Mass Exodus from Church?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

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. 

 

The unspoken message in their complaints is that they place no value whatsoever on the ecclesiastical purposes of the Church such as temple building, missionary work, salvation for the dead. They would be contemptuous about any resources spent on those purposes, regardless of the amount. It is a form of self-righteousness, which, at its core is the attitude that "if you don't do things my way, you're not doing them right."

Edited November 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

If folks are going to criticize the beauty and resplendent character and design and decoration of LDS temples, are they also going to rail against the beauty and ornate character of the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant?  Consider the following divine mandates given to Moses and the Children of Israel:

Quote

 

1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

...

10 ¶And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.

11 And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about.

12 And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in the one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it.

13 And thou shalt make staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold.

...

17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.

18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

(Exodus 25:1,17-18) (emphases added).

 

The remainder of Exodus 25 is likewise instructive (emphases added):

Quote

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.

3 And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass,

4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair,

5 And rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ skins, and shittim wood,

6 Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,

7 Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod, and in the breastplate.

8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

...

 23 ¶Thou shalt also make a table of shittim wood: two cubits shall be the length thereof, and a cubit the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.

24 And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, and make thereto a crown of gold round about.

25 And thou shalt make unto it a border of an hand breadth round about, and thou shalt make a golden crown to the border thereof round about.

26 And thou shalt make for it four rings of gold, and put the rings in the four corners that are on the four feet thereof.

27 Over against the border shall the rings be for places of the staves to bear the table.

28 And thou shalt make the staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold, that the table may be borne with them.

29 And thou shalt make the dishes thereof, and spoons thereof, and covers thereof, and bowls thereof, to cover withal: of pure gold shalt thou make them.

30 And thou shalt set upon the table shewbread before me alway.

31 ¶And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, shall be of the same.

...

36 Their knops and their branches shall be of the same: all it shall be one beaten work of pure gold.

37 And thou shalt make the seven lamps thereof: and they shall light the lamps thereof, that they may give light over against it.

38 And the tongs thereof, and the snuffdishes thereof, shall be of pure gold.

39 Of a talent of pure gold shall he make it, with all these vessels.

And verse 40, well, it's a kicker: "And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount."  The Lord was the author of these ornate and costly designs.  They were given in part to Moses when he was "in the mount."  And these designs, and the materials used to fulfill them, were offered up by the Lord's covenant people while they were wandering in the wilderness for decades.  

I think there are very good reasons for the resplendent nature of these special buildings.  

Vanity is not one of them.  God is not vain.

Diverting wealth better spent on the poor is not one of them.  God is mindful of His children.  In fact, I am reminded here of Mark 14:

Quote

3 ¶ And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.

4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?

5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.

6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.

 7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

 8 She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.

And John 12:

Quote

3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,

5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

I don't think the Savior appreciated the apparently cynical (and hypocritical) juxtaposition of the above-described use of spikenard against the welfare of the poor (see Elder Talmage's treatment of this event here).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 29, 2016 by smac97

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours 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. 

The thought of a Relief Society President, General Authority, a Stake President, High Council member, Primary President or Bishop leaving the church used to be an unheard of event.  Now days its seems to be a rather common one.  The church its losing some of its most devout as well as the majority of those it baptizes each year.   If this is a sign of a healthy vibrant organization...I guess I need to lower my standards on what Healthy represents.

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Well you've made my point, Scott.  Temple attendance has to increase when members are closer to the temple.  That's a given.  What tithe paying numbers are you privy to?  I'm not sure what you mean by "real growth"?  Are you saying we had a ton of fake growth 20 years ago?  What would that mean? 

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

I'm not suggesting there's a mass exodus.  that's not my take.  It is without question true that the number of members getting taken off the roles each year has increased, both as a number and as a percentage of the whole.  I don't think that equates to a mass exodus.  It merely means something has changed. 

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

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.

 

I'm fine with disavowing the drivel about a mass exodus.  I don't know anyone how has suggested as much.  But, that hardly means all is well.  We have plenty of signs of problems, even if some leaders have told us not so.  I'd either like to know more or deal with what we have. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The thought of a Relief Society President, General Authority, a Stake President, High Council member, Primary President or Bishop leaving the church used to be an unheard of event.  Now days its seems to be a rather common one.  The church its losing some of its most devout as well as the majority of those it baptizes each year.   If this is a sign of a healthy vibrant organization...I guess I need to lower my standards on what Healthy represents.

