Mass Exodus from Church?

[HappyJackWagon]

49 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 based on a false conclusion from what he did say.

Fair enough. He said "Maybe not since Kirtland" which I interpret a certain way. But he clearly brings up Kirtland to make a point. Kirtland is recognized as a time of extensive apostasy and I think he is drawing a comparison.

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 simply find Elder Jensen's words to be more credible based on my own experience and knowledge. This is not an attack on Elder Cook's sincerity. I am much more likely to question his perception and interpretation of events than I am his sincerity. He can be sincere and still be wrong.

I detect a double standard.

No double standard. I just find one to be more credible than another.

 

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?

3 periods of apostasy come to mind: 1- Far West when many of the preeminent church leaders apostatized or were excommunicated, 2- Nauvoo, including Joseph's life with high level apostasy from leaders like William Law and John C Bennett, as well as the apostasy after the martyrdom and the ensuing succession crisis, 3- Break off of fundamentalist apostate groups in the 1930-50's.

In each case the church was rightly concerned with widespread apostasy and the potential influence of apostates on other members. The fact that Jensen says "Maybe since Kirtland, we’ve never had a period of – I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having now,” says a lot when we consider these other waves of apostasy the church has experienced.

Edited November 30, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

You are wrong. Happy Jack Wagon said Elder Jensen referred to it as a period of apostasy "like unto Kirtland." Elder Jensen did not say that. HJW jumped to a conclusion based on an ambiguous statement. It's my perception that many people have done so. Hence the need for Elder Jensen to say in an interview that the period of apostasy was not as catastrophic as critics were making it out to be.

Wording can be technically correct yet convey a false impression. If you have not yet learned this, it would serve you well to give it due consideration.

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

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. 

 

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. 

The problem is that too many have assumed that he did mean the Church is in a free fall. Hence the need for his later clarification. HJW, for one, apparently assumed Elder Jensen meant the conditions for apostasy today are "like unto Kirtland."

And as I've just pointed out to stemelbow, wording can be technically accurate yet convey a false understanding. It happens all the time.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are wrong. Happy Jack Wagon said Elder Jensen referred to it as a period of apostasy "like unto Kirtland." Elder Jensen did not say that. HJW jumped to a conclusion based on an ambiguous statement. It's my perception that many people have done so. Hence the need for Elder Jensen to say in an interview that the period of apostasy was not as catastrophic as critics were making it out to be.

Wording can be technically correct yet convey a false impression. If you have not yet learned this, it would serve you well to give it due consideration.

You are waaaay overstating the impact of me saying "like unto Kirtland" instead of "Maybe since Kirtland". He was clearly drawing a comparison between apostasy today and in Kirtland. Maybe it's not exactly the same, but that doesn't mean he's not drawing a comparison. Elder Jensen said it was not as catastrophic as critics were making it out to be. Which critics. He didn't retract his comparison with Kirtland. You're really grasping here.

Jensen was clearly trying to say there is a problem with apostasy today at a level not seen since Kirtland. I've answered your question about other periods of apostasy that were severe in the church and I think it's very telling that he is suggesting that those eras of apostasy were not as significant as what we're facing now. Frankly, I'm surprised you're arguing against this. I thought you'd be eager to beat the apostasy drum.

ETA- he didn't say the apostasy today is not like unto Kirtland. He's drawing a comparison. I may have read too much into it but it is just as likely you're not reading enough into it. The comparison was made for a reason and he didn't retract that comparison. And that's what we quoted on this thread. You have not been able to show where he retracted that comparison, only that he stated things weren't as bad as some critics say, which we weren't even arguing.

Edited November 30, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The problem is that too many have assumed that he did mean the Church is in a free fall. Hence the need for his later clarification. HJW, for one, apparently assumed Elder Jensen meant the conditions for apostasy today are "like unto Kirtland."

