Mass Exodus from Church?

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

 

The bulk of the missionary force has always come from the areas of the Church's greatest strength in terms of membership concentration and material affluence: the United States in general and the Intermountain West in particular. It stands to reason, because members in those areas are in the strongest position to support full-time missionary sons and daughters, and it's those areas that have the highest number of multi-generational families in the Church.

Scarcely more than 20 years ago (1996) it was announced that, for the first time in history, there were more members of the Church living outside the United States than within it. If that trend has continued over the past 20 years, assuming arguendo that what you say is true, that there is a smaller percentage of the whole serving missions today, that could be more of a demographic indicator than anything else. If you are a first-generation Church member living in a developing country, you may be less able to serve a mission yourself or support a son or daughter on a mission than are Church members who live in the United States. It may just mean that it's taking a while for the membership outside the U.S. to catch up in terms of contributing to the missionary force.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The bulk of the missionary force has always come from the areas of the Church's greatest strength in terms of membership concentration and material affluence: the United States in general and the Intermountain West in particular. It stands to reason, because members in those areas are in the strongest position to support full-time missionary sons and daughters, and its those areas that have the highest number of multi-generational families in the Church.

Scarcely more than 20 years ago (1996) it was announced that, for the first time in history, there were more members of the Church living outside the United States than within it. If that trend has continued over the past 20 years, assuming arguendo that what you say is true, that there is a smaller percentage of the whole serving missions today, that could be more of a demographic indicator than anything else. If you are a first-generation Church member living in a developing country, you may be less able to serve a mission yourself or support a son or daughter on a mission than are Church members who live in the United States. It may just mean that it's taking a while for the membership outside the U.S. to catch up in terms of contributing to the missionary force.

Could be.  But, as it is, the claim of having a dramatic increase in missionaries is made without context.  The same might be true of the other measurables he mentions.  So as I said, in a sense, the Church is stronger, but in another it is not. 

[Thinking]

I think that the Church tries to underemphasize the disaffection numbers to the general membership because calling attention to them might cause some members to start asking the same questions that are factors in the decisions of those who are leaving. I'm confident that behind closed doors the leaders are discussing these issues frequently.

[HappyJackWagon]

59 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.

Scott, I'm afraid you're looking at this rather simplistically. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never been stronger." Does that mean in net numbers or as a percentage? We know the membership is at an all time high 15,000,000+ but is that the measure of "never been stronger"? It would be a reasonable statement, even if not a complete one.

As I already explained statistical results can be read quite differently based on the metric he is using. For example, out of 100 members there could be 25 current temple recommend holders. IF over time there are now 200 members and 40 current temple recommend holders we could say that there have never been more recommend holders. We can say that current recommend holders have increased by 62%. That's impressive, right? Both would be accurate statements but that doesn't account for the other statistic that the percentage of recommend holders decreased from 25% to 20%. How we view the numbers is just as important as the actual numbers. Statistics don't speak for themselves. So is it possible Elder Cook is reading the stats in the first way I mentioned and not the 2nd? Without any evidence to the contrary, of course it's possible.

Elder Cook made a declarative statement based on his interpretation of the strength of the church. That's all. We have no idea what information he has access to. We have no information about his level of analysis. We have no idea if his statement represents a full picture (whatever that might be).

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

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. 

For as long as I can remember, all members of the Church have been counseled and encouraged to qualify for and carry a current temple recommend, whether or not regular temple attendance was feasible. President Howard W. Hunter's memorable counsel was to let our temple recommend be "the great symbol of our membership" in the Church.

Quote

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 have given you a clear definition of real growth. It is an increase in the faithfulness of Church members to obey the commandments of God as measured by indicators such as temple worthiness and faithfulness in the payment of tithes. What about that is not clear to you?

Real growth is the only growth that matters in the end. It does no one any good to be a nominal member of the Church without obeying God's laws and making and keeping covenants.
 

Quote

 

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.

 

I've already addressed that and suggested that it is very likely due to societal trends over which we have no control. Again, you have given no persuasive argument about this being due to internal problems within the Church.

Quote

  We also have less missionaries in the field, per capita than we once had. 

I've also addressed this, saying it may be more of a demographic indicator than anything else, with the rapid increase of the membership outside the Untied States. In a few generations, maybe that portion of the membership will catch up in terms of contributing more to the missionary force.