I'd guess that throughout the history of the Church there have been such high profile members leaving--since Kirtland one might say.  it might be at an increased rate today.  But we don't get news on that.  It is clear we have more members off the roles from year to year.  Why that is, I don't know.  They won't tell us stuff like that.  With that said, I'd also find it problematic to say the Church is not healthy or vibrant, at least in some ways.  In terms of growth, it certainly is not what it used to be.  That can be rectified, I'd say.  But there's still growth.  There's still some vibrant feel to it.  Healthy?  Well, I have all sorts of ups and downs there.  There's some health, some problems...not all is negative, not all is positive. 

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If folks are going to criticize the beauty and resplendent character and design and decoration of LDS temples, are they also going to rail against the beauty and ornate character of the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant?

The remainder of Exodus 25 is likewise instructive (emphases added):

And verse 40, well, it's a kicker: "And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount."  The Lord was the author of these ornate and costly designs.  They were given in part to Moses when he was "in the mount."  And these designs, and the materials used to fulfill them, were offered up by the Lord's covenant people while they were wandering in the wilderness for decades.  

I think there are very good reasons for the resplendent nature of these special buildings.  

Vanity is not one of them.  God is not vain.

Diverting wealth better spent on the poor is not one of them.  God is mindful of His children.  In fact, I am reminded here of Mark 14:

And John 12:

I don't think the Savior appreciated the apparently cynical (and hypocritical) juxtaposition of the above-described use of spikenard against the welfare of the poor (see Elder Talmage's treatment of this event here).

Thanks,

-Smac

The passage I quoted from the Doctrine and Covenants about temple building is reminiscent of these Old Testament passages.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well you've made my point, Scott.  Temple attendance has to increase when members are closer to the temple.  That's a given.  What tithe paying numbers are you privy to?  I'm not sure what you mean by "real growth"?  Are you saying we had a ton of fake growth 20 years ago?  What would that mean? 

When I say temple attendance, I mean holders of a current temple recommend. I'm sorry that wasn't clear to you. And if building a temple closer to the people means that more of them make themselves worthy for a temple recommend, well, that's real growth, isn't?

And to hold a current temple recommend, you have to be a full tithe payer, no? Ergo, the one is a function of the other.

I understand the term "real growth" to mean an increase in the number of those who are earnestly endeavoring to keep the commandments of God, as measured by the number of  those who pay a full tithing, qualify for a temple recommend, etc. I don't understand your remark about "fake growth" 20 years ago. Real growth, as defined here, would be the same in any age.

And I don't understand your remark about my making your point. What point is it of yours that you think I've made?

Quote

I'm not suggesting there's a mass exodus.  that's not my take. 

I'm glad that's not your take.

Quote

It is without question true that the number of members getting taken off the roles each year has increased, both as a number and as a percentage of the whole.  I don't think that equates to a mass exodus.  It merely means something has changed. 

You've said you have no way of knowing whether this is due to apostasy or attrition. I've suggested one possible cause: baby boomers (who perhaps had been disproportionately represented in the Church membership) aging and dying off. There may be other reasons not related to mass apostasy.

Edited to add:

I remind you of what Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said in a footnote to his general conference talk of April 2015, the one in which he said the Church "has never been stronger." In that footnote, he said:
 

Quote

Over the last 25 years, the actual number of members leaving the Church has decreased and the Church has almost doubled in size. The percentage leaving is greatly reduced.

Back to you:

Quote

I'm fine with disavowing the drivel about a mass exodus.  I don't know anyone how has suggested as much.  But, that hardly means all is well.  We have plenty of signs of problems, even if some leaders have told us not so.  I'd either like to know more or deal with what we have. 

I'm not ready to jump to the conclusion that a slowing of raw growth is caused by internal problems in the Church. There is a trend in society generally, especially among younger people, of disaffiliation with and contempt for organized religion. We're not immune to societal trends. And in fact, it has been foretold in scripture (Nephi's vision) that the church of the Lamb of God would be few in number by reason of the devil's pervasive influence. But a slowing in the growth rate of raw numbers is a matter separate and apart from whether we are seeing real growth among those who are already affiliated with the Church. Recent statements from Church leaders, including the one from Elder Cook above, would indicate that we are.

