Sam Young is Excommunicated

[rongo]

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Should we accept the church's numbers even though we have no way to confirm them and even though there is reason to believe the membership numbers are likely inflated?

Or maybe the church could either validate the numbers or correct them.

Nope. I've never been a fan of the Church's emphasis on raw numbers. I've been in too many positions where I can see the sausage being made.   The strength of the Church (really, the Church itself) is the 4-5 million active members. Of course, this is fluid, and people come in and out of activity, so we don't want to write anybody off. Still, a great many don't consider themselves to be LDS and will never come back. 

I strongly suspect that most of the legitimate resignees (non-duplicates or non-made up ones) are from this group. Yes, there are certainly some who are newly "woke" and went from being fully on board a short time ago to "out" in a hurry, but not at the numbers critics are claiming. Critics have a vested interest in painting the sky as falling fast. 

I think the best gauge is our own wards and stakes. If resignations ever reach a point where ward budgets, tithing receipts, or fast offerings are significantly less, along with drastically less attendance, then there might be a trend. As it is, I don't think this latest spate of resignations even shows up on local radars, to say nothing of the COB. 

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Read Prince's book and get an idea in regards to contention with the Presidency and the 12 and also the contention from within the membership.  I will take Greg's research over your words on this message board.  Greg Prince is well respected and produces thoroughly vetted texts.

CFR, please, as to what you are referencing here (Greg Prince).

According to Prince's book, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, Pres. McKay was evaluating the issue extensively as early as 1954 (p. 103), and continued to grapple with it for many years afterward.  Prince also states that Pres. McKay "made a conscious decision not to enter the fray of the emerging  civil rights  movement that came of age during his presidency," (p. 104), and yet you here seem to be positioning the Civil Rights movement as a key motivating factor for the 1978 revelation ("I am guessing you missed the period of activism for blacks receiving the priesthood, it was pretty big public spectacle").

Prince goes on to say that "{o}n several occasions ... [Pres. McKay] had opportunities to reverse the church's long-standing legacy of racial discrimination.  Yet each time he chose to turn away" (p. 104).  He also states that Pres. McKay "softened the ban around the edges, intervening to extend priesthood blessings to individuals where he could, and repeatedly pleading with the Lord for a complete reversal ... On uncounted occasions, he sought unsuccessfully to call down the revelation that would have changed the ban, a revelation that came to one of his successors eight years after his death.  This largely undocumented and almost wholly unknown struggle means that it is no stretch to assert that David O. McKay built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests" (p. 106).

This is also quite illuminating (p. 103):

Quote

His earliest inquiry, as far as we have record ... occurredin 1954 ... Other inquiries followed, though generally the dates are not known.  On one occasion his daughter-in-law, Mildred Calderwood McKay, who served on the general board of the Primary ... expressed her anguish that black male children, who commingled with white children during their Primary years (through age twelve), were excluded from the Aaronic Priesthood when they turned twelve.  "Can't they be ordained also?"  She asked.  He replied sadly, "No."  "Then I think it is time for a new revelation."  He answered, "So do I."

Marian D. Hanks ... related an incident from a [] trip to Vietname, in which he had comforted a woulded black LDS soldier.  As he told the story, McKay began to weep.  Referring to the priesthood ban, McKay said, "I have prayed and prayed and prayed, but there has been no answer."

Prince also provides this fascinating account (p. 104):

Quote

But the most remarkable account came from Richard Jackson, an architect who served in the Church Building Department from 1968 to McKay's death in 1970:

Quote

I remember one day that President McKay came into the office.  We could see that he was very much distressed.  He said, "I've had it!  I'm not going to do it again!"  Somebody said, "What?" He said, "Well, I'm badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro.  I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly.  The last time I did it was late last night.  I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."
...

This uncharacteristic outburst in the presence of an astonished church architect highlights the contrast between two strands in McKay's thought that are, by today's standard, inseparably joined: civil rights for blacks and priesthood ordination for black men.  The blurring, combined with McKay's own reticence, means that this difference has not been understood until now.

