Mass Exodus from Church?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm good with that.  Can you answer my last question though?  If someone sincerely and honestly believes that God wants them to leave the LDS church, what are they supposed to do?

My hope for them is not all that different from what I would hope for someone who is investigating the Church and receiving the message of the missionaries for the first time: that they would try the experiment in Alma 32 (the one about planting the seed of faith) and that they would heed the promise in Moroni 10:3-5. 

[Oliblish]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

According to the church 100% of humanitarian donations go towards the cause and that the administrative costs are funded by the church.

"While 100 percent of fast offerings and humanitarian donations go directly to those in need, the overhead and administrative costs associated with these programs — in addition to the resources needed to build storage facilities, house and deliver humanitarian aid supplies around the world, train volunteers and so on — are privately fronted by the Church."

There are always non-zero administrative costs and that have to be paid by any charitable organization.  The fact that administrative costs are deducted from a different donations bucket than the other donations doesn't make it 100% overhead free.  There is overhead, it is just being paid from the tithing donation fund instead of the humanitarian fund.  The actual efficiency of the operation can only be calculated if if those overhead costs are known.  I am not saying that there is fraud or even that the system is inefficient.  We just don't know because they keep the numbers secret.

There are some charities where a wealthy donor provides matching funds to other donors.  I donated to one of these once to support the Japan tsunami disaster relief.  I believe it was Steve Young who was making the matching donations.  I think it was a good thing but I don't think you can argue that 200% of my donations go to the cause.

If I donate $800 to a charity and someone else pays $200 to the same charity to pay overhead, is that really any different than me paying $600 plus $200 overhead and someone else paying $200 that goes directly to those in need?  In the end there is money coming from multiple sources and money goes out for overhead and to those in need.  It is 80% efficient, and I don't think it really matters which donor is paying for overhead vs. the needy.

[Oliblish]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

According to the church 100% of humanitarian donations go towards the cause and that the administrative costs are funded by the church.

"While 100 percent of fast offerings and humanitarian donations go directly to those in need, the overhead and administrative costs associated with these programs — in addition to the resources needed to build storage facilities, house and deliver humanitarian aid supplies around the world, train volunteers and so on — are privately fronted by the Church."

There are always non-zero administrative costs and that have to be paid by any charitable organization.  The fact that administrative costs are deducted from a different donations bucket than the other donations doesn't make it 100% overhead free.  There is overhead, it is just being paid from the tithing donation fund instead of the humanitarian fund.  The actual efficiency of the operation can only be calculated if if those overhead costs are known.  I am not saying that there is fraud or even that the system is inefficient.  We just don't know because they keep the numbers secret.

There are some charities where a wealthy donor provides matching funds to other donors.  I donated to one of these once to support the Japan tsunami disaster relief.  I believe it was Steve Young who was making the matching donations.  I think it was a good thing but I don't think you can argue that 200% of my donations go to the cause.

If I donate $800 to a charity and someone else pays $200 to the same charity to pay overhead, is that really any different than me paying $600 plus $200 overhead and someone else paying $200 that goes directly to those in need?  In the end there is money coming from multiple sources and money goes out for overhead and to those in need.  It is 80% efficient, and I don't think it really matters which donor is paying for overhead vs. the needy.

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My hope for them is not all that different from what I would hope for someone who is investigating the Church and receiving the message of the missionaries for the first time: that they would try the experiment in Alma 32 (the one about planting the seed of faith) and that they would heed the promise in Moroni 10:3-5. 

And if they've done those things, and still believe that God wants them to go to a different church?

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

There are always non-zero administrative costs and that have to be paid by any charitable organization.  The fact that administrative costs are deducted from a different donations bucket than the other donations doesn't make it 100% overhead free.  There is overhead, it is just being paid from the tithing donation fund instead of the humanitarian fund.  

I realize that.  But the overhead is not paid from charitable donations. So if you donate $10, all of it goes to the humanitarian aid (if we believe the church is being honest).