And that's something we have greater control over. There's not a whole lot we can do about the influences that affect people before we can reach them with the gospel message.

My missionary son in Sweden shared an experience with us in his letter yesterday. He and his companion are the only full-time missionaries in an area that is rather large geographically. One morning, they took an excursion to a rather remote town in their area to do some tracting. They were engaging in some conjecture that perhaps they were the only representatives of the Church to have been in that town in many years, perhaps ever. They were thinking that perhaps the town was pristine, untrammeled and ripe for a harvest of souls. They were brought to an abrupt realization of the pervasiveness of the Internet when, in one of the contacts they made, a man blurted out that Joseph Smith had "written the Book of Mormon as a prank."

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The thought of a Relief Society President, General Authority, a Stake President, High Council member, Primary President or Bishop leaving the church used to be an unheard of event.  Now days its seems to be a rather common one.  The church its losing some of its most devout as well as the majority of those it baptizes each year.   If this is a sign of a healthy vibrant organization...I guess I need to lower my standards on what Healthy represents.

There have always been apostasies by such "high profile" individuals. The reason it seems more common to you now is that they have the Internet as a medium for boasting about it.

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The thought of a Relief Society President, General Authority, a Stake President, High Council member, Primary President or Bishop leaving the church used to be an unheard of event.  

Where did you live?  Member burnout (as was usually assumed responsible for those who had been highly involved) has been a well known phenomena all of my life.  And it makes sense that at least some of these were due to loss of faith.

[Bernard Gui]

21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.”

I have a friend whose construction company includes contracts for temple updating and remodeling. They surely do expect high standards in materials and craftsmanship. Last week he shared a miraculous story about the remodeling of the Seattle temple. They were adding marble trim to hallways, entryways, and elevator door surrounds. The specs for the trim required very narrow, easily breakable strips of a specific variety of marble with which it seemed impossible to comply.

To make a long story short, he was inspired to find the quantity needed plus a little to spare for error...it was the only supply of that kind of marble in the US and it was just the amount he needed. When the installers completed the work, the strips were slightly waved, not perfectly straight, and were unacceptable. They despaired because there was no marble left and the deadline was quickly approaching. As they were discussing what to do, a man walked in, heard their conversation, and said he could fix the problem. He was an LDS stoneworker who lived in the area, knew the technique and had the tools necessary to make the fix, and said he had felt that he was needed at the temple, so he drove over to see what was up. He indeed squared the trim and it is indeed beautiful.

The wonderful thing for me is that rich or poor, anyone can come to the temple and enjoy the beautiful things that are there, without recrimination or even knowing who is rich and who is poor.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

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. 

Indeed! We are free to allocate whatever we want to care for the poor. This is an individual responsibility as well as an institutional responsibility. There is nothing to prevent us from taking personal steps to substantially support reputable charities or privately to help family, friends, or strangers in need.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed! We are free to allocate whatever we want to care for the poor. This is an individual responsibility as well as an institutional responsibility. There is nothing to prevent us from taking personal steps to substantially support reputable charities or privately help family, friends, or strangers in need.

In fact, the institutional efforts of the Church in caring for the poor and needy are funded by the individual donations of Church members and others. So those who think the Church of Jesus Christ is not doing enough to help the poor should literally put their money where their mouth is and contribute to the humanitarian and fast offering funds so the Church can do more.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When I say temple attendance, I mean holders of a current temple recommend. I'm sorry that wasn't clear to you. And if building a temple closer to the people means that more of them make themselves worthy for a temple recommend, well, that's real growth, isn't?

And to hold a current temple recommend, you have to be a full tithe payer, no? Ergo, the one is a function of the other.

I understand the term "real growth" to mean an increase in the number of those who are earnestly endeavoring to keep the commandments of God, as measured by the number of  those who pay a full tithing, qualify for a temple recommend, etc. I don't understand your remark about "fake growth" 20 years ago. Real growth, as defined here, would be the same in any age.

I'd be really interested to see a report about the trends of temple recommend holders. I noticed a temporary bump after a new temple was dedicated in my area but it wasn't a lasting change. I also noticed the same phenomena with temple workers. After the first 2 years of our new temple being open there was a sharp decrease in temple workers. There was a concerted effort in the area to seek out additional workers after the first crop started dropping out. Some of this is natural due to attrition but I think it is also evidence in lack of enthusiasm after the newness wears off.