By Prince's accounting, Pres. McKay wanted to rescind the ban, but was told by the Lord to "not bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."

You seem to be suggesting that the Civil Rights Movement was a major precipitating cause of the 1978 revelation, and you cite Prince as your source.  But Prince's citations about McKay's efforts to rescind the ban have it starting around 1954 (if not earlier), when the Civil Rights Movement was in its infancy.  Meanwhile, the revelation came in 1978, fourteen years after the Civil Rights Movement was at its apex (1964).  And more to the point, Prince characterizes Pres. McKay as having "built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests," and this foundation was built by repeatedly seeking revelatory guidance.  Prince seems to have very little to say about Pres. McKay (the president of the Church during the entirety of the Civil Rights Era) being influenced by the "pretty big spectacle" of "activism for blacks receiving the priesthood."

Furthermore, Edward Kimball traces efforts to address the ban back to 1948 (pp. 18-19).

So please provide references to substantiate your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2018 by smac97

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

It looks like reporting goes up when a child discloses, but that phrasing suggests it doesn't always happen.  Will see if I can find those studies online for more details.

Thanks Calm!  Also, more recent figures may be more promising too (hopefully).  These are 10 years old if I’m reading correctly (?)

[Calm]

While the research is probably not out there, I would be curious to find out the percentage of parents who desire to restrict bishop interviews also restrict cell phone possession for their children and push for that in their schools.

http://childrenstreatmentcenter.com/sexual-abuse-teachers/

Quote

So, why are we suddenly seeing a rise in the number of cases of sexual misconduct and teacher/student relationships? It may be partially due to more transparency as schools seek to report what they formerly kept hidden and tried to deal with on their own. More than likely, however, the upward trend is due to the use of social media and cell phones.

The Washington Post ran a story in 2015 that related how about 80% of children age 12 – 17 had a cell phone and 94% had a Facebook account that year. In 2014, The Post says about 35% of the educators convicted or accused of sexual misconduct had used social media to gain access to their victims or to continue the teacher – student relationship.

Today’s technology makes it easy for predators to discreetly prey on children. Students usually have their phones with them at all times, which allows the perpetrator free and unmonitored access to the child. Even children without cell phones can be targeted through their laptop, tablet, or personal computer.

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Calm

[lostindc]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Nope. I've never been a fan of the Church's emphasis on raw numbers. I've been in too many positions where I can see the sausage being made.   The strength of the Church (really, the Church itself) is the 4-5 million active members. Of course, this is fluid, and people come in and out of activity, so we don't want to write anybody off. Still, a great many don't consider themselves to be LDS and will never come back. 

I strongly suspect that most of the legitimate resignees (non-duplicates or non-made up ones) are from this group. Yes, there are certainly some who are newly "woke" and went from being fully on board a short time ago to "out" in a hurry, but not at the numbers critics are claiming. Critics have a vested interest in painting the sky as falling fast. 

I think the best gauge is our own wards and stakes. If resignations ever reach a point where ward budgets, tithing receipts, or fast offerings are significantly less, along with drastically less attendance, then there might be a trend. As it is, I don't think this latest spate of resignations even shows up on local radars, to say nothing of the COB. 

I believe you're suggestions are wrong regarding most sending in resignations come from outside of the core group.  Outside of the core group, we have many that don't even realize they're members, we can point to South American membership as an example.  If they don't know they're members, or like many others, they don't care and Mormonism pretty much is non-existent, then taking the time to resign doesn't matter.

Resignations arrive to the Church doorstep because someone is not happy with the Church or they want to be left alone.  

[lostindc]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please, as to what you are referencing her (Greg Prince).

According to Prince's book, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, Pres. McKay was evaluating the issue extensively as early as 1954 (p. 103), and continued to grapple with it for many years afterward.  Prince also states that Pres. McKay "made a conscious decision not to enter the fray of the emerging  civil rights  movement that came of age during his presidency," (p. 104), and yet you here seem to be positioning the Civil Rights movement as a key motivating factor for the 1978 revelation ("I am guessing you missed the period of activism for blacks receiving the priesthood, it was pretty big public spectacle").