 

I think I agree with you there. I think we're probably in better shape (in terms of long-term prospects) than most mainstream Christian denominations, even with an increase in leave-taking. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On November 30, 2016 at 2:43 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

 

3 periods of apostasy come to mind: 1- Far West when many of the preeminent church leaders apostatized or were excommunicated, 2- Nauvoo, including Joseph's life with high level apostasy from leaders like William Law and John C Bennett, as well as the apostasy after the martyrdom and the ensuing succession crisis, 3- Break off of fundamentalist apostate groups in the 1930-50's.

In each case the church was rightly concerned with widespread apostasy and the potential influence of apostates on other members. The fact that Jensen says "Maybe since Kirtland, we’ve never had a period of – I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having now,” says a lot when we consider these other waves of apostasy the church has experienced.

None of these three examples are like what happened in Kirtland, where disaffection over the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society during a national period of economic depression caused many people to forsake the Church.

True, there were some prominent Church leaders who apostatized during the Missouri period, but that did not approach the scale of what happened in Kirtland. In Nauvoo, there were a few high-level figures who made trouble, but there was no large-scale schism in the membership as whole, even after the confusion attendant to the succession crisis. The bulk of the Church followed Brigham Young and the Twelve. The apostate groups in the early 20th century were largely a result of disobedience by  people who insisted on continuing the practice of polygamy, necessitating their excommunication and subsequent formation of churches among their own family members and a relatively few followers. Again, no catastrophic schism.

So what we are seeing today would have a long way to go before it became "like unto Kirtland."

Edited December 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

1- None of these three examples are like what happened in Kirtland, where disaffection over the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society during a national period of depression caused many people to forsake the Church.

True, there were some prominent Church leaders who apostatized during the Missouri period, but that did not approach the scale of what happened in Kirtland. In Nauvoo, there were a few high-level figures who made trouble, but there was no large-scale schism in the membership as whole, even after the confusion attendant to the succession crisis. The bulk of the Church followed Brigham Young and the Twelve. The apostate groups in the early 20th century were largely a result of disobedience by  people who insisted on continuing the practice of polygamy, necessitating their excommunication and subsequent formation of churches among their own family members and a relatively few followers. Again, no catastrophic schism.

2- So what we are seeing today would have a long way to go before it became "like unto Kirtland."

1- I'm curious how you quantify the scale of apostasy. In each case the highest levels of leadership experienced apostasy. That would be similar to having members of the Q15 apostatize today. The co-president of the church, leaders like WW Phelps and Thomas B Marsh, many of the BoM witnesses etc. It would be a HUGE deal so I think you may be a little quick in dismissing the significance. 

In any case, you asked for examples of periods of apostasy and I supplied 3. I never claimed they were at exactly at the same levels or for the same reasons as Kirtland. But those periods of apostasy were significant and I think Elder Jensen is suggesting that today we are in a similar era of apostasy.

2- We don't have enough information to make a statement like that. If you have a side by side comparison to make your case I'd love to see it. But I know you don't because the church hasn't released the information. In 100 years historians may have access and be able to draw some conclusions.

ETA- These periods of apostasy are all a bit unique in the reasons that motivated the waves of apostasy but the thing all of these periods have in common is that there always seems to be a dissatisfaction or mistrust of leadership. That was true in Kirtland, Far West, Nauvoo, and with the Fundamentalists. That mistrust developed in various ways and I see a similar mistrust among many today.

Edited November 30, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Fair enough. He said "Maybe not since Kirtland" which I interpret a certain way. But he clearly brings up Kirtland to make a point. Kirtland is recognized as a time of extensive apostasy and I think he is drawing a comparison.

 

I think it closer to the mark to say he used Kirtland as a benchmark than as a point of comparison; i.e. Kirtland is the extreme example against which other periods of apostasy are to be evaluated. When you consider that no more than a fraction of a percent of the Church resign each year, it is obviously way overblown to say what we are going through now is comparable or "like unto Kirtland." That you would jump to this conclusion means that others are apt to as well, and it shows how problematic it is to repeat this quote again and again.
 

Quote

 

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 simply find Elder Jensen's words to be more credible based on my own experience and knowledge. This is not an attack on Elder Cook's sincerity. I am much more likely to question his perception and interpretation of events than I am his sincerity. He can be sincere and still be wrong.