It's reasonable to expect attendance to increase when a new temple is dedicated simply because of proximity, though I think there is certainly a level of enthusiasm that is generated with a new temple. If I live 3 hours away from a movie theater I am much less likely to attend regularly than if I only live 20 minutes from a theater. So the proximity issue has a possibility of skewing attendance numbers. What would be more useful is watching the trend lines for previously endowed with a current recommend before and after a new temple is built. I'd be shocked if these kinds of studies don't already exist within the church office building.

Edited November 29, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'd be really interested to see a report about the trends of temple recommend holders. I noticed a temporary bump after a new temple was dedicated in my area but it wasn't a lasting change. I also noticed the same phenomena with temple workers. After the first 2 years of our new temple being open there was a sharp decrease in temple workers. There was a concerted effort in the area to seek out additional workers after the first crop started dropping out. Some of this is natural due to attrition but I think it is also evidence in lack of enthusiasm after the newness wears off.

It's reasonable to expect attendance to increase when a new temple is dedicated simply because of proximity, though I think there is certainly a level of enthusiasm that is generated with a new temple. If I live 3 hours away from a movie theater I am much less likely to attend regularly than if I only live 20 minutes from a theater. So the proximity issue has a possibility of skewing attendance numbers. What would be more useful is watching the trend lines for previously endowed with a current recommend before and after a new temple is built. I'd be shocked if these kinds of studies don't already exist within the church office building.

I understood Elder Cook to have in mind, among other things, holders of current temple recommends when he said:

Quote

The increase in demonstrably measurable areas, such as endowed members with a current temple recommend, adult full-tithe payers, and those serving missions, has been dramatic. Let me say again, the Church has never been stronger. But, “remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God.”²⁵ We reach out to everyone.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I understood Elder Cook to have in mind, among other things, holders of current temple recommends when he said:

You may be right that is what he was implying, but we can only guess. He didn't give any specific numbers nor did he offer any evidence that could give context to his statement. Is he talking in total numbers or as a percentage of church membership? There could be an increase in "endowed members with a current temple recommend, adult full-tithe payers, and those serving missions" yet still be a decreasing percentage of the church population. I don't know but I'd be willing to accept whatever the data shows. I'd love to know exactly what data he was looking at and how it was analyzed.

This is another good example of why increased transparency could be beneficial. If the numbers are really as good as he is stating it could be faith promoting for members. There is clearly some data available to the leadership and it would be great if they allowed membership to see the data as well. But they tend to keep most information tightly sequestered. In academic studies around organizational leadership it has become pretty clear that with advancements in technology and information systems, organizations are being required to communicate more and be more transparent as they establish and maintain relationships with others within their organization. That would be true whether we are talking about employees or church members. I think the church could benefit by adopting a different philosophy around information, transparency, communication, and leadership in general.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When I say temple attendance, I mean holders of a current temple recommend. I'm sorry that wasn't clear to you. And if building a temple closer to the people means that more of them make themselves worthy for a temple recommend, well, that's real growth, isn't?

Beats me.  What was the mind set of being a worthy member 20 years ago compared to today, particularly for those members who were way out of reach of temples?  20 years ago I was on my mission in Kansas City area (before the St Louis and Kansas City temples).  They had to go to Chicago or Dallas.  There was certainly some sentiment to keep a current recommend, but not too strong.  I'd wager the same members 20 years later are more prone to carry a current recommend.  Back then, when temple trips were in the works, the local leaders would be drowned in members trying to get a recommend before the trip.  That's just how it was.  Not sure there's any more to put into it than that.  If more members per capita carry a current recommend now than they did 20 years ago, the explanation for that is simple, and probably has nothing to do with real growth. 

Quote

And to hold a current temple recommend, you have to be a full tithe payer, no? Ergo, the one is a function of the other.

I understand the term "real growth" to mean an increase in the number of those who are earnestly endeavoring to keep the commandments of God, as measured by the number of  those who pay a full tithing, qualify for a temple recommend, etc. I don't understand your remark about "fake growth" 20 years ago. Real growth, as defined here, would be the same in any age.

Alright, Scott.  I acknowledge the Church has grown over the past 20 years.   My point was the Church's growth rate has bottomed out in recent years, lower than it has been in a century.  And that's an issue, in my mind.  Am I saying the Church has not grown, by acknowledging the facts?  No. 

