Mass Exodus from Church?

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

Such pablim and nonsense.  It is the LDS Church that is dishonest in its reporting. It provides nothing to substantiate its records, growth claims, never says anything about activity rates, TR holders, etc.  Yet Scott yammers on about critics providing reliable data? What desperation the apologist has to defend.  What utter nonsense.  I am in a profession that relies on proving and attesting to data and reporting.  Wow.  I cannot imagine making such specious arguments.  What a joke.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

Uhhhh no Scott. Many who "drift" into activity do so because:

 

They don't believe the claims of the church.

They were baptized but never really converted.

They oppose the church or most certainly do not support it but for many reasons (family, social connections, community issues, etc) feel resigning is not worth the time or effort.

And this list could go on.

 

You can continue to tell yourself all us hunkie dorie in Zion. I don't care. But the LDS Church has a problem with growth, retaining members and converts, has a high in activity rate, my guess is (But who knows since the church won't report openly and honestly about this) that tithing $$ are dropping, and on and on and on. 

 

So carry on, carry on, carry on! On  global scale the LDS Church is really quite insignificant.

 

edited to add:

i wonder how Scott defines apostasy?  Is a member who has been baptized but is not keeping a baptismal covenant not in a form of apostasy?  Have they ceased paying tithing? Can they answer the TR questions on belief in the proper way?  If they have been to the temple but fallen into inactivity are they keeping temple covenants?  What commandments might they be breaking?  Inactive members in many many cases would certainly have attributes that could define them as apostate.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Teancum

[sunstoned]

21 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. 

Glad you could weigh in on this Scott. Your post brings a lot to the discussion.  Though you are getting to be pretty predictable. In fact you are fast becoming the poster child of the ad hominem attack. Which we all know is the class apologist fall back tactic.   

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Such pablim and nonsense.  It is the LDS Church that is dishonest in its reporting. It provides nothing to substantiate its records, growth claims, never says anything about activity rates, TR holders, etc.

How is the Church being dishonest?  It simply reports total membership at a certain period of time.  It makes no claim of how many are active or inactive or anything else.  Simply not giving a bunch of more detailed statistics is not an act of dishonesty. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

Hey Scott, CFR on this claim too.  Curious if you get back to the earlier CFR.  Maybe I'll bring it back in. 

[stemelbow]

Scott said:

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 dont' know if you noticed.  I asked for references for the claim of Elder Jensen modifying his earlier statement.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Scott said:

I dont' know if you noticed.  I asked for references for the claim of Elder Jensen modifying his earlier statement.

I thought maybe ...because I am on and off so much because of work, that I missed it here someplace...I would like to see references too and forgive me if it has already been linked. I thought Elder Jensen's existing statement was the only one.  I would love to see this..and open to the thought.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Glad you could weigh in on this Scott. Your post brings a lot to the discussion.  Though you are getting to be pretty predictable. In fact you are fast becoming the poster child of the ad hominem attack. Which we all know is the class apologist fall back tactic.   

It is not an ad hom to highlight when someone distorts a man's position by quoting his words out of context.

It is not an ad hom to identify when someone has been blatantly inaccurate (there has never been a "ban" on Church members consuming soda with caffeine).

It is not an ad hom to ask probing questions to test whether one is willing to apply to himself lofty requirements of "openness" and "transparency" that he applies to others.

It might be regarded as an ad hom, however, to call someone "the poster child of the ad hominem attack."

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Scott said:

I dont' know if you noticed.  I asked for references for the claim of Elder Jensen modifying his earlier statement.

I had reference to his later statement to an interviewer that the critics were wrong to think there is a titanic wave of apostasy going on now.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Hey Scott, CFR on this claim too.  Curious if you get back to the earlier CFR.  Maybe I'll bring it back in. 

Seriously? You are really demanding references that many people who drift into inactivity later return to full activity?

If there is such a thing as a frivolous CFR, I think this would qualify.