I detect a double standard.

No double standard. I just find one to be more credible than another.

 

 

 

Could it be that you have misinterpreted one or both of them? Can you entertain the thought that what is happening now is perhaps the closest we have come to KIrtland conditions (which, as it turns out, is not very close), yet even so, the Church has never been stronger?

Edited November 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- I'm curious how you quantify the scale of apostasy. In each case the highest levels of leadership experienced apostasy. That would be similar to having members of the Q15 apostatize today. The co-president of the church, leaders like WW Phelps and Thomas B Marsh, many of the BoM witnesses etc. It would be a HUGE deal so I think you may be a little quick in dismissing the significance. 

In any case, you asked for examples of periods of apostasy and I supplied 3. I never claimed they were at exactly at the same levels or for the same reasons as Kirtland. But those periods of apostasy were significant and I think Elder Jensen is suggesting that today we are in a similar era of apostasy.

2- We don't have enough information to make a statement like that. If you have a side by side comparison to make your case I'd love to see it. But I know you don't because the church hasn't released the information. In 100 years historians may have access and be able to draw some conclusions.

ETA- These periods of apostasy are all a bit unique in the reasons that motivated the waves of apostasy but the thing all of these periods have in common is that there always seems to be a dissatisfaction or mistrust of leadership. That was true in Kirtland, Far West, Nauvoo, and with the Fundamentalists. That mistrust developed in various ways and I see a similar mistrust among many today.

Less than a fraction of a percent resigning their membership in the course of a year places us nowhere near to being on the scale of what happened in Kirtland.

And saying that people apostatize because they mistrust the church leadership is reminiscent of Calvin Coolidge's famous statement that "more people out of work leads to higher unemployment."

Of course they mistrust the leadership -- otherwise they wouldn't be apostatizing!

Edited November 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 5:02 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

If you think Elder Cook tinkered with the numbers in that way, go ahead and show evidence to that effect, if you can.

 

Elder Cook provided no evidence. He just made a baseless assertion that was clearly designed to make the active members feel that "all is well in Zion." 

How can anyone show evidence when the LDS Church is not willing to release data that substantiates their numbers and does nor allow access to anyone who may challenge them?

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Less than a fraction of a percent resigning their membership in the course of a year places us nowhere near to being on the scale of what happened in Kirtland.

Many leave but don't resign.  I'd say only a small fraction of those who leave the church actually go through the resignation process.  

[Teancum]

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 6:16 PM, Bernard Gui said:

The best part about the Church programs is the low overhead. For example, 0 overhead for fast offerings. You just can't beat that.

Nothing says we can't give a whole lot of money to fast offerings if we want to be more charitable. Anything we don't use locally goes into the general pot. Even folks who are not active or somewhat antagonistic often give FO donations when the deacons make their monthly collections.

I am all for FO and Humanitarian aid offerings.  But there is that little disclaimer on tithing slips that causes me concern.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Less than a fraction of a percent resigning their membership in the course of a year places us nowhere near to being on the scale of what happened in Kirtland.

I'm curious what percentage of members in Kirtland officially resigned their membership. If you want to compare apples to apples, and only define apostasy by resignations you must compare current resignations to past resignations in Kirtland.

Quote

I think it closer to the mark to say he used Kirtland as a benchmark than as a point of comparison; i.e. Kirtland is the extreme example against which other periods of apostasy are to be evaluated. When you consider that no more than a fraction of a percent of the Church resigns each year, it is obviously way overblown to say what we are going through now is comparable or "like unto Kirtland." That you would jump to this conclusion means that others are apt to as well, and it shows how problematic it is to repeat this quote again and again.

I think that's a fair possibility. So if Kirtland is the benchmark and modern times are being assessed against that backdrop and not the other periods of apostasy I cited, then I think it is fair to conclude that current apostasy is a major problem.

Quote

Could it be that you have misinterpreted one or both of them? Can you entertain the thought that what is happening now is perhaps the closest we have come to KIrtland conditions (which, as it turns out, is not very close), yet even so, the Church has never been stronger?