Quote

And I don't understand your remark about my making your point. What point is it of yours that you think I've made?

I'm glad that's not your take.

You've said you have no way of knowing whether this is due to apostasy or attrition. I've suggested one possible cause: baby boomers getting old and dying off. There may be others not related to mass apostasy.

It certainly could be a number of things contributing.  I wouldn't doubt it.  But the percent of the whole difference is pretty interesting.  I'd love more detail on why that is.   

Quote

I'm not ready to jump to the conclusion that a slowing of raw growth is caused by internal problems in the Church.

I realize you are not.  I'm more prone to think there are internal problems that cause it, but I also realize I'm having to use only guesswork here.  I'd wager the issue is very complicated. 

Quote

There is a trend in society generally of disaffiliation with organized religion. We're not immune to societal trends. And in fact, it has been foretold in scripture (Nephi's vision) that the church of the Lamb of God would be few in number by reason of the devil's pervasive influence. But a slowing in the grrowth rate of raw numbers is a matter separate and apart from whether we are seeing real growth among those who are already affiliated with the Church. Recent statements from Church leaders would indicate that we are.

I'm guessing some of the problem we face is the trend of disaffiliation, sure.  But I'd wager that doesn't account for it all.  And we need to be dynamic enough to make up for outside forces, in my mind.  As a population we're such a small piece of the world, I question whether "few" works at this point.  We could quadruple our population in one year and still be few in number.  That's more of a cop out to me. 

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

implying, but we can only guess. He didn't give any specific numbers nor did he offer any evidence that could give context to his statement. Is he talking in total numbers or as a percentage of church membership?

Or we can assume he is an upright and honest man and take his word without suspecting he is prevaricating. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You may be right that is what he was implying, but we can only guess.

I don't have to guess. Did you read the quote? He used the phrase "endowed members with a current temple recommend." He could hardly have been more explicit.
 

Quote

 

He didn't give any specific numbers nor did he offer any evidence that could give context to his statement. Is he talking in total numbers or as a percentage of church membership? There could be an increase in "endowed members with a current temple recommend, adult full-tithe payers, and those serving missions" yet still be a decreasing percentage of the church population.

 

I think he was pretty clear. There is scarcely any ambiguity in the declaration, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never been stronger."

 

Quote

I don't know but I'd be willing to accept whatever the data shows. I'd love to know exactly what data he was looking at and how it was analyzed.

Meanwhile, we have his word as a reliable witness, a man of integrity who is in a position to know what he is talking about. His testimony strikes me as strong evidence. The evidence we have from those who would contradict him is, wait for it, ZIP.

Quote

This is another good example of why increased transparency could be beneficial. If the numbers are really as good as he is stating it could be faith promoting for members. There is clearly some data available to the leadership and it would be great if they allowed membership to see the data as well. But they tend to keep most information tightly sequestered. In academic studies around organizational leadership it has become pretty clear that with advancements in technology and information systems, organizations are being required to communicate more and be more transparent as they establish and maintain relationships with others within their organization. That would be true whether we are talking about employees or church members. I think the church could benefit by adopting a different philosophy around information, transparency, communication, and leadership in general.

See above. Other than whining about lack of transparency, those who would doubt his word have no compelling argument for doing so.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I understood Elder Cook to have in mind, among other things, holders of current temple recommends when he said:

 

Quote

The increase in demonstrably measurable areas, such as endowed members with a current temple recommend, adult full-tithe payers, and those serving missions, has been dramatic. Let me say again, the Church has never been stronger. But, “remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God.”²⁵ We reach out to everyone.

I'm not sure just hearing conclusions helps us since we all carry different opinions.  For instance, he says the increase in those serving missions has been dramatic.  But, 20 years ago the percent of members who were on missions was higher than the peak of the surge.  Thus, his claim of a dramatic increase seems to only account for raw numbers but doesn't account for the overall growth of the Church.  If he used the same type of measurement for current temple recommend holders, or full tithe payers, we may see the same issue with this conclusion.  Sure, in a sense that Church is stronger, because the members are more.  But, in another sense, the Church is not what it used to be. 

 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't have to guess. Did you read the quote? He used the phrase "endowed members with a current temple recommend." He could hardly have been more explicit.
 