My point isn't that overhead doesn't exist for the church, only that, as far as charities go, if you want your donated dollars to make the most impact the church seems like the best option.

Quote

If I donate $800 to a charity and someone else pays $200 to the same charity to pay overhead, is that really any different than me paying $600 plus $200 overhead and someone else paying $200 that goes directly to those in need?  In the end there is money coming from multiple sources and money goes out for overhead and to those in need.  It is 80% efficient, and I don't think it really matters which donor is paying for overhead vs. the needy.

Tithing isn't a donation.  It's an obligation.  So, even if no one donated anything to the humanitarian part of the church, the amount of tithing coming in would still be the same.  Tithing doesn't exist to support the charity (even though that's part of what it does).  So money donated to the charity is 100% efficient (even if tithing is the reason that it's able to be so).

Edit to add-do we even know that tithing is what pays for the overhead costs?  The church has other money making ventures so it doesn't automatically have to be paid from tithing.

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by bluebell

[Jeanne]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And if they've done those things, and still believe that God wants them to go to a different church?

I don't think he answered your question.  I would like to know too.

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Sincere question, are there any other organizations where 100% of the money donated goes toward actual humanitarian aid and not administrative costs?

All organizations have admin costs.   But that is not the point of the disclaimer on the tithing slip.   And every non church not for profit and many churches disclose their financial information so you know where the money goes.   But not the LDS church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

And if they've done those things, and still believe that God wants them to go to a different church?

Then I would have to respect their decision, even though I disagree with it, as I would respect the decision of those who have never been members of the Church and who reject the message of our missionaries.

(I'm not sure I'm understanding your question or how you're expecting me to respond to it.)

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I wasn't looking for patterns. I was looking for a welcoming smile, a friendly face. I found none

And no, I didn't take the first step. I've been inactive for 25 years. I wasn't the one "leading the show".  If it's necesary for me to paint the whole picture, to lay out all my cards before anyone else is expected to put a good hand forward, then the idea of proselytizing has skriveled on the vine. 

But you're right. I'll visit the ward again. To give then a new chance. I'll smile and nod towards those who seem to be sending out a message of greeting. If I see a face I recognize, I'll move towards them. If they recognize me, I will expect a response.

I'll get abck to you with my results.

 

 

Good luck with that. It seems you are itching for a fight. Why is that? What would it cost you to say, "Hey! You're Brother Rastus. I'm bcuzbcuz. Remember me? How are you?" Seems simple to me.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

All organizations have admin costs.   But that is not the point of the disclaimer on the tithing slip.   And every non church not for profit and many churches disclose their financial information so you know where the money goes.   But not the LDS church. 

Do you know where Fast Offering funds go?

 

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you know where Fast Offering funds go?

I know that it's possible for them to not be used as designated.

Quote

Though reasonable efforts will be made to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission.

 

[rongo]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

I know that it's possible for them to not be used as designated.

It's actually the other way around. Fast offerings expenditures exceed fast offerings donations, so tithing is used for the balance. Bishop Burton explained to our stake that this has been the case for quite some time now.

Not that fast offerings are used for purposes other than helping the needy, as you sought to use what you quoted to say. That disclaimer simply informs that all donations will be used as the Church sees fit, but in the specific case of FO funds, all of them are indeed used for that purpose. At least based on what Bishop Burton, then the presiding bishop, has said. 

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you know where Fast Offering funds go?

 

Indeed.  I served as a bishop for six years. I am all for FO. I think i said that. I just don't like the disclaimer at the bottom of the donation slip.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then I would have to respect their decision, even though I disagree with it, as I would respect the decision of those who have never been members of the Church and who reject the message of our missionaries.

(I'm not sure I'm understanding your question or how you're expecting me to respond to it.)

Do you believe that it's fair to describe such a person as having left the church because of either embarrassment or worldly influence?

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

I will try to find the talk or talks I have heard. I will try to do this over the weekend. 