Prince goes on to say that "{o}n several occasions ... [Pres. McKay] had opportunities to reverse the church's long-standing legacy of racial discrimination.  Yet each time he chose to turn away" (p. 104).  He also states that Pres. McKay "softened the ban around the edges, intervening to extend priesthood blessings to individuals where he could, and repeatedly pleading with the Lord for a complete reversal ... On uncounted occasions, he sought unsuccessfully to call down the revelation that would have changed the ban, a revelation that came to one of his successors eight years after his death.  This largely undocumented and almost wholly unknown struggle means that it is no stretch to assert that David O. McKay built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests" (p. 106).

This is also quite illuminating (p. 103):

Prince also provides this fascinating account (p. 104):

By Prince's accounting, Pres. McKay wanted to rescind the ban, but was told by the Lord to "not bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."

You seem to be suggesting that the Civil Rights Movement was a major precipitating cause of the 1978 revelation, and you cite Prince as your source.  But Prince's citations about McKay's efforts to rescind the ban have it starting around 1954 (if not earlier), when the Civil Rights Movement was in its infancy.  Meanwhile, the revelation came in 1978, fourteen years after the Civil Rights Movement was at its apex (1964).  And more to the point, Prince characterizes Pres. McKay as having "built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests," and this foundation was built by repeatedly seeking revelatory guidance.  Prince seems to have very little to say about Pres. McKay (the president of the Church during the entirety of the Civil Rights Era) being influenced by the "pretty big spectacle" of "activism for blacks receiving the priesthood."

Furthermore, Edward Kimball traces efforts to address the ban back to 1948 (pp. 18-19).

So please provide references to substantiate your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Already provided the references with Greg's interview and also his book.  Do you want me to see if I can get Greg Prince to come on this board so you tell us what he believes and what his research states?  I can try to reach out to him tonight.  

[ksfisher]

Just now, Calm said:

While the research is probably not out there, I would be curious to find out the percentage of parents who desire to restrict bishop interviews also restrict cell phone possession for their children and push for that in their schools.

http://childrenstreatmentcenter.com/sexual-abuse-teachers/

 

I'm doubting that we're going to see any protests outside of cell phone stores or corporate offices demanding that they stop supplying cell phones to children.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Quote

By Prince's accounting, Pres. McKay wanted to rescind the ban, but was told by the Lord to "not bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."

You seem to be suggesting that the Civil Rights Movement was a major precipitating cause of the 1978 revelation, and you cite Prince as your source.  But Prince's citations about McKay's efforts to rescind the ban have it starting around 1954 (if not earlier), when the Civil Rights Movement was in its infancy.  Meanwhile, the revelation came in 1978, fourteen years after the Civil Rights Movement was at its apex (1964).  And more to the point, Prince characterizes Pres. McKay as having "built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests," and this foundation was built by repeatedly seeking revelatory guidance.  Prince seems to have very little to say about Pres. McKay (the president of the Church during the entirety of the Civil Rights Era) being influenced by the "pretty big spectacle" of "activism for blacks receiving the priesthood."

Furthermore, Edward Kimball traces efforts to address the ban back to 1948 (pp. 18-19).

So please provide references to substantiate your position.

Already provided the references with Greg's interview and also his book.  

Sorry, but that is not sufficient.  You posted this:

Quote

Greg Prince's interview is linked below, this is from a Dehlin interview, when Dehlin was active and friendly to the Church.  A pic of activists during a BYU bball game is linked, same with a wiki article that can provide an overall look at that time period.  Talk to folks in the Genesis group, they can share stories of members disfellowshipped and even excommunicated due to activism for blacks and the priesthood, including ordaining black members to the priesthood prior to lifting of the ban.  It was a very tough period, much like now.

