How Bad Is the Exodus?

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It’s been a long time since I heard “fastest growing church in the world.” Certainly not in the last 10 years. I don’t believe that was a label invented by the Church. 

Decades ago, a sociologist, Rodney Stark, prognosticated that “Mormonism” would be the next world religion, this based on the then-current growth rate. This caught the imagination of some Church members, but I believe it is better and more widely recognized now that global predominance of Church membership is not essential for the fulfillment of prophecy. 
 

I personally believe that the “stone cut out of the mountain” thing will not have its culminating fulfillment until after the Second Coming of Christ and that it will transpire very soon thereafter. Meanwhile, we can be guided by what Nephi beheld in vision: that Christ’s church will have a global presence but will be relatively few in number, even as it sets the stage for the coming of Christ in glory. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Decades ago, a sociologist, Rodney Stark, prognosticated that “Mormonism” would be the next world religion, this based on the then-current growth rate. This caught the imagination of some Church members, but I believe it is better and more widely recognized now that global predominance of Church membership is not essential for the fulfillment of prophecy. 
 

I personally believe that the “stone cut out of the mountain” thing will not have its culminating fulfillment until after the Second Coming of Christ and that it will transpire very soon thereafter. Meanwhile, we can be guided by what Nephi beheld in vision: that Christ’s church will have a global presence but will be relatively few in number, even as it sets the stage for the coming of Christ in glory. 

It wasn't just random members.

Quote

 

We have heard the statistical report indicating a continuing worldwide growth of the Church, with its stabilizing influence, which is the product of the inspired doctrine and policies of the Church.

In a recent article, a non-Latter-day Saint scholar gave a fresh and most interesting review of this Church and its unpredicted growth since its restoration 160 years ago. He described its growth as a “miracle” and an “incredibly rare event.” (Rodney Stark, “The Rise of a New World Faith,” Review of Religious Research, vol. 26, no. 1, Sept. 1984, p. 18.)

In 1842 the Prophet Joseph Smith, in answer to an inquiry from the editor of a Chicago newspaper, made the prophetic declaration that “the truth of God will go forth boldly, … till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.” (History of the Church, 4:540.)

During a brief period of weeks, we have witnessed some phenomenal changes in the world, particularly in the Eastern bloc countries, changes which God-fearing men attribute to the hand of the Almighty in bringing about His glorious purposes to fill the earth with the knowledge of the Lord. Walls have come down, gates have opened, and millions of voices have chorused the song of freedom! We rejoice in the dawning of a brighter day. ...

The Lord instructed his young prophet Joseph in October of 1831:

“The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth.” (D&C 65:2.)

I testify we are witnessing the fulfillment of this promise, and that this work, given by Almighty God to His Son to proclaim, to teach, and finally to judge, will be done with eternal love, in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, amen. (David B. Haight, "Filling the Whole Earth," in April conference, 1990).

 

 

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Temple proliferation is perhaps the best indicator of what some have called “real growth,” as it takes a critical mass of members who qualify for a temple recommend to sustain a temple in a given geographical area. 
 

This might not be directly related to the frequency of departures from the Church, but assuming this is happening more frequently, I don’t know that it’s something we need to panic over. The Book of Mormon is clear in its prophecy that in the last days the Savior’s church would remain (proportionately) few in number on a global scale. I think this logically presupposes that a substantial portion would fall away after having received the covenant.
 

There is also scripture to the effect that even the very elect will be deceived. 

From what I understand, some temples outside North America are sustained mostly by senior missionary couples. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It wasn't just random members.

 

And I never said it was “just random members,” did I? 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

And I never said it was “just random members,” did I? 

I stand corrected. "Some Church members" does not necessarily exclude prophets, seers, and revelators.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

From what I understand, some temples outside North America are sustained mostly by senior missionary couples. 

“From what I understand. …” There’s that pervasive qualifier. One can use it to cover a great deal of rumor propagation and plausible deniability. 
 

At any rate, I don’t think I said it was a perfect indicator, only that it is the best. That is to say, I don’t think the Church makes a practice of putting up temples in areas of the world where members can’t keep existing ones occupied. Perhaps I’m wrong about that. But the Church seems to be expanding, not diminishing, its temple building. At least that’s the view from here. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I stand corrected. "Some Church members" does not necessarily exclude prophets, seers, and revelators.

Snarkiness noted. 
 