Bluebell. I have done a few searches and I am not finding talks on inactivation efforts not being very fruitful. Thinking back through the cobwebs of my aging mind I think this is something I likely heard off the record from a visiting GA in a leadership session.  I do distinctly recall Marlin Jensen talking to us about the lost member numbers being at 800,000 to 1,000,000 and this was probably 10 years ago.  So I can't document my comments.

Sorry.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Uchtdorf said, "Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith." When people fail to that, they are not "doing all the right things."

In other words, when they make the choice (and it is a choice) to let their doubts, attitudes, political convictions -- whatever it might be -- take primacy over the confirming witness of the Holy Spirit they have felt in the past, they haven't done all the right things. 

It is unfortunate that the talk President Uchtdorf made where the doubt your doubts comment was made is taken and made a motto by entrenched LDS believers.  There was much more to the talk.

Further I personally find the comment nonsensical.  We would never approach any other endeavor in our lives like this.  Career, financial decisions, scientific issues, etc.   In fact one should not doubt their doubts.  They should embrace them, challenge them, test them.  We should doubt almost every belief we have and thresh it out to see if it is worthy to hold to. Political, religious, scientific, philosophical and on and on.  Only then can one really believe they are living authentically and striving to avoid confirmation bias.

Now that said I cannot say I personally have achieved what I view as the ideal above.  I have as much baggage as anyone.  Even on things LDS.  Believe it or not I still hold to a hope that what I am concluding now about the LDS church may be wrong.  And I am open to it.  But I wonder how much of that is the "programming" my mind has had for 48 years as an active full believing LDS person.  Who knows for sure?

Oh and please note I don't expect Scott to reply.  He is above replying to me apparently.  But I am not so constrained and if I want I will respond to his posts. Especially the ones that are ludicrous. 

Edited December 3, 2016 by Teancum

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do you believe that it's fair to describe such a person as having left the church because of either embarrassment or worldly influence?

Without being privy to relevant facts in a specific case, no. 

By the same token, without being privy to relevant facts, one cannot competently dismiss it as a possibility. Nor could one competently take it as an occasion for concluding that God would tell one person that Mormonism is true and another that Mormonism is false and "lead him out of the Church."

Edited December 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Marmonboy]

Maybe it's possible that the Spirit is saying the Church isn't right for someone--right now. Doesn't mean it isn't good for them at a later moment in their lives. The problem is that most people, after such an experience, would never give it a second look.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Without being privy to relevant facts in a specific case, no. 

 

That's what HJW has been trying to say.  We don't actually know why someone might have left the church, so it's better not to assign them reasons that come from a place of ignorance.  

Quote

By the same token, without being privy to relevant facts, one cannot competently dismiss it as a possibility.

Exactly.  One cannot know either way.  And when you don't actually know, the best policy is not to make statements of fact or blanket judgements.

Quote

Nor could one competently take it as an occasion for concluding that God would tell one person that Mormonism is true and another that Mormonism is false and "lead him out of the Church."

All each of us can do is to try to obey what we believe God is telling us to do.  It's not fair to expect someone not to follow what they perceive to be God's direction in their lives because we disagree with it.  I agree with your statement above, but as i said before, it's irrelevant.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That's what HJW has been trying to say.  We don't actually know why someone might have left the church, so it's better not to assign them reasons that come from a place of ignorance.  

Exactly.  One cannot know either way.  And when you don't actually know, the best policy is not to make statements of fact or blanket judgements.

All each of us can do is to try to obey what we believe God is telling us to do.  It's not fair to expect someone not to follow what they perceive to be God's direction in their lives because we disagree with it.  I agree with your statement above, but as i said before, it's irrelevant.  

It is relevant insofar as I am entitled to decide for myself, even if just within my own internal thought processes, whether I accept the assertion that God will ever lead people out of the Church of Jesus Christ, a notion that is alien to any authoritative scriptural or doctrinal teaching I have ever encountered. 