I think he was pretty clear. There is scarcely any ambiguity in the declaration, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never been stronger."

 

Meanwhile, we have his word as a reliable witness, a man of integrity who is in a position to know what he is talking about. His testimony strikes me as strong evidence. The evidence we have from those who would contradict him is, wait for it, ZIP.

See above. Other than whining about lack of transparency, those who would doubt his word have no compelling argument for doing so.

There is evidence to do so, Scott.  You simply aren't seeing it.  See my last post, for starters. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Beats me. 

Why would you say "Beats me"? Why can't you just be candid and admit the obvious: If someone who wasn't worthy of a temple recommend before makes himself worthy to hold one, that amounts to real growth according to the definition I gave you. How could it be otherwise?
 

Quote

 

What was the mind set of being a worthy member 20 years ago compared to today, particularly for those members who were way out of reach of temples?  20 years ago I was on my mission in Kansas City area (before the St Louis and Kansas City temples).  They had to go to Chicago or Dallas.  There was certainly some sentiment to keep a current recommend, but not too strong.  I'd wager the same members 20 years later are more prone to carry a current recommend.  Back then, when temple trips were in the works, the local leaders would be drowned in members trying to get a recommend before the trip.  That's just how it was.  Not sure there's any more to put into it than that.  If more members per capita carry a current recommend now than they did 20 years ago, the explanation for that is simple, and probably has nothing to do with real growth. 

 

 

You''re over-complicating this by orders of magnitude. Temple worthiness at its heart is a measure of one's faithfulness in keeping minimum standards of faithfulness, righteousness and obedience. If one who was not worthy before to hold a temple recommend changes so that he is  now worthy, that amounts to real growth, both for the person individually and as a part of the aggregate in the Church. And that would have been as true 20 years ago as it is today. This is so obvious I am astounded that you can't (or won't) see it.

 

Quote

Alright, Scott.  I acknowledge the Church has grown over the past 20 years.   My point was the Church's growth rate has bottomed out in recent years, lower than it has been in a century.

In raw numbers, the growth rate has slowed. No one is disputing that. But can you not at least take cognizance of what Church leaders are saying, that the Church itself has never been stronger in terms of indicators of real growth as that has been defined?

 

Quote

  And that's an issue, in my mind.  Am I saying the Church has not grown, by acknowledging the facts?  No. It certainly could be a number of things contributing.  I wouldn't doubt it.  But the percent of the whole difference is pretty interesting.  I'd love more detail on why that is.   

OK, but are you willing to acknowledge the very real possibility, if not the likelihood, that societal trends are making people generally less receptive to the gospel message? As I said, that's not something we have a whole lot of control over.

Quote

I realize you are not.  I'm more prone to think there are internal problems that cause it, but I also realize I'm having to use only guesswork here.  I'd wager the issue is very complicated. 

I submit that guesswork is all it is. You've not made any persuasive case about internal problems making people on the outside less apt to accept the gospel message. And before you say its caused by the Church's stance on homosexual behavior and gay marriage, bear in mind that it is society, not the Church, that has changed on those issues and that the Church will not be caving in to social pressure on matters of morality and righteousness.

Quote

I'm guessing some of the problem we face is the trend of disaffiliation, sure.  But I'd wager that doesn't account for it all.  And we need to be dynamic enough to make up for outside forces, in my mind.  As a population we're such a small piece of the world, I question whether "few" works at this point.  We could quadruple our population in one year and still be few in number.  That's more of a cop out to me. 

It's not a cop-out to recognize the influence of Satan in the world and its results as foretold in scripture. It's being forewarned, which amounts to being fore-armed.

What we can do -- and are doing -- is to increase the global presence and influence of the Church of Jesus Christ in the world. Last I heard, MItt Romney is still being considered for the post of secretary of state, and he's meeting with Trump again.

That cause is not helped by the demoralization that can come from hand-wringing about a slowing in the rate of convert baptisms.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There is evidence to do so, Scott.  You simply aren't seeing it.  See my last post, for starters. 

I read and responded to your last post. I still see no evidence. You characterized it well in calling it "guesswork."

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why would you say "Beats me"? Why can't you just be candid and admit the obvious: If someone who wasn't worthy of a temple recommend before makes himself worthy to hold one, that amounts to real growth according to the definition I gave you. How could it be otherwise?