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/mormon-stories-podcast-004-gregory-prince-david-o-mckay-and-the-blackspriesthood-issue/

https://www.coloradoan.com/media/cinematic/gallery/23309601/1970-csu-students-protest-lds-church/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse as to your references of statements from Greg Prince.

Quote

Do you want me to see if I can get Greg Prince to come on this board so you tell us what he believes and what his research states?  I can try to reach out to him tonight.  

Sure.  I welcome his input.

Edited September 19, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm doubting that we're going to see any protests outside of cell phone stores or corporate offices demanding that they stop supplying cell phones to children.

The stats are rather horrifying.

Quote

The Department of Justice notes that about 15% of children in the 12 – 17 age group who own a cell phone have received nude, semi-nude, or sexually suggestive images of someone they know via text.

11% of teenagers and young adults say they have shared naked pictures of themselves online or via text message. Of those, 26% are trusting enough to think the person to whom they sent the nude pictures wouldn’t share them with anyone else.

About 26% of teenagers and young adults say they have participated in sexting.

My grandkids won't get phones until 16, but their friends have them and pass them around.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I believe you're suggestions are wrong regarding most sending in resignations come from outside of the core group.  Outside of the core group, we have many that don't even realize they're members, we can point to South American membership as an example.  If they don't know they're members, or like many others, they don't care and Mormonism pretty much is non-existent, then taking the time to resign doesn't matter.

Resignations arrive to the Church doorstep because someone is not happy with the Church or they want to be left alone.  

Yeah, I think most of the resignations come from people who were highly engaged in the church at one point in their lives. If the church wasn't significant to them, most either don't know they are members or don't care enough to resign. The resignations are coming from those who used to be fully active, temple recommend holding, tithing paying, members. The fact that they may have stopped a few years ago, doesn't take away from the loss of talent and $$ the church suffers when people leave, but as RONGO suggests, it's usually not an immediate loss. It's something that has been incremental over time.

For someone to go through the trouble of resigning, means they are so dissatisfied that they no longer want any kind of association with the church, even if it's only on paper. That's a fairly high level of motivation IMO. Resignation is not passive like simply fading into the background, or never engaging in the first place, like the other 1/2 - 2/3rds of the church membership.

[lostindc]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sorry, but that is not sufficient.  You posted this:

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse as to your references of statements from Greg Prince.

Sure.  I welcome his input.

Haha, I love the continued CFR.  Yes, I will try to reach out to Greg, he was my high councilman back in the day and brought so much to the DC area.  By far, one of my favorite fellow Mormons.  He wouldn't share your viewpoints at all based on his writings.  Please read this text from Greg, you don't need to buy his book.  Yes, there was contention over blacks and the priesthood. 

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dialogue_V35N01_157.pdf

Hurry up, get the truck fired up, time to move the goal posts again.

 

Edited to say, go buy his book on McKay, it's one of the best LDS oriented books on the market.  I shouldn't say "don't need to buy his book."  I meant that you can get a glimpse into Greg's research in the linked article below.

Edited September 19, 2018 by lostindc

[smac97]

Just now, lostindc said:

Haha, I love the continued CFR.  

And it remains unanswered.  

Just now, lostindc said:

Yes, I will try to reach out to Greg, he was my high councilman back in the day and brought so much to the DC area.  By far, one of my favorite fellow Mormons.  He wouldn't share your viewpoints at all based on his writings.  

I'm okay with that.  Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

I respect Greg Prince's perspective on some things, but not all.  For example, I found his comments about the historicity of the Book of Mormon to be singularly unimpressive and unpersuasive.

Just now, lostindc said:

Please read this text from Greg, you don't need to buy his book.  Yes, there was contention over blacks and the priesthood. 

Obviously.  But whether it was a major precipitating cause of the 1978 revelation is a different issue.  

Just now, lostindc said:

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dialogue_V35N01_157.pdf

Hurry up, get the truck fired up, time to move the goal posts again.

Again, my CFR remains unanswered.

But I'll rescind it.  I don't think you can support your prior statements, so I'll just go with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[lostindc]

Just now, smac97 said:

And it remains unanswered.  

