Mass Exodus from Church?

[Calm]

Tac, iirc in the Payson dedication session I attended Elder Eyring spoke of having to get a temple under budget, so I suspect your neighbor is wrong. 

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I wish that LDS tithe payers could have a say in where these monies go  Just a few blocks away from a beautiful Temple and the City Creek Mall there are those who could really use some help or at least a plan other than...don't give you money to  those folks.  Instead of building...give them a "road home"...or at least try.

Utah has a pretty aggressive and applauded approach to chronic homelessness by giving them homes, not just a "road home":

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how

While Utah is not the Church, the Church has significant influence on the attitudes of many of the lawmakers.

Worldwide, the Church's education and training programs are a massive step towards financial security and independence.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Calm

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

You can do work for the dead in any building...the dead don't care how much your chandeliars and carpet costs...and the Lord would want us to give to those in need...and surely have priorities set for those needs.  Fortunately, God gave us free agency and minds of our own.

Do you even believe that the dead need “work for the dead?“  With all due respect, surely those who don’t believe that the dead need this work are the last people who should be telling those who do believe where and how they should do it. 

[Jeanne]

18 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Do you even believe that the dead need “work for the dead?“  With all due respect, surely those who don’t believe that the dead need this work are the last people who should be telling those who do believe where and how they should do it. 

Wasn't there some sealings and/or work done before the 1st Temple was completed?  I am the last person of course who should tell anybody anything..but these are ordinances that could be done without the heavy expense.  It is just my opinion...of course I don't know.  In actuality..I think the whole thing is unnecessary.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

You can do work for the dead in any building...the dead don't care how much your chandeliars and carpet costs...and the Lord would want us to give to those in need...and surely have priorities set for those needs.  Fortunately, God gave us free agency and minds of our own.

Jesus Christ has designated that certain sacred ordinances of salvation are to be conducted in a temple dedicated for that purpose according to His specifications as revealed to anointed servants. Our moral agency (the term "free agency" is a colloquialism that does not appear in scripture) does not entitle us to ignore or violate His commandments and directives, not without suffering the consequences, in this case having him reject us as a people.

 

Quote

²⁶And send ye swift messengers, yea, chosen messengers, and say unto them: Come ye, with all your gold, and your silver, and your precious stones, and with all your antiquities; and with all who have knowledge of antiquities, that will come, may come, and bring the box-tree, and the fir-tree, and the pine-tree, together with all the precious trees of the earth;

²⁷ And with iron, with copper, and with brass, and with zinc, and with all your precious things of the earth; and build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwell therein.

²⁸ For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

²⁹ For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for those who are dead—

³⁰ For this ordinance belongeth to my house, and cannot be acceptable to me, only in the days of your poverty, wherein ye are not able to build a house unto me.

³¹ But I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.

³² But behold, at the end of this appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God.

³³ For verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient time to build a house to me, wherein the ordinance of baptizing for the dead belongeth, and for which the same was instituted from before the foundation of the world, your baptisms for your dead cannot be acceptable unto me;

³⁴ For therein are the keys of the holy priesthood ordained, that you may receive honor and glory.

³⁵ And after this time, your baptisms for the dead, by those who are scattered abroad, are not acceptable unto me, saith the Lord.

³⁶ For it is ordained that in Zion, and in her stakes, and in Jerusalem, those places which I have appointed for refuge, shall be the places for your baptisms for your dead.

³⁷ And again, verily I say unto you, how shall your washings be acceptable unto me, except ye perform them in a house which you have built to my name?

 

(Doctrine and Covenants 124:26-37)

You don't have to accept this doctrine. You are entitled to reject and to criticize it, but it then becomes a matter of your denigrating the sacred and earnestly held religious beliefs of me and of others, as anti-Mormons are wont to do. Do you really want to be classed with that lot?

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Deleted.

Double post.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Wasn't there some sealings and/or work done before the 1st Temple was completed?  I am the last person of course who should tell anybody anything..but these are ordinances that could be done without the heavy expense.  It is just my opinion...of course I don't know.  In actuality..I think the whole thing is unnecessary.