[stemelbow]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I had reference to his later statement to an interviewer that the critics were wrong to think there is a titanic wave of apostasy going on now.

That's not modifying the statement.  Are you saying his clarification to critics that he did not suggest there was a titanic-like wave of apostasy was a modification of his previous statement? 

[stemelbow]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Seriously? You are really demanding references that many people who drift into inactivity later return to full activity?

If there is such a thing as a frivolous CFR, I think this would qualify.

I'm asking for you to support the claim that "many, perhaps most" people who drift away never apostatize.   I could ask how would you know that?  But I'd be curious if you have any numbers to support your claim. 

I agree that people who drift way sometimes return to full activity. 

[sam]

Here is a neat quote from Neal A Maxwell given in 1988

 

True, the enemies and the critics of the Lord’s work will not relent; they only regroup. Even among the flock, here and there and from time to time, are a few wolves, wearing various styles of sheep’s clothing—ironically, just before the shearing season! A few defectors and “highminded” traitors (2 Tim. 3:4) even go directly to the “great and spacious building” to hire on (1 Ne. 8:26). There recruits are celebrated and feted until—like their predecessors—they have faded into the dark swamps of history...

Thus, there is no need to be surprised, nor to fear, when certain conditions come upon mankind. Furthermore, the Lord has given to us some remarkable assurances about the Restoration’s lead Prophet and the restored Church:

[Johnnie Cake]

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 8:49 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

You were banned temporarily after you called me a vulgar name in violation of board guidelines. The only reason I know this is that under your alternate screen name, Craig Paxton, you started a thread on Mormon Discussions to vilify me and to boast and complain about how you had been ill used by the moderation team here. 

Some context Scott.  I called you an A** for using a pejorative term when referring to gay men and women.  Hardly a vulgar term...its even in the Bible

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 8:49 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I was surprised when they let you back on here, because on that thread on the other board you had invited them to kiss a part of your anatomy. Perhaps they were unaware of it.

Yes in the heat of the battle I did post that comment.  If I don't stand up to you who will Scott?

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 8:49 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

But back you came and engaged in name calling against me a second time. Whether there were any reprisals then, I don't know. 

I'm guilty of calling you out when you are so dogmatically offensive...but other than using that biblical term I'm unaware of any name calling 

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 8:49 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I wasn't going to mention any of this, but this is the third time you have posted a message to insult me, and there is a limit to my patience. 

Its offensive to you to state that I'm tired of your boorish posts?

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 8:49 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

This is a board of diverse opinion and often vigorous disagreement. My observation over many years is that people get along fine here so long as they behave with basic civility and deportment and observe the board guidelines. 

and yet when YOU yes YOU the great Scott Lloyd behave outside those boundaries of civility by posting bigoted comments and using widely viewed pejorative terms to impugn others...yet you seem to get a pass

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 8:49 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

To the moderation team: I don't mean to net nanny but I saw the need to set the record straight. 

I returned to do the same...

Oh and while we're at it Scott...which of these two men is correct?

Quote

Sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God. – Elder Russell M. Nelson

or

Quote

"...What many people call sin is not sin." - Joseph Smith

 

[Hestia]

Knock off all the personal remarks and insults.  This is the only warning that will be given.

[Calm]

Ignoring the rest..

The last two sentences are not contradictory and can both be right.  Think Venn diagram, two circle overlapping...one circle A is "God defined sin", outside that circle would be "not defined as sin".  The second circle B is "Man defined sin", outside that circle is "not defined as sin by man".  The overlap is where both define the behaviour as sin, but there are three other areas...inside the first circle, but not the second are "God, but not man defined sins" (pure teal) inside the second circle, but not the first is "man defined sins, but not God" (pure orange) Outside both circles is "not defined as sin" (all the white)

Thus there are behaviours that are sins by God's definition, though not man's as well as sins that man considers sins.  And things that man considers sin that aren't.  Man making his circle of sin smaller (the first sentence) or larger (the second) changes nothing in terms of what God has designated to be a sin and what he hasn't.  That circle remain the same.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm asking for you to support the claim that "many, perhaps most" people who drift away never apostatize.   I could ask how would you know that?  But I'd be curious if you have any numbers to support your claim. 

