Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

How Bad Is the Exodus?


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The only “acceptable” solution is total capitulation. Anything else would just be kicking the cat down the road..

That 

How mean!!! 😞 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think Wasatch Front temples are representative of temples around the world. In many areas, for example, temple sessions are by appointment only, so there isn't a large staff working multiple shifts. 

 

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Our London temple is appointment-only, except not quite. They reserve a certain number of seats for possible visitors who come without an appointment. So if an endowment session is "full", it isn't necessarily full-full.

Now that you mention it, our Draper Utah Temple — the one jkwilliams says is “not representative” of non-Wasatch Front temples — is by appointment as well. Until very recently, it was appointment only. These days, appointments are given priority and walk-ins are accommodated on a space-available basis. 
 

When he said appointment only, I assumed he meant the temple was not opened unless there were sufficient advance appointments. The Monticello Utah Temple was like that in the beginning. It may still be. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Calm said:

 If a significant portion of Saints in the area are getting their own temple work done and the number of temple recommend holders is growing as well, I see that as a significant indicator of growth.

How on earth could we possible verify this? I’d say that the number of temples is one of the easiest numbers to fudge for the church. They each represent a capital expense for the church, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem currently. Could it represent significant increases in temple activity? Sure, maybe. Could it represent a commitment on the part of President Nelson to reduce travel time and burden on the saints? Sure, maybe. Could it simply be a “flex”, to excite church members who seem to want to applaud in general conference? A manufactured sign that all is well in Zion? Sure, maybe. 
 

What data do we have that could differentiate between the above hypothesis? 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

These days, appointments are given priority and walk-ins are accommodated on a space-available basis. 

Yes, and that is a much more concise way of putting it than the way I wrote it.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How on earth could we possible verify this? I’d say that the number of temples is one of the easiest numbers to fudge for the church. They each represent a capital expense for the church, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem currently. Could it represent significant increases in temple activity? Sure, maybe. Could it represent a commitment on the part of President Nelson to reduce travel time and burden on the saints? Sure, maybe. Could it simply be a “flex”, to excite church members who seem to want to applaud in general conference? A manufactured sign that all is well in Zion? Sure, maybe. 

Hmmm, perhaps a directive or inspiration by the Lord that we need more temples? For possible future use?

I know you're not a believer any longer, which would be why inspiration/revelation didn't enter into your list of hypotheses, but you do know that we have temples to do proxy ordinance work for the dead, and eventually there is supposed to be a Second Coming, after which we will ramp up to a thousand years of temple work for everyone who has ever lived. That would seem to require a LOT of temples. Best to get started sooner rather than later, perhaps?

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What data do we have that could differentiate between the above hypothesis? 

Hard to say. But if your hypotheses are all incorrect, the data won't show it.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

inspiration/revelation

Inspiration could be related to either option 1 (increased demand among the faithful), option 2 (help increase accessibility for members) no? It could even be behind option 3. And inspiration/revelation to ramp up in preparation for the second coming is one I missed. My point is that the number of temples is only loosely correlated with church activity numbers and is a poor metric to demonstrate how well or poorly the church is retaining members. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Inspiration could be related to either option 1 (increased demand among the faithful), option 2 (help increase accessibility for members) no? It could even be behind option 3. And inspiration/revelation to ramp up in preparation for the second coming is one I missed. My point is that the number of temples is only loosely correlated with church activity numbers and is a poor metric to demonstrate how well or poorly the church is retaining members. 

Understood.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

In my experience the majority of temples workers are retired.  I would wonder if the need to staff these temples with missionary couples is more a reflection of the lack of a base of retired members able to serve as temple workers.  Just a thought.

Precisely. Our temple is filled to overflowing in the evenings and on Saturdays because the vast majority of members have jobs. A temple trip for me requires 24-28 hours all up, and my goal is to attend once per month. Before Covid, I was an ordinance worker, and each month I worked a shift. That literally meant that for several years, I had no opportunity to receive ordinances for my own family.

We don't use missionary couples in our temple, but I can see how handy it would be in order to make the temple ordinances more accessible for local members.

ETA: I personally love that COVID introduced appointments into our temples because now I don't run the risk of spending hours and stacks of money travelling only to discover that I can only get into one session.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How on earth could we possible verify this? I’d say that the number of temples is one of the easiest numbers to fudge for the church. 

I recognize the data I am talking about is not publicly available.  I was talking about the significance of a possible measure, not measures we personally could use at this moment. My guess is leadership uses them as one measure of growth, in part because of comments in talks like the one referenced above, but like many things in this Church the info isn’t public. Sorry I wasn’t clear. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 8/25/2022 at 9:03 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

He is the leader of his own faith group: The Church of John Dehlin of the Holy Podcast. They have their own worship services, general conferences, offerings, orthodoxies, hierarchy, and heresies.