See the scripture I quoted above. In their poverty, the earlier saints were allowed certain leeway, but as soon as they were able, the Lord required them to construct a temple.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Where it is nice and warm.

I don't want to start an argument with Scott or others, but in my mind, I feel the members who pay their tithing, want nice temples. They benefit from feeling like they are in another world besides their own. I'm sure that it is partly why. Because like you I don't think the Lord needs those things, especially when he's admonished us to do otherwise. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Tac, iirc in the Payson dedication session I attended Elder Eyring spoke of having to get a temple under budget, so I suspect your neighbor is wrong. 

This was many years ago, about 17 or so. 

[Calm]

 

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This was many years ago, about 17 or so. 

So was the temple he was working on, can't remember which but I believe it was when he was a junior apostle.

Not having a budget for anything seems completely antithetical to the way the Church operates in the past sixty years since Moyle? put the Church in debt iirc with his building flurry.  I just don't buy it.  There is no way they could plan ahead without one when building multiple temples at a time.

May have been the San Diego temple.  I remember it being SoCal.  That would have been when he was a Seventy, it was towards the end of construction as he was there to ensure it got back on budget and stayed that way...and I think he mentioned making some changes to plans to ensure this.

I will talk to my husband and see if he remembers this.

17 years ago was when they were putting out small temples at a lower cost so that many more saints could enjoy them.  It is nonsense to then say there was no budget for them because that would defeat the whole purpose.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Since it would make no sense to build a temple where there are not sufficient temple recommend holders to keep it functional, the proliferation of temples is a fairly reliable indicator.

And since a stake cannot be formed without a critical mass of faithful and earnest believers to keep it functional by filling key positions, the proliferation of stakes is also a reliable indicator.

 

Not really.

Stake creation is based upon membership numbers but the requirements are arbitrary. I recall reading about a new stake that was created in Arkansas last year that had a membership # about 1/2 the usual requirement for creating a stake. So a stake was created but it didn't necessarily reflect growth in membership. Yes, there are key leadership functions that must be staffed BUT many of those stake callings are adaptable based on need. For example, in my stake we've never had counselors in the Stake Sunday School. It's only the President. We've also had it where a Stake High Councilor is also the Stake YM Pres., eliminating some staffing needs. My only point is that we often assume certain needs and numbers for new stakes that aren't always accurate.

Regarding temples, as has already been stated, it's hard to know how much new temples reflect growth because a new temple in an area takes away from members in other temple districts. Sure, they need to have adequate staffing but a reduced number of sessions makes staffing easier. If we want to know how temple work is progressing, a better metric would be number of TR holders, number of sessions, number of ordinances performed. What do those trends look like? Maybe they show growth. I don't know. But simply having an additional temple doesn't necessarily mean there is more work being performed.

It would be very easy for the church to release information about temple ordinances so we can see the trends on activity over the past 20 years. I've got to think that we would see an increase, if for no other reason than that people have closer access. If a person only drives 1 hour instead of 4, they are likely to attend more. I think that is the plan behind the additional temples. Increase work based on availability and proximity.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Fortunately, in the Church of Jesus Christ, mortal men and women don't tell the Lord how to run things.

Joseph Smith said that if we neglect our kindred dead, the Lord will reject us as a people.

 

I have no issue with doing work for the dead. Just the money spent, I know someone personally who decorated the temples. And the cost for a vase seemed so extreme.

Also, I remember it being said that we'll be so busy with temple work one day that we'll need to use our churchs or stake houses to accomodate the temple patrons. Why isn't there a bigger push to get temple work finished I wonder. Many church's sit empty all week long and in many countries without temples, why not utilize these buildings? If doing work for the dead is a commandment, you'd think more would be done. 

Are we taught about it enough in our Sunday classes? I think we are taught about how important the temple is, but work for the dead could be done in any building, I agree with Jeanne. 

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

So was the temple he was working on, can't remember which but I believe it was when he was a junior apostle.