 

Quote

We also have staggering levels of inactivity in various parts of the world. 

I haven't denied there is work to do. But this doesn't negate that the Church  is stronger today than ever.

Quote

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. 

You're repeating yourself here. And you're not taking cognizance of societal trends.

 

Quote

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. 

I hope you are not suggesting here that we need to knuckle under on divine and eternal principles and doctrines pertaining to divine laws, righteousness and morality. I thought I had already pre-empted that argument.

 

Quote

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. 

Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. You want the Church to jettison principles of morality and righteousness, to knuckle under to social pressure. I would expect the Lord to reject us as a people if we did that. But thank God, it ain't gonna happen. The gospel will never again be taken from the earth by means of general apostasy. John the Baptist gave that assurance to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

Quote

I don't get your reference to Romney and what that has to do with the slowed rate of growth. 

I've started a couple of threads on this subject, so I thought you would get the reference. But I will spell it out for you. The appointment of an exemplary Church member, such as Romney, to a position of great influence and responsibility in the government, such as secretary of state, is emblematic of what I spoke of in that context, the growing global presence and influence of the church of the Lamb of God, despite it being relatively few in numbers, as was foretold in the vision that Nephi beheld. Clear now?

 

Quote

I don't know that appointing him would bring in a flood of converts, either. 

I never said it would. Again, I bring it up in the context of global presence and influence.

Quote

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. 

This is not the place to discuss that. I've started two threads on that topic; both have been closed because the discussion got too political. You're a bit late; you should have had your say while my threads were open.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Could be.  But, as it is, the claim of having a dramatic increase in missionaries is made without context.  The same might be true of the other measurables he mentions.  So as I said, in a sense, the Church is stronger, but in another it is not. 

A larger missionary force than before is an indicator of increased strength, regardless of the percentage of the membership it amounts to.

 

On the other indicators, If you think he spoke without context, go ahead and provide the context, if you can.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Scott, I'm afraid you're looking at this rather simplistically. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never been stronger." Does that mean in net numbers or as a percentage? We know the membership is at an all time high 15,000,000+ but is that the measure of "never been stronger"? It would be a reasonable statement, even if not a complete one.

As I already explained statistical results can be read quite differently based on the metric he is using. For example, out of 100 members there could be 25 current temple recommend holders. IF over time there are now 200 members and 40 current temple recommend holders we could say that there have never been more recommend holders. We can say that current recommend holders have increased by 62%. That's impressive, right? Both would be accurate statements but that doesn't account for the other statistic that the percentage of recommend holders decreased from 25% to 20%. How we view the numbers is just as important as the actual numbers. Statistics don't speak for themselves. So is it possible Elder Cook is reading the stats in the first way I mentioned and not the 2nd? Without any evidence to the contrary, of course it's possible.

Elder Cook made a declarative statement based on his interpretation of the strength of the church. That's all. We have no idea what information he has access to. We have no information about his level of analysis. We have no idea if his statement represents a full picture (whatever that might be).

 

 

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

 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

It's not tinkering with numbers. It's merely a different way of reading them. But the fact is I don't have any clue how he read and interpreted whatever numbers he had access to, but neither do you. Why? Because they don't release information.

Or what if each of the categories he listed were actually dramatically improved regardless of how it was analyzed but there were 3 other areas where there had been reductions. Do we know how Elder Cook does the calculus in adding the strengths and subtracting the weaknesses to get to his ultimate decision that the church has never been stronger? Nope. No clue.

ETA- the difference between us is that I am recognizing the limitations on the information presented and recognizing that those limitations need not exist at all.

Edited November 29, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For as long as I can remember, all members of the Church have been counseled and encouraged to qualify for and carry a current temple recommend, whether or not regular temple attendance was feasible. President Howard W. Hunter's memorable counsel was to let our temple recommend be "the great symbol of our membership" in the Church.

And?  That hardly means many members didn't see the need when they weren't going to be attending the temple.  I gave an example of my experience in the Kansas City area 20 years ago.  I'm sure most members intended to follow the counsel but not all did. 

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have given you a clear definition of real growth. It is an increase in the faithfulness of Church members to obey the commandments of God as measured by indicators such as temple worthiness and faithfulness in the payment of tithes. What about that is not clear to you?