I'm okay with that.  Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

I respect Greg Prince's perspective on some things, but not all.  For example, I found his comments about the historicity of the Book of Mormon to be singularly unimpressive and unpersuasive.

Obviously.  But whether it was a major precipitating cause of the 1978 revelation is a different issue.  

Again, my CFR remains unanswered.

But I'll rescind it.  I don't think you can support your prior statements, so I'll just go with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're being vague and shifting the goal posts.  Can you tell me exactly what you want a CFR for?  I will hustle and get the reference, I do it for those reading, not you.

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I believe you're suggestions are wrong regarding most sending in resignations come from outside of the core group.  Outside of the core group, we have many that don't even realize they're members, we can point to South American membership as an example.  If they don't know they're members, or like many others, they don't care and Mormonism pretty much is non-existent, then taking the time to resign doesn't matter.

How can any of us verify the quality of resignations at all? I've heard that the annual resignation parties in the park in Salt Lake have people who are not or are no longer members signing up to resign to pad the, what, couple hundred people, maybe? But how could anyone know anything about any of the resignees?

What does the law firm do if a dummy resignee signs up? Do they research it, and then tell the person that they aren't a member? Or, do they simply put it on the spreadsheet as another resignation? 

I agree with you about South/Central America. Census data places LDS membership far under what the Church says. 

Resignations arrive to the Church doorstep because someone is not happy with the Church or they want to be left alone. 

I'm not so sure that we don't have some Helen Radke-esque cooking of the books, either. It is imperative to those swept up in the Sam Young mania that it be shown that mass resignations are happening NOW! because his movement is sweeping the nation and the Church. I don't think this is the experience of anyone outside of the movement. I think echo chamber psychology is reigning, and feeds a need for validation in news stories, law firm spreadsheets and updates, Facebook likes and shares, etc. 

[Calm]

One potentially positive aspect of involving bishops is for the cases that fall through the gaps of governmental involvement.  Even if reported, CPS only investigates 55% of those reports.  It may be the Church can help in these kinds of noninvestigated cases.  At the very least, interviews could add an additional source of information.

https://www.d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Statistics_6_Reporting.pdf

Quote

Child protective service agencies investigate about 55% of the child sexual abuse incidents reported to them. The rest are “screened out” for lack of adequate information or for other reasons. Of those reports investigated, only a portion meets the criteria for “substantiated.”3 

I personally think a wider range of trained adults for children to report to, getting more adults involved is better than removing options for children.

Rather than removing interviews, I would like to see greater training.  I get that bishops have limited time, but if they are handling youth and adult interviews, I think it would be wise to find ways to delegate responsibilities in other areas and take the extra time to devote to training.

I would love to see the Church designate a fifth Sunday yearly for ward training and provide materials specific to the area as well (such as info on cell phone use among kids and how to help your kids deal with friends who 'overshare').  This could be quite costly, but they could open up a specific fund for it through their humanitarian services perhaps to help defray costs.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, I think most of the resignations come from people who were highly engaged in the church at one point in their lives. If the church wasn't significant to them, most either don't know they are members or don't care enough to resign. The resignations are coming from those who used to be fully active, temple recommend holding, tithing paying, members. The fact that they may have stopped a few years ago, doesn't take away from the loss of talent and $$ the church suffers when people leave, but as RONGO suggests, it's usually not an immediate loss. It's something that has been incremental over time.

For someone to go through the trouble of resigning, means they are so dissatisfied that they no longer want any kind of association with the church, even if it's only on paper. That's a fairly high level of motivation IMO. Resignation is not passive like simply fading into the background, or never engaging in the first place, like the other 1/2 - 2/3rds of the church membership.

Not always true.  A lot of people who don't care for the church anymore and have not gone to church in years resign as their one last parting shot because some some issue in particular occurs and they want to be involved with something.  Whether they formally resign or not does not matter as they have already left.  There are probably many who have never been to the temple.  Who dropped away when they were young.  They did not bother getting their names removed but as time has passed, they decide to get their names off. 