Not having a budget for anything seems completely antithetical to the way the Church operates in the past sixty years since Moyle? put the Church in debt iirc with his building flurry.  I just don't buy it.  There is no way they could plan ahead without one when building multiple temples at a time.

Maybe he was exaggerating but this is what he said.

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/04/new-temples-to-provide-crowning-blessings-of-the-gospel?lang=eng

"I have looked down from my seat and seen on the front row in the Tabernacle a group of Otavalo Indians from the highlands of Ecuador, and I want to express my appreciation to these wonderful people, these faithful Latter-day Saints who have come so very, very far to participate with us in this conference. Thank you very much, brothers and sisters.

In case you do not know where Otavalo is, you go to Quito, then you drive up across the equator and come to villages in the highlands of the great mountains of Ecuador, and there are these peaceful and wonderful people.

As we conclude this great gathering, which has reached across the nation and bridged the seas, I express in humility and with thanksgiving my deep appreciation for all who have participated, including those who have listened. The music has been wonderful. The prayers have been inspirational. The talks have been prepared and delivered under the promptings of the Holy Spirit. We have rejoiced together with grateful hearts. Now it becomes our duty and responsibility, as we return to our homes, to translate into our daily lives the truths which we have heard spoken.

Now, in conclusion I wish to make an announcement. As I have previously indicated, in recent months we have traveled far out among the membership of the Church. I have been with many who have very little of this world’s goods. But they have in their hearts a great burning faith concerning this latter-day work. They love the Church. They love the gospel. They love the Lord and want to do His will. They are paying their tithing, modest as it is. They make tremendous sacrifices to visit the temples. They travel for days at a time in cheap buses and on old boats. They save their money and do without to make it all possible.

They need nearby temples—small, beautiful, serviceable temples.

Accordingly, I take this opportunity to announce to the entire Church a program to construct some 30 smaller temples immediately. They will be in Europe, in Asia, in Australia and Fiji, in Mexico and Central and South America and Africa, as well as in the United States and Canada. They will have all the necessary facilities to provide the ordinances of the Lord’s house.

This will be a tremendous undertaking. Nothing even approaching it has ever been tried before. These will be in addition to the 17 buildings now going forward in England; Spain; Ecuador; Bolivia; the Dominican Republic; Brazil; Colombia; Billings, Montana; Houston, Texas; Boston, Massachusetts; White Plains, New York; and Albuquerque, New Mexico; and the smaller temples in Anchorage, Alaska; Monticello, Utah; and Colonia Juárez, Mexico. This will make a total of 47 new temples in addition to the 51 now in operation. I think we had better add 2 more to make it an even 100 by the end of this century, being 2,000 years “since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh” (D&C 20:1). In this program we are moving on a scale the like of which we have never seen before.

I will not give you the specific cities at this time. Stake presidents will be advised as property is secured. I am confident the membership of the Church will do a lot of speculating as to whether one of these will be in their city.

If temple ordinances are an essential part of the restored gospel, and I testify that they are, then we must provide the means by which they can be accomplished. All of our vast family history endeavor is directed to temple work. There is no other purpose for it. The temple ordinances become the crowning blessings the Church has to offer.

I can only add that when these 30 or 32 are built, there will be more yet to come."

Edited November 28, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe he was exaggerating but this is what he said.

Please explain how 30 temples with no budget could be built as a way to ensure that many more Saints would have access to them without crashing the Church financial planning with all the uncertainty as well as undoing the cost saving effort of small temples?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Wasn't there some sealings and/or work done before the 1st Temple was completed?

Baptisms for the dead were the only ordinances performed.  All others were required to wait until the St. George Temple was built; even the Endowment House was not sufficient for proxy endowments.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Calm

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Baptisms for the dead were the only ordinances performed.  All others were required to wait until the St. George Temple was built; even the Endowment House was not sufficient for proxy endowments.

Thank you. 

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't want to start an argument with Scott or others, but in my mind, I feel the members who pay their tithing, want nice temples. They benefit from feeling like they are in another world besides their own. I'm sure that it is partly why. Because like you I don't think the Lord needs those things, especially when he's admonished us to do otherwise. 