Simple.  1.  Temple worthiness is not comparable to 20 years ago for some areas, because members were not likely to go to the temple and thus might not have carried current recommends.  2.  You have offered nothing but Elder Cook's conclusion about paying tithes.  We dont' know if he meant the Church overall gets more money in tithes than it did 20 years ago, or if more members pay tithing, or if more members per capita pay. 

This is by definition a vague definition--you haven't defined the parameters and if you did--saying temple worthiness only works if you know more by percentage are worthy than there were 20 years ago. 

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Real growth is the only growth that matters in the end. It does no one any good to be a nominal member of the Church without obeying God's laws and making and keeping covenants.

I'm not sure you know this.  Say someone is better off being a nominal member of the Church than not.  You say, it wouldn't do that one any good.  But it might.  You simply don't know.  You haven't been able to establish real growth.  You keep repeating it, sure, but you can't verify anything to support the claim. 

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I've already addressed that and suggested that it is very likely due to societal trends over which we have no control. Again, you have given no persuasive argument about this being due to internal problems within the Church.

I've also addressed this, saying it may be more of a demographic indicator than anything else, with the rapid increase of the membership outside the Untied States. In a few generations, maybe that portion of the membership will catch up in terms of contributing more to the missionary force.

Your guesswork is as good as anyone's sure.  But we can't be sure your guesswork truly addresses the issue in full.

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I haven't denied there is work to do. But this doesn't negate that the Church  is stronger today than ever.

You're repeating yourself here. And you're not taking cognizance of societal trends.

 

I hope you are not suggesting here that we need to knuckle under on divine and eternal principles and doctrines pertaining to divine laws, righteousness and morality. I thought I had already pre-empted that argument.

 

Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. You want the Church to jettison principles of morality and righteousness, to knuckle under to social pressure. I would expect the Lord to reject us as a people if we did that. But thank God, it ain't gonna happen. The gospel will never again be taken from the earth by means of general apostasy.

The Church has already been influenced by society at large.  If there was no such influence we'd be lesser than we are.  So it's a good thing, in a way.  You seem to think societal pressure is a bad thing.  But it's helped us evolve.  We might be wise to avoid these fears. 

 

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

John the Baptist gave that assurance to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

I've started a couple of threads on this subject, so I thought you would get the reference. But I will spell it out for you. The appointment of an exemplary Church member, such as Romney, to a position of great influence and responsibility in the government, such as secretary of state, is emblematic of what I spoke of in that context, the growing global presence and influence of the church of the Lamb of God, despite it being relatively few in numbers, as was foretold in the vision that Nephi beheld. Clear now?

Not really.  I don't think it's emblematic of that.  I think it means one guy did pretty good in the world of partisan politics and that guy happened to be Mormon.  He could have been Baptist or Hindu.  I'm not sure his religion matters in this. 

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I never said it would. Again, I bring it up in the context of global presence and influence.

This is not the place to discuss that. I've started two threads on that topic; both have been closed because the discussion got too political. You're a bit late; you should have had your say while my threads were open.

I can't be here 24-7, Scott.  Indeed, sometimes I'm out a week or two.  Its likely I'll miss plenty. 

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you think he spoke without context, go ahead and provide the context, if you can.

I'll try again.  He suggested there was a drastic increase in missionaries.  In the past 20 years the number surely increased by 16,000.  But there were more missionaries per member 20 years ago then there are today.  If you consider the increased percentage of women serving missions, it's likely that young men going on missions has decreased in that time. 

Edited November 29, 2016 by stemelbow

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

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

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

Edited November 29, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'll try again.  He suggested there was a drastic increase in missionaries.  In the past 20 years the number surely increased by 16,000.  But there were more missionaries per member 20 years ago then there are today.  If you consider the increased percentage of women serving missions, it's likely that young men going on missions has decreased in that time. 

As has the number of young men attending college or university and their decrease in the work force.

There's a lot more going on with the young men in our population (not just LDS) than meets the casual uninformed eye.

All I have to do is open the door to my office and look in our basement family room to see the difference 2 decades made.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/what-are-young-non-working-men-doing/492890/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2015/05/04/the-disappearing-college-male/#417fd2e750f0

Edited November 29, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

So, your evidence that he is a prevaricator is that you can't imagine General Authorities acting any other way?