[lostindc]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

How can any of us verify the quality of resignations at all? I've heard that the annual resignation parties in the park in Salt Lake have people who are not or are no longer members signing up to resign to pad the, what, couple hundred people, maybe? But how could anyone know anything about any of the resignees?

What does the law firm do if a dummy resignee signs up? Do they research it, and then tell the person that they aren't a member? Or, do they simply put it on the spreadsheet as another resignation? 

I agree with you about South/Central America. Census data places LDS membership far under what the Church says. 

 

 

I'm not so sure that we don't have some Helen Radke-esque cooking of the books, either. It is imperative to those swept up in the Sam Young mania that it be shown that mass resignations are happening NOW! because his movement is sweeping the nation and the Church. I don't think this is the experience of anyone outside of the movement. I think echo chamber psychology is reigning, and feeds a need for validation in news stories, law firm spreadsheets and updates, Facebook likes and shares, etc. 

Ask the Church if they can open up its data for analysis?  We won't know for sure unless the Church is willing to share the data.

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

One potentially positive aspect of involving bishops is for the cases that fall through the gaps of governmental involvement.  Even if reported, CPS only investigates 55% of those reports.

https://www.d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Statistics_6_Reporting.pdf

I personally think a wider range of trained adults for children to report to, getting more adults involved is better than removing options for children.

Rather than removing interviews, I would like to see greater training.  I get that bishops have limited time, but if they are handling youth and adult interviews, I think it would be wise to find ways to delegate responsibilities in other areas and take the extra time to devote to training.

I would love to see the Church designate a fifth Sunday yearly for ward training and provide materials specific to the area.  This could be quite costly, but they could open up a specific fund for it through their humanitarian services perhaps to help defray costs.

Our ward did a fifth Sunday lesson on it a little less than a year ago.

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, lostindc said:

You're being vague and shifting the goal posts.  Can you tell me exactly what you want a CFR for?  I will hustle and get the reference, I do it for those reading, not you.

First of all, there is no need for you to continuously attempt to personalize this thread.  

Now, back to the topic:

Rongo said this:

Quote

The internal support for ending the priesthood ban is not comparable to the active agitation of the last five years that has led to excommunications. Nor were Stanford, San Jose St., etc. protests and boycotting or the violent protests a factor, either (these happened in the late 1960s). Most people are probably aware that the Sao Paolo temple was the biggest factor, arguably the only real factor, excluding actual revelation. 

I really don't think the "movement" to end the ban is comparable to things like Ordain Women, Protect LDS Children, etc. 

You responded:

Quote

No, the priesthood ban is exactly comparable to active agitation.  I am guessing you missed the period of activism for blacks receiving the priesthood, it was pretty big public spectacle.  I believe Gregory Prince and other historians have provided a look at what it was like during this time.  So you're wrong.

You also said this:

Quote

Read Prince's book and get an idea in regards to contention with the Presidency and the 12 and also the contention from within the membership.  I will take Greg's research over your words on this message board.  Greg Prince is well respected and produces thoroughly vetted texts.

I then responded (emphases added):

Quote

CFR, please, as to what you are referencing here (Greg Prince).

According to Prince's book, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, Pres. McKay was evaluating the issue extensively as early as 1954 (p. 103), and continued to grapple with it for many years afterward.  Prince also states that Pres. McKay "made a conscious decision not to enter the fray of the emerging  civil rights  movement that came of age during his presidency," (p. 104), and yet you here seem to be positioning the Civil Rights movement as a key motivating factor for the 1978 revelation ("I am guessing you missed the period of activism for blacks receiving the priesthood, it was pretty big public spectacle").

...

By Prince's accounting, Pres. McKay wanted to rescind the ban, but was told by the Lord to "not bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."