The Lord doesn't need us to exist at all if one is arguing that.  How much effort and expense of his resources he could have saved by just skipping the whole plan of salvation.

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please explain how 30 temples with no budget could be built as a way to ensure that many more Saints would have access to them without crashing the Church financial planning with all the uncertainty as well as undoing the cost saving effort of small temples?

After reading some articles from the church on how they go about building the temples, they explain the need to build with the very best materials for sustainability, and also it mentions that they only buy the best furnishings to last a very long time. And they are limited to who they can hire to build their temples, at least in the United States. They want only builders that have a crew that do not smoke or swear etc. The standards that go into building a temple are the highest possible. Maybe this is what my neighbor meant, and we misunderstood. 

ETA: Quote from one of the articles...http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-temple-building-process

In selecting building materials, the Church settles for nothing but the best. The pattern for this, Elder Walker says, is found in the description of Solomon’s Temple in 1 Kings 7 in the Bible. “They used the finest materials and the finest workmen to build the temple. And that’s the pattern we follow,” Elder Walker says. “Not to be ostentatious, but to be beautiful in a wonderful tribute to God.”

Edited November 28, 2016 by Tacenda

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The standards that go into building a temple are the highest possible. Maybe this is what my neighbor meant, and we misunderstood. 

Very likely.

The leaks that occurred a short time ago included a temple supply ordering list.  It had a nativity scene included.  Iow, all temples had to order the same kind, which was high end material that looked like it would last forever, but not "no limit".  And from what I have heard reported over the decades and seen the process on the ward and stake level being identical (what was purchased was identified in many cases, even on some minor things like some office supplies for the ward), it seems unlikely to me to be much different.

My bil's father was in charge of the building program back in the 80s.  He has died, but maybe his son learned about the process as he once was in the same business and I can imagine some family discussions.  I will try and remember to ask him next time I see him.

The extreme care they take to have everyone put on booties (even my mom in a wheelchair gets them) indicates to me they are earnest about not having to spend money on replacing carpets and they put a lot of effort into limiting wear and tear other ways as well, IMO.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not really.

Stake creation is based upon membership numbers but the requirements are arbitrary. I recall reading about a new stake that was created in Arkansas last year that had a membership # about 1/2 the usual requirement for creating a stake. So a stake was created but it didn't necessarily reflect growth in membership. Yes, there are key leadership functions that must be staffed BUT many of those stake callings are adaptable based on need. For example, in my stake we've never had counselors in the Stake Sunday School. It's only the President. We've also had it where a Stake High Councilor is also the Stake YM Pres., eliminating some staffing needs. My only point is that we often assume certain needs and numbers for new stakes that aren't always accurate.

I have to think such a thing would be the exception rather than the rule.

For what it's worth, here's what this guy, Matt Martinich, says with regard to requirements for creation of a stake:
 

Quote

 

Stakes provide one of the most reliable and meaningful measures for church growth in the LDS Church as stakes must meet not only numerical membership requirements but also certain qualifications for gender ratios (i.e. active Melchizedek Priesthood holders to general members), the number of congregations, and the number of active members.  Consequently increases in the number of stakes generally indicates a consistent increase in active church membership that requires the formation of new wards to the point that a single stake can no longer effectively administer so many church members and units.  Specific stake-related statistics and factors that offer insight into church growth include the number of stakes in a country, the countries with the most members without a stake, the breakdown of stake growth by country and location, the countries with the most members with only one stake, the frequency of Church Education System (CES) and other church employees serving in stake presidencies, and when the Church organized its first stake in a country in regards to the number of members.   In mid-2013, the 10 countries with the most stakes were the United States (1,504), Brazil (249), Mexico (226), Peru (100), Philippines (85), Chile (74), Argentina (72), Canada (47), the United Kingdom (45), and Guatemala (41) and the 10 countries with the most members without a stake (provided with membership totals for year-end 2012) included Cambodia (11,469), mainland China (10,000 members - estimate), Malaysia (8,967), Liberia (6,709), Mozambique (6,029), Jamaica (5,580), Vanuatu (5,491), Guyana (5,415), the Federated States of Micronesia (4,565), and Belize (4,240).  Since 2000, approximately half of new stakes organized each year have been within the United States whereas most other new stakes have been organized in Latin America or Sub-Saharan Africa.  In 2011, the countries that had the most new stakes created where the United States (28), Peru (4), Venezuela (4), Brazil (3), and the Philippines (3).  Between 2006 and 2011, the Church generally created the most new stakes in the United States, Brazil, Mexico, and Peru.