What makes you think the guy in Kansas city in 1995 who did not hold a current recommend was not worthy to hold one?  He very well could have been, but didn't because it was very unlikely he was going to the temple that year. 

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

You''re over-complicating this by orders of magnitude. Temple worthiness at its heart is a measure of one's faithfulness in keeping minimum standards of faithfulness, righteousness and obedience. If one who was not worthy before to hold a temple recommend changes so that he is  now worthy, that amounts to real growth, both for the person individually and as a part of the aggregate in the Church. And that would have been as true 20 years ago as it is today. This is so obvious I am astounded that you can't (or won't) see it.

I didn't say anything about someone 20 years ago who did not hold a recommend was not worthy to hold one.  He very well could have been worthy.  But since he was not going to the temple that year, he simply did not see the need to go get one.  It happened.  Now is a different era. 

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

In raw numbers, the growth rate has slowed. No one is disputing that. But can you not at least take cognizance of what Church leaders are saying, that the Church itself has never been stronger in terms of indicators of real growth as that has been defined?

I don't get your continued reference to real growth.  I makes little sense in terms of what we have to judge this on.  I know Elder Cook says the Church has never been stronger.  In a sense, I would say he's right.  In another sense, I think it's at least questionable.  Sure....there are more members than there have ever been.  We've reached places in recent years we had not reached.  That is all good news.  But that hardly means we have nothing but celebration here.  We also have the lowest growth rate we've seen for a century.  We also have less missionaries in the field, per capita than we once had.  We also have staggering levels of inactivity in various parts of the world.  We also have less conversions than we had 20 years ago--considering our reach is wider and our numbers are bigger, that's a concerning fact. 

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

OK, but are you willing to acknowledge the very real possibility, if not the likelihood, that societal trends are making people generally less receptive to the gospel message? As I said, that's not something we have a whole lot of control over.

Sure we do.  We are our own agents here.  If the world needs us to adapt so they are more ready to embrace God, then we need to do it. 

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I submit that guesswork is all it is. You've not made any persuasive case about internal problems making people on the outside less apt to accept the gospel message. And before you say its caused by the Church's stance on homosexual behavior and gay marriage, bear in mind that it is society, not the Church, that has changed on those issues and that the Church will not be caving in to social pressure on matters of morality and righteousness.

The Church has already in essence caved on some things.  the talk is much nicer now on those issues you mention.  If our leaders were still as dismissive and condemning as they once were, we'd be ignored all the more.  Luckily the Church caved a bit to societal pressure and outed that type of language.  But those aren't the only issues we need to worry about. 

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not a cop-out to recognize the influence of Satan in the world and its results as foretold in scripture. It's being forewarned, which amounts to being fore-armed.

What we can do -- and are doing -- is to increase the global presence and influence of the Church of Jesus Christ in the world. Last I heard, MItt Romney is still being considered for the post of secretary of state, and he's meeting with Trump again.

That cause is not helped by the demoralization that can come from hand-wringing about a slowing in the rate of convert baptisms.

I don't get your reference to Romney and what that has to do with the slowed rate of growth.  I don't know that appointing him would bring in a flood of converts, either.  I'll be surprised a bit if Trump offers him that post, though, seeing as Romney said a lot of really ugly things about Trump.  I thought Romney said Trump was a phony and fraud, and that his presidency would be a terrible thing. 

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I read and responded to your last post. I still see no evidence. You characterized it well in calling it "guesswork."

 

That's not the right post I referenced here.  Here you go in response to Elder Cook's message you quoted:

"I'm not sure just hearing conclusions helps us since we all carry different opinions.  For instance, he says the increase in those serving missions has been dramatic.  But, 20 years ago the percent of members who were on missions was higher than the peak of the surge.  Thus, his claim of a dramatic increase seems to only account for raw numbers but doesn't account for the overall growth of the Church.  If he used the same type of measurement for current temple recommend holders, or full tithe payers, we may see the same issue with this conclusion.  Sure, in a sense that Church is stronger, because the members are more.  But, in another sense, the Church is not what it used to be. "

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Or we can assume he is an upright and honest man and take his word without suspecting he is prevaricating. 

You must also assume he understands statistics and is accurately analyzing the numbers.

But come on, is it really hard to imagine a church leader only painting the cheery side of the story and perhaps leaving out details that are less faith promoting? Has that every happened before? Uh...yeah.