No there is no church of faith based group related to Dehlin. This is a silly argument that active members want to use to disparage Dehlin and others.  They do this because the disaffected Latter day Saint is now the biggest threat to believers. More so than any EV atni Mormon ever was.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No there is no church of faith based group related to Dehlin. This is a silly argument that active members want to use to disparage Dehlin and others.  They do this because the disaffected Latter day Saint is now the biggest threat to believers. More so than any EV atni Mormon ever was.

Why do the ex-members like ttribe do it then?

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You spoke specifically of three temples and said you “have heard” of others. Are those the size tiny enough that they are open by appointment only? Or are they closer to the moderate size one, Draper Utah, where I serve?

Our temple is one of the  very small ones and used to be by appointment only.  I think one can do walk ins now.  It never has run open full time. Some days it was closed and the days it was opened the schedule was limited other than Saturday. It is primarily staffed by local members. I can't really speak to other areas but personally I have been surprised at many of the locations for new temple and that they are in places that is seems the membership is rather low and not growing at all.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Why do the ex-members like ttribe do it then?

He did not say Dehlin has a church yada yada.  He called him opportunistic.  I know ttribe as well as John and know why the feel about Dehlin they way they do.  I don't think it is the way it was portrayed in the post I responded to.  They can correct me if I am wrong.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Uhhh...what did I do?

Teancum seemed to be saying that the only reason members think so badly of Dehlin is because we seem him and his audience as a threat.

You’ve mentioned many times your negative feelings for him. Given that and Teancum’s post on the lack of valid reasons to dislike him, I wondered how he interpreted your views. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Teancum said:

He did not say Dehlin has a church yada yada.  He called him opportunistic.  I know ttribe as well as John and know why the feel about Dehlin they way they do.  I don't think it is the way it was portrayed in the post I responded to.  They can correct me if I am wrong.

I’ve never heard any but Hamba suggest that Dehlin has a church. Have you?

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’ve never heard any but Hamba suggest that Dehlin has a church. Have you?

Hamba was being sarcastic to call it a church. I am guessing he simply means Dehlin has created a little community around himself, with some similarities to church culture but also providing the differences if wanted (no longer keeping the WoW for example). Iirc, Dehlin has talked about wanting to fill the community void that is created by leaving the church and has done so with conferences and retreats among other things.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hamba was being sarcastic to call it a church. I am guessing he simply means Dehlin has created a little community around himself, with some similarities to church culture but also providing the differences if wanted (no longer keeping the WoW for example). Iirc, Dehlin has talked about wanting to fill the community void that is created by leaving the church and has done so with conferences and retreats among other things.

Yes, that’s how I read Hamba as well. It sounded like Teancum was taking him seriously.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Teancum seemed to be saying that the only reason members think so badly of Dehlin is because we seem him and his audience as a threat.

You’ve mentioned many times your negative feelings for him. Given that and Teancum’s post on the lack of valid reasons to dislike him, I wondered how he interpreted your views. 

Ahh, I see. Well, as you might expect, the exmo community is not a monolith of opinions. I know many people who have great appreciation for John's podcast work; Teancum is one of them. I'm not. My path didn't involve him. I said earlier that I think John is a shameless opportunist and I've felt that way for a long time.

Hamba's hyperbole notwithstanding, I think John has built a kind of cult of personality amongst a portion of his followers and my opinion is that John REALLY enjoys that attention and adulation.  At this stage of my life, I am extremely wary of any movement (e.g. religious, political, social) that includes a significant amount of admiration and adoration for a leader. 

My opinion is that he has become far too much of a showman and attention hound over the years, rather than having significant substantive discussion about the topic of being LDS and/or leaving the community. That being said, I'm not operating under the illusion that all will share my opinion.

Link to comment
On 8/23/2022 at 12:17 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

The Church appears to be treading water in terms of replacing those who leave with converts, meaning that any real growth comes from the natural growth of members of the Church having children, or African converts.

But replacing American tithe payers with African tithe payers & non tithe paying babies will cost the church nearly 1 billion in net lost tithing receipts each and every year exponentially.  Meaning each year the church will lose another billion in lost revenue which will be is added to the previous years loss.  After 10 years that will result in 10 billion in lost revenue, after 20 years 20 billion in lost revenue etc

With 100 Billion squirreled in the stock market, I think the church will be around for quite a long time. 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...