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is relevant insofar as I am entitled to decide for myself, even if just within my own internal thought processes, whether I accept the assertion that God will ever lead people out of the Church of Jesus Christ, a notion that is alien to any authoritative scriptural or doctrinal teaching I have ever encountered. 

That's true.  You can decide for yourself.  You just can't logically then claim, because you believe the answer is 'He won't", that everyone who leaves either does so because they are embarrassed or following worldly influences.

I think you misunderstood me.  I wasn't saying that it was irrelevant to you, I was saying that as far the person we were discussing, it's irrelevant.

We can decide for ourselves but we can't decide for others.  When we try deciding why someone else has left, it becomes irrelevant.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That's true.  You can decide for yourself.  You just can't logically then claim, because you believe the answer is 'He won't", that everyone who leaves either does so because they are embarrassed or following worldly influences.

I think you misunderstood me.  I wasn't saying that it was irrelevant to you, I was saying that as far the person we were discussing, it's irrelevant.

We can decide for ourselves but we can't decide for others.  When we try deciding why someone else has left, it becomes irrelevant.

I don't recall discussing a person. Who was it? 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is unfortunate that the talk President Uchtdorf made where the doubt your doubts comment was made is taken and made a motto by entrenched LDS believers.  There was much more to the talk.

Further I personally find the comment nonsensical.  We would never approach any other endeavor in our lives like this.  Career, financial decisions, scientific issues, etc.   In fact one should not doubt their doubts.  They should embrace them, challenge them, test them.  We should doubt almost every belief we have and thresh it out to see if it is worthy to hold to. Political, religious, scientific, philosophical and on and on.  Only then can one really believe they are living authentically and striving to avoid confirmation bias.

Now that said I cannot say I personally have achieved what I view as the ideal above.  I have as much baggage as anyone.  Even on things LDS.  Believe it or not I still hold to a hope that what I am concluding now about the LDS church may be wrong.  And I am open to it.  But I wonder how much of that is the "programming" my mind has had for 48 years as an active full believing LDS person.  Who knows

 

You have been overbearing in the approach, tone, content and volume of your posts addressed to me. Rather than try to respond in kind, I have elected to curtail further interaction with you. 

If you intend to continue (which seems rather like stalking at this point) my alternative is to use the "ignore" feature on this board. Which would relieve me from even having to see, much less respond to anything you post. 

So enjoy your one-sided conversations. 

Edited December 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, Thinking said:

I know that it's possible for them to not be used as designated.

 

At the end of the month, the ward Fast Offering account balance has to be $0.00. That means if there is a surplus it goes to the stake and if there is a deficit, there is a transfer made to bring it to 0. 

[Bernard Gui]

On December 2, 2016 at 10:37 AM, bluebell said:

I think Bernard missed a 4th reason that people leave.  They lose their testimony; they stop believing after previously being converted. The scriptures are clear that that happens even with the most faithful of people.  

Sorry I didn't respond to this... Lehi explains it this way:

Quote

21 And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were pressing forward, that they might obtain the path which led unto the tree by which I stood. 22 And it came to pass that they did come forth, and commence in the path which led to the tree. 23 And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceedingly great mist of darkness, insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were lost.

The question is, what is the mist of darkness?

Quote

17 And the mists of darkness are the temptations of the devil, which blindeth the eyes, and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men, and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost.

Elder Holland said, 

Quote

In Lehi’s dream an already difficult journey gets more difficult when a mist of darkness arises, obscuring any view of the safe but narrow path his family and others are to follow. It is imperative to note that this mist of darkness descends on all the travelers—the faithful and the determined ones (the elect, we might even say) as well as the weaker and ungrounded ones. The principal point of the story is that the successful travelers resist all distractions, including the lure of forbidden paths and jeering taunts from the vain and proud who have taken those paths. The record says that the protected “did press their way forward, continually [and, I might add, tenaciously] holding fast” to a rod of iron that runs unfailingly along the course of the true path. However dark the night or the day, the rod marks the way of that solitary, redeeming trail. 

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Bernard Gui