Due to stringent qualifications to operate, stakes can be consolidated with nearby stakes or return to district stakes if they fail to meet the minimal standards for a stake to operate.  Since the Church's organization there have been approximately 150 stakes discontinued worldwide, 125 of which closed between 1990 and mid-2012.  The primary reasons for discontinuing stakes include declining active membership caused by active members moving outside of a stake's boundaries and low member activity and poor convert retention rates.  The Church has discontinued some stakes due to other factors such as geographical distance between church units, communication difficulties preventing a stake from properly functioning, local stake leaders not complying with church administrative protocol, and forming multiple districts from a discontinued stake in aspiration of creating multiple stakes one day.  There have been several instances of the Church reinstating a discontinued stake once the location re-qualifies for a stake to operate.  In recent years, the Church has avoided the term "stake reinstatement" and instead considers the process like organizing a new stake altogether.  For example, the Church created the Tokyo Japan South (English) Stake in 2003, discontinued the stake and reorganized congregations into a district in 2010, and consolidated the district with a nearby military district to recreate the stake under the same name in 2012.  Discontinued stakes provide valuable data and insights to missiology researchers.  For example, the LDS Church in Chile exhibits one of the lowest member activity rates worldwide (estimated at 10-15%) and Chile is the country with the most stakes that have ever been discontinued (43). 

 

 

 

 

Back to you:

 

Quote

 

Regarding temples, as has already been stated, it's hard to know how much new temples reflect growth because a new temple in an area takes away from members in other temple districts.

 

Even if it did draw members away from other districts, presumably it would not be built before it was needed. For example, when President Hinckley presided at the groundbreaking for the Draper Utah Temple, he specifically said that some had asked why another temple was being built in the Salt Lake Valley, and the direct answer he gave was that it was because it was needed. The Draper temple and the Oquirrh Mountain Temple, built at the same time, relieved pressure on the Jordan River Temple, which had been one of the busiest in the Church.

 

Quote

Sure, they need to have adequate staffing but a reduced number of sessions makes staffing easier. If we want to know how temple work is progressing, a better metric would be number of TR holders, number of sessions, number of ordinances performed. What do those trends look like? Maybe they show growth. I don't know. But simply having an additional temple doesn't necessarily mean there is more work being performed.

Again, I have to think new temple construction is driven largely by a commensurate number of temple recommend holders who need the new temple in their midst. It doesn't make sense to me that the Church would construct a temple where there weren't going to be enough temple patrons to keep it functioning. It seems to me that would be the first requirement for consideration.
 

Quote

 

It would be very easy for the church to release information about temple ordinances so we can see the trends on activity over the past 20 years.

 

For whatever reason they have chosen not to. But I don't see this as justification for concluding a priori that the apostle was lying when he said in general conference that the indicators of real growth (such as temple attendance and tithe paying) have never been stronger. He is in a position to know, and I trust his honesty.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Okrahomer]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I recall reading about a new stake that was created in Arkansas last year that had a membership # about 1/2 the usual requirement for creating a stake. So a stake was created but it didn't necessarily reflect growth in membership.

Do you happen to remember where you read this?  I don't believe any new stakes have been created in Arkansas since 2014:  The Bentonville Arkansas Stake had 8 wards, and the Searcy Arkansas Stake had 5 wards and 6 branches.  Perhaps what you read was referring to 2014?  Even so, I think it's strong evidence that one shouldn't believe everything one reads.

By the end of 2014, there were 7 LDS stakes (including these two new ones) and about 30,000 members in Arkansas.  That's more than 4,000 members per stake.  Does that sound like "half the usual" to you?