I agree that people who drift way sometimes return to full activity. 

That's all I'm saying. Going inactive for a time does not mean one has apostatized. Some less-active individuals still regard themselves as believers.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ignoring the rest..

The last two sentences are not contradictory and can both be right.  Think Venn diagram, two circles not overlapping, one contains God considers sin, the other God considers not sin. A third circle overlaps both and is marked "labeled sin by man".

Thus there are behaviours that are sins by God's definition, though not man's as well as sins that man considers sins.  Man making his circle of sin smaller (the first sentence) or larger (the second) changes nothing in terms of what God has designated to be a sin and what he hasn't.

Endeavoring to tread softly here, I will simply express full agreement with this post by Calm.

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, sam said:

Here is a neat quote from Neal A Maxwell given in 1988

 

True, the enemies and the critics of the Lord’s work will not relent; they only regroup. Even among the flock, here and there and from time to time, are a few wolves, wearing various styles of sheep’s clothing—ironically, just before the shearing season! A few defectors and “highminded” traitors (2 Tim. 3:4) even go directly to the “great and spacious building” to hire on (1 Ne. 8:26). There recruits are celebrated and feted until—like their predecessors—they have faded into the dark swamps of history...

Thus, there is no need to be surprised, nor to fear, when certain conditions come upon mankind. Furthermore, the Lord has given to us some remarkable assurances about the Restoration’s lead Prophet and the restored Church:

A virtual rep point to you for this.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That's not modifying the statement.  Are you saying his clarification to critics that he did not suggest there was a titanic-like wave of apostasy was a modification of his previous statement? 

I took it as such, yes.

If you don't, we'll just have to chalk it up to disagreement.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Endeavoring to tread softly here, I will simply express full agreement with this post by Calm.

I redid it, to make it clear.  Made it simpler, been awhile since I did venn diagramming and my mind always goes too complicated, include all details when this is unnecessary by the very nature of the diagram.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Some context Scott.  I called you an A** for using a pejorative term when referring to gay men and women.  Hardly a vulgar term...its even in the Bible

Yes in the heat of the battle I did post that comment.  If I don't stand up to you who will Scott?

I'm guilty of calling you out when you are so dogmatically offensive...but other than using that biblical term I'm unaware of any name calling 

Its offensive to you to state that I'm tired of your boorish posts?

and yet when YOU yes YOU the great Scott Lloyd behave outside those boundaries of civility by posting bigoted comments and using widely viewed pejorative terms to impugn others...yet you seem to get a pass

I returned to do the same...

Oh and while we're at it Scott...which of these two men is correct?

or

 

Treading softly here, I will only reject the accusation that the term I used (same-sex attraction) is pajorative.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I redid it, to make it clear.

You redid it? Well, then I rescind my agreement!

(Just kidding. I agree it reads better now, though I understood before what you were saying.)

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

How is the Church being dishonest?  It simply reports total membership at a certain period of time.  It makes no claim of how many are active or inactive or anything else.  Simply not giving a bunch of more detailed statistics is not an act of dishonesty. 

Are you familiar with how many churches report membership?  A number drop members off if they don't attend for say a year.

Total honest would be to say "We have 15 million members,  X% are active. y% hold temple recommends. Z% are on the lost member records rolls (I hear Elder Marlin Jensen once state that 10% of the membership is on the lost members rolls meaning we cannot find them) and so on/"

Rather they simple give total membership, annual converts, annual children of record. They say nothing about the other information, resignation, etc.

I find that less than honest.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I had reference to his later statement to an interviewer that the critics were wrong to think there is a titanic wave of apostasy going on now.

Define apostasy Scott.  This is a CFR for your definition.