Sure, it's possible I misinterpret one or both of their comments. Anything is possible. I'm not omniscient. I make mistakes and I'm open to admitting them if I can be shown where I err. So far I haven't seen any compelling reason to think I'm wrong in my perspective.

I don't see how the church can be at a heightened state of apostasy, the most heightened since Kirtland, and still be at a state where the church has never been stronger. I don't understand that possibility. How could that work?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Sorry Scott, couldn't resist! 

I can relate. (Grudging) congratulations to you both on your alertness.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Many leave but don't resign.  I'd say only a small fraction of those who leave the church actually go through the resignation process.  

And I'm sure you can provide us with a reliable figure of how many "leave but don't resign," -- whatever that is supposed to mean. I won't hold my breath.

The trouble with this notion is that it is not quantifiable. People fluctuate in how they feel. They may be totally disaffected on one day, less so on another. With such changeable moods and sentiments, they don't want to commit themselves with a formal process. Probably a good thing for some of them, as they do eventually return to full activity.

 

[Teancum]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Many leave but don't resign.  I'd say only a small fraction of those who leave the church actually go through the resignation process.  

Yea Scott just doesn't get this. Most never resign. .They just fade away.  The LDS Church worldwide has an activity rate of at best 35% to 40%.  All is not really well in Zion.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm curious what percentage of members in Kirtland officially resigned their membership. If you want to compare apples to apples, and only define apostasy by resignations you must compare current resignations to past resignations in Kirtland.

For want of a ready reference I'll give you this quote from a Wikipedia entry:

Quote

Half of The Quorum of Twelve Apostles accused Smith of improprieties in the banking scandal, and church Apostle Heber C. Kimball later said that the bank's failure was so shattering that afterwards "there were not twenty persons on earth that would declare that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

Maybe Elder Kimball was exaggerating, but it should give some idea of scale.

Back to you:

Quote

I think that's a fair possibility. So if Kirtland is the benchmark and modern times are being assessed against that backdrop and not the other periods of apostasy I cited, then I think it is fair to conclude that current apostasy is a major problem.

A benchmark is selected because of its extremity, not its similarity to what is being compared. Something can get as close to X as we have ever come, but if nothing has ever come very close to X, that might not be saying a whole lot.

Quote

 

Sure, it's possible I misinterpret one or both of their comments. Anything is possible. I'm not omniscient. I make mistakes and I'm open to admitting them if I can be shown where I err. So far I haven't seen any compelling reason to think I'm wrong in my perspective.

I don't see how the church can be at a heightened state of apostasy, the most heightened since Kirtland, and still be at a state where the church has never been stronger. I don't understand that possibility. How could that work?

 

I don't know what you mean by "heightened state," but it can't be too "heightened" if the rate of membership resignations remains flat at less than 1 percent a year.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yea Scott just doesn't get this. Most never resign. .They just fade away.  The LDS Church worldwide has an activity rate of at best 35% to 40%.  All is not really well in Zion.

 

The topic of discussion here is not activity rates. It's apostasy. Many, perhaps most, who drift into inactivity never apostatize.

 

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Yes and the challenges the church faces with the information age, less retention of younger members, a higher resignations rate and an apathy from those who leave and don't resign.  This also hurts tithing revenue big time.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Honesty and transparency.  What a novel concept.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Ahhh the prevocational approach of the LDS apologist. Must be nice in Pleasentvillle,.

[Teancum]

7 hours 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.

 

 

Of course his assurance is quite fine for you. You hand on every word from these LDS leaders as if from God himself.  Even without proof of his specious claim,  I doubt if you would be so trusting in any other part of your life. 

[Teancum]

7 hours 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.

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

Scott is not a news reporter. He is a promotional writer for the LDS Church news.

[Teancum]

7 hours 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.

Nah he is not in a position of authority for anyone to trust what he says unless he backs it up.  Substantiation of claims is a wonderful yet problematic thing.

[Teancum]

6 hours 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.

Who said the Church was on the verge of collapse?  Can you say straw man?