[stemelbow]

Whatever the case with all of this, we know the growth rate of the Church has decreased at a rapid pace over the past 20 years.  Indeed, as of last year's growth rate, we have seen the Church's growth rate decrease by more than 50% compared to the growth rate 20 years ago.  On top of that, in terms of the number of members who are dropping from the ranks of membership--that number has increased in that same span (both as a number and as a percentage of the whole).  Whether more members are dying, are being excommunicated, or having their names removed, isn't known.  All we know is more people are dropping from the membership list than they have in times past (again both as a number and as a percentage). 

I know people like to close their eyes, stop their ears to this stuff because hey, we're still seeing organic growth in various parts of the world.  But that doesn't mean there's any reason to pretend we don't have issues to deal with.  Last year the Church's growth rate dropped below the growth rate of the world.  that's the first time that's happened in a century.  Pretending all is well in zion is what has gotten us here.  The problems won't go away. 

At least that's my take. 

[Rain]

21 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I wish that LDS tithe payers could have a say in where these monies go  Just a few blocks away from a beautiful Temple and the City Creek Mall there are those who could really use some help or at least a plan other than...don't give you money to  those folks.  Instead of building...give them a "road home"...or at least try.

I get frustrated when I read this over and over again.  To me this is like someone saying that I shouldn't be paying my mortgage because my budget should all be going to food.  The whole idea of a budget is to have money for all of the needed areas in life,  not just one.  The church can build temples AND care for the poor and needy - and that is just what they do.  The people who keep getting after the church for supposedly not caring for the needy just don't have enough knowledge of what the church is doing to make that judgement. I keep repeating ways in which I have learned the church is helping the needy and after a few months it seems to be forgotten again. 

One last thing.  I have a brother who is on and off again homeless in the Salt Lake area.  You have to remember there are two sides to this. The church can't help people who refuse help. The church recognizes people have agency. Yes, there are some people who can and should be helped and they are where they are through no fault of their own.  I'm not assigning blame here. My brother has at times needed a job, but refuses to get help through church employment - the resource is there, but he won't use it. So you can't judge the church's ability and willingness to give solely on the idea there are homeless and hungry. It's complicated. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Whatever the case with all of this, we know the growth rate of the Church has decreased at a rapid pace over the past 20 years.  Indeed, as of last year's growth rate, we have seen the Church's growth rate decrease by more than 50% compared to the growth rate 20 years ago.  On top of that, in terms of the number of members who are dropping from the ranks of membership--that number has increased in that same span (both as a number and as a percentage of the whole).  Whether more members are dying, are being excommunicated, or having their names removed, isn't known.  All we know is more people are dropping from the membership list than they have in times past (again both as a number and as a percentage). 

I know people like to close their eyes, stop their ears to this stuff because hey, we're still seeing organic growth in various parts of the world.  But that doesn't mean there's any reason to pretend we don't have issues to deal with.  Last year the Church's growth rate dropped below the growth rate of the world.  that's the first time that's happened in a century.  Pretending all is well in zion is what has gotten us here.  The problems won't go away. 

At least that's my take. 

Assuming arguendo that there has been an alarming decrease in growth rate in raw numbers, that does not negate what Church leaders have said recently about the indicators of real growth (i.e. faithfulness in temple attendance, tithe-paying, etc.) are higher than they've ever been.

Nor does it support the repetitive mantra about a "mass exodus." The facts reported in the Tribune article cited in the OP argue against that notion, in fact.

Quote

Whether more members are dying, are being excommunicated, or having their names removed, isn't known.

Members of the baby boom generation are reaching the age of mortality now. If that generation has been over-represented in the membership of the Church by weight of sheer numbers, then it is bound to have an impact when they start to die off.

Quote

I know people like to close their eyes, stop their ears to this stuff because hey, we're still seeing organic growth in various parts of the world.  But that doesn't mean there's any reason to pretend we don't have issues to deal with.

Conversely, it serves no useful purpose to demoralize people with unfounded fears about a "mass exodus" and other such drivel -- although I have no doubt there are many who would love to do just that.

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd