  I would make the promise, no problem, because the addition does nothing to the discussion, but I can't promise my future actions.  In truth I'll likely forget this inessentially quote if ever I refer to Elder Jensen's claim of apostasy, like we haven't seen in our history, save for the very first few years.   I don't read Elder Jensen to say that the apostasy in the Kirtland era is Titanic-like either, just to be clear. 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

And, all things considered, including context, do you really think Elder Jensen and Elder Cook contradict each other? I really don't see it. Elder Cook's statement came much later, and in a more authoritative setting (general conference vs. an off-the-cuff Q and A after a fireside). Has Elder Jensen come forward since then to dispute what Elder Cook said?

I didn't say they directly contradict.  Let's consider:

Elder Jensen says, "we never have had a period of, I'll call it apostasy, like we're having right now" (again to clarify for you this has nothing to do with a "Titanic-like wave" keep in mind)

Elder Cook, "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." and "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". 

It sounds like Elder Jensen, speaking 3 years earlier than Elder Cook, could be privy to information about apostasy that Elder Cook is not--as in Elder Jensen knows that doubt and unbelief is more prevalent among members than Elder Cook does; or Elder Cook's measure of doubt and unbelief is measured only in the realm of those who have their names removed (of course there are other options but these seem the most likely to me).  If that latter, then that's a problem because I'd say in every ward I've attended there are far more members on the rolls who don't show up to Church on Sunday than do, which is a sign that there is pretty high levels of inactivity, if the former, then ok.  Info didn't make it to Elder Cook.  That may be.  But it'd be a sad option.  It may mean Elder Jensen thought the 15 knew about the problems, but they did not. 

 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As Smoot pointed out:
 

 

Smoot's point is moot here.  No one said anything about "droves" in reference to this. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I don't disagree. At the same time, the topic of faith crisis and doubt seems to dominate the discourse as it never has before, in my lifetime at least.

All that may be true, but I suspect it's also true that the statement about "apostasy" from Elder Jenkins was also true. 

I presume you mean Elder Jensen, not Elder "Jenkins." (Overzealous auto-correct function?)

To Gray, stemelbow, HJW and others who are fond of dredging up the Elder Jensen quote, I would pose this question: How many waves of apostasy have there been in the Church since Kirtland? Can you specifically cite even one?

If the answer is no, then an expression like "greatest period of apostasy since Kirtland" doesn't have much meaning.

Think about it. He didn't say the period of apostasy today is worse than Kirtland or even that it is as bad as it was in Kirtland. He only said it may be the worst since then. In theory, there could come a wave of apostasy that, comparatively speaking, was rather mild, yet it would be the worst since Kirtland.

No wonder Elder Jensen was careful on a subsequent occasion to clarify and modify his remark (see my posts above). Unwittingly, perhaps, he had engaged in some rather vacuous and misleading rhetoric. Others have been guilty of subsequently picking up and reading into his words what just isn't there.

Quote

I don't disagree if he means there have never been more members of the church. But I don't think he said anything that would dispel the notion that leave-taking over faith crisis has increased. He seemed to choose his words carefully. 

Well since then, we have seen numbers that indicate the rate of apostasy has remained flat over a long time -- even up to now, after the brouhaha over the November policy -- and has never been more than a fraction of a percent per year (see the OP).

The coyness you see in Elder Cook's remarks might be in the eye of the beholder.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I presume you mean Elder Jensen, nit Elder "Jenkins." (Overzealous auto-correct function?)

Yes, thank you! "Nit" Elder "Jenkins". My fingers got away from my brain

 

Quote

To Gray, stemelbow, HJW and others who are fond of dredging up the Elder Jensen quote, I would pose this question: How many waves of apostasy have there been in the Church since Kirtland? Can you specifically cite even one?

If the answer is no, then an expression like "greatest period of apostasy since Kirtland" doesn't have much meaning.

Think about it. He didn't say the period of apostasy today is as bad as it was in Kirtland. He only it may be the worst since then. In theory, there could come a wave of apostasy that, comparatively speaking, was rather mild, yet it would be the worst since Kirtland.

No wonder Elder Jensen was careful on a subsequent occasion to clarify and modify his remark (see my posts above). Unwittingly, perhaps, he engaged in some rather vacuous and misleading rhetoric. Others have been guilty of subsequently picking up and reading into his words what just isn't there.

When someone says something like "this is the worst x since y" generally they are not referring to something they consider to be a minor problem. That kind of language is used to talk about things that people understand to be major problems. 

Having said that, you're right of course. Elder Jensen's statement doesn't give us an idea about numbers. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Gray

[Thinking]

Deleted.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Thinking
Typo was fixed.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think I ever quoted him as saying "people are leaving in droves". But he did say it is a time of great apostasy like unto the Kirtland era. He may have amended his statement later, but he did say it.

 

See the part I bolded above. He didn't say "like unto the Kirtland era." That's your own extrapolation based on a false conclusion from what he did say.

Quote

We can guess why he "clarified" his statement but a clarification was needed because he said it and it wasn't flattering. "Apostasy" and "leaving in droves" are not synonymous. There could be a great apostasy without people officially leaving the church.