I don’t profess belief in the individual infallibility of prophets; I doubt you do. 
 

That said, I’m not aware of the Church ever having taken a formal position endorsing Stark’s predictions. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“From what I understand. …” There’s that pervasive qualifier. One can use it to cover a great deal of rumor propagation and plausible deniability. 
 

At any rate, I don’t think I said it was a perfect indicator, only that it is the best. That is to say, I don’t think the Church makes a practice of putting up temples in areas of the world where members can’t keep existing ones occupied. Perhaps I’m wrong about that. 

Well, I am aware of at least three temples that are mainly staffed by missionary couples. I have heard it's not uncommon in other parts of the world. Perhaps I'm wrong. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Snarkiness noted. 
 

I don’t profess belief in the individual infallibility of prophets; I doubt you do. 
 

That said, I’m not aware of the Church ever having taken a formal position endorsing Stark’s predictions. 

Neither am I. I do remember Stark's prediction being greeted with a lot of excitement among members and leaders alike. 

[ksfisher]

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Better said former active believing members.  But I think you understood my point.😏

I did.  I forgot to put a smiley face after it to let you know I understood and was kidding.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Neither am I. I do remember Stark's prediction being greeted with a lot of excitement among members and leaders alike. 

And I never said otherwise, did I?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, I am aware of at least three temples that are mainly staffed by missionary couples. I have heard it's not uncommon in other parts of the world. Perhaps I'm wrong. 

Are you aware of the Church as a matter of practice building temples where there has been no demonstrated need for them? 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I never said otherwise, did I?

And I never said you did. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, I am aware of at least three temples that are mainly staffed by missionary couples. I have heard it's not uncommon in other parts of the world. Perhaps I'm wrong. 

The US is blessed to have a pretty luxurious lifestyle for many and that includes a significant amount of leisure time and being able to afford transportation costs that allows them to devote time to temple work as regular staff. In other places they are not so blessed and so it makes sense why church leadership does not require locals to staff temples themselves imo. The important thing is how much they are being used on those places for living ordinances (since the same issue of not having leisure time or being able to afford the costs of traveling apply to patrons doing proxy work).  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.

[ksfisher]

28 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

From what I understand, some temples outside North America are sustained mostly by senior missionary couples. 

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.

 

edit: Calm said it better.

Edited August 26, 2022 by ksfisher

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

The US is blessed to have a pretty luxurious lifestyle for many and that includes a significant amount of leisure time and being able to afford transportation costs that allows them to devote time to temple work as regular staff. In other places they are not so blessed and so it makes sense why church leadership does not require locals to staff temples themselves imo. The important thing is how much they are being used on those places for living ordinances (since the same issue of not having leisure time or being able to afford the costs of traveling apply to patrons doing proxy work).  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.

I guess it depends on how you define "sustaining a temple." As far as staffing and operating a temple, it seems like there are a lot of places around the world that are not able to do so with local members. It's not a knock on the church, just was thinking aloud that having locals run the temple would be a pretty good indicator of growth. But what do I know?

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes 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.

 

edit: Calm said it better.

You said it pretty well, though. 

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess it depends on how you define "sustaining a temple." As far as staffing and operating a temple, it seems like there are a lot of places around the world that are not able to do so with local members. It's not a knock on the church, just was thinking aloud that having locals run the temple would be a pretty good indicator of growth. But what do I know?

In many areas of the world it is not the wealthy citizens who are joining. I think having locals staff a temple is more an indicator of the local economy than the devotion or number of active Saints in the area. Getting one’s own temple work done is a very high priority for believing Saints, so to me that number and its rate of growth is a better indicator than whether there are enough locals who can afford the time and costs to be temple workers.  A lot of older people in other parts of the world are still working or care for their grandchildren or homes while their children who they live with work. 

If the areas where missionary couples are staffing temples are in wealthier nations with many Saints of all income levels, that would be a indicator of local growth of active Saints not being very strong, but I think we need to be very careful not to assume the measures of activity that apply in the States automatically apply elsewhere. 

For example, in Hong Kong they have several branches amounting to over 1000 members in total (as of 5 years ago) that are run by senior missionary couples. But that is only because those branches are all women who are foreign domestic workers who have one day and sometimes only a half day off each week. The couples hold Sacrament Meetings every day of the week but Monday to accommodate all the sisters who couldn’t attend Church otherwise. And every three months the Hong Kong temple stays open on Sunday so as to allow the women whose free day is Sunday to attend. 