Edited November 29, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Johnnie Cake]

This thread, Scott Lloyd and all things Mormon bore me.  I've posted a total of 2-3 times in the last 6 weeks...seems like Admin's decision to ban me have been a rather helpful part in my healthy recovery from Mormonism. Every day that passes reminds me of just how insignificant the church is in both my life and the grand scheme of things that actually matter.  In hind sight,  I thank you and good bye

Edited November 29, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This thread, Scott Lloyd and all things Mormon bore me.  I've posted a total of 2-3 times in the last 6 weeks...seems like Admin's decision to ban me have been a rather helpful part in my healthy recovery from Mormonism. Every day that passes reminds me of just how insignificant the church is in both my life and the grand scheme of things that actually matter.  In hind sight,  I thank you and good bye

¡Qué le vaya bien, hermano! I hope you find what you are seeking.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, your evidence that he is a prevaricator is that you can't imagine General Authorities acting any other way?

The old wouldn't-put-it-past-'im innuendo. Sly, perhaps, but at the end of the day, quite fallacious. 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This thread, Scott Lloyd and all things Mormon bore me.  I've posted a total of 2-3 times in the last 6 weeks...seems like Admin's decision to ban me have been a rather helpful part in my healthy recovery from Mormonism. Every day that passes reminds me of just how insignificant the church is in both my life and the grand scheme of things that actually matter.  In hind sight,  I thank you and good bye

I am going to miss you my friend.  I wish you a life full of love and happiness.  I may be right behind you.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This thread, Scott Lloyd and all things Mormon bore me.  I've posted a total of 2-3 times in the last 6 weeks...seems like Admin's decision to ban me have been a rather helpful part in my healthy recovery from Mormonism. Every day that passes reminds me of just how insignificant the church is in both my life and the grand scheme of things that actually matter.  In hind sight,  I thank you and good bye

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited November 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Raingirl]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This thread, Scott Lloyd and all things Mormon bore me.  I've posted a total of 2-3 times in the last 6 weeks...seems like Admin's decision to ban me have been a rather helpful part in my healthy recovery from Mormonism. Every day that passes reminds me of just how insignificant the church is in both my life and the grand scheme of things that actually matter.  In hind sight,  I thank you and good bye

Spending time on multiple internet forums whining about the church and its members speaks of obsession, not boredom.  A bizarre approach to something you find so insignificant to your life.

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Could be.  But, as it is, the claim of having a dramatic increase in missionaries is made without context.  The same might be true of the other measurables he mentions.  So as I said, in a sense, the Church is stronger, but in another it is not. 

Without real numbers and transparency in reporting, we are left to wonder.  The leadership in any organization that is not transparent has a reason for being so.  The question we should be asking is why is the leadership of the church so reluctant to be transparent.  Transparent in their financials, transparent in membership numbers, transparent in their five year plan.  Total honesty calls for for this.  We know much more about public companies than we do about the church.  IMO this is backwards.  

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

How about having Elder Cook produce numbers rather than just platitudes.  Having some GA stand up in conference and state something with a quiver in his voice is not enough.  History has shown that there has been many heart felt proclamations made by church leadership that have been reversed at later times because of social or political pressures.   

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

History has shown that there has been many heart felt proclamations made by church leadership that have been reversed at later times because of social or political pressures.   

As one who has a PhD in history, I strongly suggest that you recast this claim, beginning with 'history has shown'...

[sunstoned]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As one who has a PhD in history, I strongly suggest that you recast this claim, beginning with 'history has shown'...

Really?  You don't have to look very far to see claims made by past leaders that have been completely thrown under the bus by the present leadership.  And BTW I do have a PhD, so don't talk down to me.

Edited November 30, 2016 by sunstoned

[rodheadlee]

9 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Really?  You don't have to look very far to see claims made by past leaders that have been completely thrown under the bus by the present leadership.  And BTW I do have a PhD, so don't talk down to me.

In what field? If you don't mind me asking?

[Thinking]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There's a lot more going on with the young men in our population (not just LDS) than meets the casual uninformed eye.

These are the same young men who (while they are trying to hide their phones from me) ask "When am I ever gonna use this?"

If all they are going to do is play video games, what I am teaching them is useless.