You seem to be suggesting that the Civil Rights Movement was a major precipitating cause of the 1978 revelation, and you cite Prince as your source.  But Prince's citations about McKay's efforts to rescind the ban have it starting around 1954 (if not earlier), when the Civil Rights Movement was in its infancy.  Meanwhile, the revelation came in 1978, fourteen years after the Civil Rights Movement was at its apex (1964).  And more to the point, Prince characterizes Pres. McKay as having "built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests," and this foundation was built by repeatedly seeking revelatory guidance.  Prince seems to have very little to say about Pres. McKay (the president of the Church during the entirety of the Civil Rights Era) being influenced by the "pretty big spectacle" of "activism for blacks receiving the priesthood."

...

So please provide references to substantiate your position.

So I'll revive the CFR.  You said "Read Prince's book."  Which book?  What pages?  Chapter and verse, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2018 by smac97

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Ask the Church if they can open up its data for analysis?  We won't know for sure unless the Church is willing to share the data.

I'm a nobody. I don't have any pull with the Church.  

The Church is very transparency-adverse about a great number of things, membership numbers being one of them. 

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think the best gauge is our own wards and stakes. If resignations ever reach a point where ward budgets, tithing receipts, or fast offerings are significantly less, along with drastically less attendance, then there might be a trend. As it is, I don't think this latest spate of resignations even shows up on local radars, to say nothing of the COB. 

I don't think the ward level is a good gauge.  In my 18 years here in Colorado, I've never been in a ward in which new homes weren't being constructed.  I've never had my ward boundaries stay the same for more than 4-5 years.  I think we'd need to look at larger scale numbers.

While I believe that the resignations that accompany these activism events are worth noting, the numbers we're seeing are not significant.  For example, we've tossed around the idea that several wards worth of members have resigned in the wake of Sam Young's excommunication.  In a church where we have averaged 267 new wards per year (over the last decade), losing 3-4 wards barely registers in the noise.

What should (and may well) be a bigger concern for church leadership is those who don't resign but have become disaffected over various issues like this.  How many members are no longer believers but stay because of spouse, family, or job concerns.  There is an unknowable percentage of members who sit in the pews, hold callings (even leadership callings), and have recommends in their wallets but no longer have any faith in the truth claims of the church.  I keep coming across more and more of them.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm a nobody. I don't have any pull with the Church.  

The Church is very transparency-adverse about a great number of things, membership numbers being one of them. 

And I think as the trends continue to look worse, we'll see them share less and less of the membership data that they currently provide.

[lostindc]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First of all, there is no need for you to continuously attempt to personalize this thread.  

Now, back to the topic:

Rongo said this:

You responded:

You also said this:

I then responded (emphases added):

So I'll revive the CFR.  You said "Read Prince's book."  Which book?  What pages?  Chapter and verse, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

What particular claim from above do you want me to get sources for, please?  Is it that there was contention within Church leadership over blacks and the priesthood.

 

The other topics, such as activism, within membership, and outside of the Church, was already well handled and no need for more resources, and if you don't agree, then so be it.

[lostindc]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm a nobody. I don't have any pull with the Church.  

The Church is very transparency-adverse about a great number of things, membership numbers being one of them. 

Totally understand, I have no pull either.  Yeah, the stats used to determine membership numbers, activity, etc. are near impossible to obtain.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, lostindc said:

What particular claim from above do you want me to get sources for, please?  Is it that there was contention within Church leadership over blacks and the priesthood.

You said:

Quote

No, the priesthood ban is exactly comparable to active agitation.  I am guessing you missed the period of activism for blacks receiving the priesthood, it was pretty big public spectacle.  I believe Gregory Prince and other historians have provided a look at what it was like during this time.  So you're wrong.

What writings by "Prince and other historians" are you referencing here?  Chapter and verse, please.

And this:

Quote

Read Prince's book and get an idea in regards to contention with the Presidency and the 12 and also the contention from within the membership.  I will take Greg's research over your words on this message board.  Greg Prince is well respected and produces thoroughly vetted texts.

Again, which book are you referencing here?  Which pages pertain to "an idea in regards to contention with the Presidency and the 12 and also the contention from within the membership?"

Thanks,

-Smac