So you trust Elder Jensen's sincerity when he words something the way you want him to, but you don't trust his sincerity when he later clarifies and modifies the statement.

I detect a double standard.

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, thank you! "Nit" Elder "Jenkins". My fingers got away from my brain

 

 

10 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Since you are correcting other posters...

He only [said] it may be the worst since then.

I spotted and corrected both of those things immediately -- before I saw either of your posts.

You guys really are on a hair trigger.

For future reference, unlike Daniel Peterson, Russell McGregor and others, I don't type flawless text on the first draft. But I make corrections as soon as I spot an error.

So you might give me a few minutes of breathing room.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, thank you! "Nit" Elder "Jenkins". My fingers got away from my brain

 

When someone says something like "this is the worst x since y" generally they are not referring to something they consider to be a minor problem. That kind of language is used to talk about things that people understand to be major problems. 

Having said that, you're right of course. Elder Jensen's statement doesn't give us an idea about numbers. 

And with an unfortunate choice of words, he caused a lot of minds to reel, a condition he sought to correct later with a clarification.

Unfortunately his clarification is almost always ignored. To his discredit, stemelbow has in effect announced his intention to go on ignoring it, saying it doesn't make any difference. It does. A great deal. Without the later clarification, people are apt to go on believing* there is a mass exodus from the Church going on. Which, of course, there isn't.

*Just as HJW did when he stated his own false conclusion that it was "like unto Kirtland."

Edited November 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I spotted and corrected both of those things immediately -- before I saw either of your posts.

You guys really are on a hair trigger.

For future reference, unlike Daniel Peterson, Russell McGregor and others, I don't type flawless text on the first draft. But I make corrections as soon as I spot an error.

So you might give me a few minutes of breathing room.

I couldn't resist pointing out a typo from a post that was pointing out a typo.

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

See the part I bolded above. He didn't say "like unto the Kirtland era." That's your own extrapolation.

So you trust Elder Jensen's sincerity when he words something the way you want him to, but you don't trust his sincerity when he later clarifies and modifies the statement.

I detect a double standard.

 

CFR that he modified the statement, Scott.

I don't see that he modified it at all.  He clarified for anyone how might be trying to apply a Titanic-like wave to the amount of apostasy.  Note:  no one here has applied a Titanic-like wave to the amount he referenced.  Everyone's being reasonable here.  Everyone's taking him at his word.  Oh, well, everyone except you. 

[stemelbow]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I presume you mean Elder Jensen, not Elder "Jenkins." (Overzealous auto-correct function?)

To Gray, stemelbow, HJW and others who are fond of dredging up the Elder Jensen quote, I would pose this question: How many waves of apostasy have there been in the Church since Kirtland? Can you specifically cite even one?

If the answer is no, then an expression like "greatest period of apostasy since Kirtland" doesn't have much meaning.

Think about it. He didn't say the period of apostasy today is worse than Kirtland or even that it is as bad as it was in Kirtland. He only said it may be the worst since then. In theory, there could come a wave of apostasy that, comparatively speaking, was rather mild, yet it would be the worst since Kirtland.

No wonder Elder Jensen was careful on a subsequent occasion to clarify and modify his remark (see my posts above). Unwittingly, perhaps, he had engaged in some rather vacuous and misleading rhetoric. Others have been guilty of subsequently picking up and reading into his words what just isn't there.

Well since then, we have seen numbers that indicate the rate of apostasy has remained flat over a long time -- even up to now, after the brouhaha over the November policy -- and has never been more than a fraction of a percent per year (see the OP).

The coyness you see in Elder Cook's remarks might be in the eye of the beholder.

No one said, Scott, that Elder Jensen's comment said anything more than what it said.  No one said "droves" or "titantic-like".  You have spent too many posts trying to make the argument about something it is not.  I say, try again.  But I'm guessing it'll be more of the same.  We'll see. 

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And with an unfortunate choice of words, he caused a lot of minds to reel, a condition he sought to correct later with a clarification.

I suspect his choice of words was probably accurate. Let's apply the historical criterion of embarrassment - there is no motivation or upside for church leaders to say something that looks troubling for the church, so when they do, those statements carry additional weight.

Elder Jensen's later clarification, whatever prompted it, didn't actually contradict his original statement. 

 

Quote

Unfortunately his clarification is almost always ignored. To his discredit, stemelbow has in effect announced his intention to go on ignoring it, saying it doesn't make any difference. It does. A great deal. Without the later clarification, people are apt to go on believing there is a mass exodus from the Church going on. Which, of course, there isn't.

 

The clarification doesn't alter or contradict his original statement, but it certainly clarifies some things that people might have assumed from his statement. If someone thought that his original statement meant that the church is in some kind of free fall, then his clarification would contradict that notion. But he never said anything like that to begin with. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I spotted and corrected both of those things immediately -- before I saw either of your posts.

You guys really are on a hair trigger.

For future reference, unlike Daniel Peterson, Russell McGregor and others, I don't type flawless text on the first draft. But I make corrections as soon as I spot an error.

So you might give me a few minutes of breathing room.

 

Sorry Scott, couldn't resist!