Even with many devoted members, if that group were the majority of the locals available to staff the temple, how could they possibly do so with their only time available to run the errands they need for themselves?

Edited August 26, 2022 by Calm

[Chum]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I am literally on my way to our new home (in the passenger seat) albeit in a rush hour traffic jam, but I have keys!!

Hot dang. Best news.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

In many areas of the world it is not the wealthy citizens who are joining. I think having locals staff a temple is more an indicator of the local economy than the devotion or number of active Saints in the area. Getting one’s own temple work done is a very high priority for believing Saints, so to me that number and its rate of growth is a better indicator than whether there are enough locals who can afford the time and costs to be temple workers.  A lot of older people in other parts of the world are still working or care for their grandchildren or homes while their children who they live with work. 

If the areas where missionary couples are staffing temples are in wealthier nations with many Saints of all income levels, that would be a indicator of local growth of active Saints not being very strong, but I think we need to be very careful not to assume the measures of activity that apply in the States automatically apply elsewhere. 

For example, in Hong Kong they have several branches amounting to over 1000 members that are run by senior missionary couples. But that is only because those branches are all women who are foreign domestic workers who have one day and sometimes only a half day off each week. The couples hold Sacrament Meetings every day of the week but Monday to accommodate all the sisters who couldn’t attend Church otherwise. And every three months the Hong Kong temple stays open on Sunday so as to allow the women whose free day is Sunday to attend. 

Even with many devoted members, if that group were the majority of the locals available to staff the temple, how could they possibly do so with their only time available to run the errands they need for themselves?

Thinking about the support needs for a typical temple, I’m considering my own experience. 
 

I serve in one of the smaller-to-midsize temples. On our midday shift, I  conservatively estimate that there are 40 or so males who are set apart as ordinance workers, including the shift coordinator and several assistants. There is also a sizable contingent of women ordinance workers on the shift to perform initiatory work and assist with endowment sessions, live and proxy sealings, marriages, etc. 
 

Add to this the temple presidency, matron and assistants to the matron, recorder and assistant recorders, temple engineers, office staff, those serving in the baptistery, laundry workers, a committee that keeps the interior spiffy and the trash emptied, and, well, you get an idea of numbers. 
 

And this is just one shift. There are three throughout the day. Some work more than one shift a week, but I’m sure most are like me, working one six-hour shift per week. 
 

And the temple is operational five days a week. Admittedly, weekday shifts are probably smaller (mine is on Saturday). But the numbers do add up when considering the needs for the five-day week. 
 

To get an idea of the totality, consider this:  Once a year, a devotional is held for all the ordinance workers. Attendance is enough to fill the chapel and overflow/cultural hall of a nearby stake center, so it’s about the size of a stake conference. Now, some workers do bring their spouses to the devotional, but a good many serve with their spouses in the temple. 
 

Given all this, it is scarcely surprising that missionary couples would be needed to serve as ordinance workers in areas of the Church where  membership density is less. But to me it defies reason that the Church would place a temple where there is not enough demonstrated devotion among members receiving their own ordinances and returning as frequently as circumstances allow for vicarious ordinances to justify said temple placement.

And temple construction continues to proliferate year after year, as I said, the best indicator of real growth. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thinking about the support needs for a typical temple, I’m considering my own experience. 
 

I serve in one of the smaller-to-midsize temples. On our midday shift, I  conservatively estimate that there are 40 or so males who are set apart as ordinance workers, including the shift coordinator and several assistants. There is also a sizable contingent of women ordinance workers on the shift to perform initiatory work and assist with endowment sessions, live and proxy sealings, marriages, etc. 
 

Add to this the temple presidency, matron and assistants to the matron, recorder and assistant recorders, temple engineers, office staff, those serving in the baptistery, laundry workers, a committee that keeps the interior spiffy and the trash emptied, and, well, you get an idea of numbers. 
 

And this is just one shift. There are three throughout the day. Some work more than one shift a week, but I’m sure most are like me, working one six-hour shift per week. 
 

And the temple is operational five days a week. Admittedly, weekday shifts are probably smaller (mine is on Saturday). But the numbers do add up when considering the needs for the five-day week. 
 

To get an idea of the totality, consider this:  Once a year, a devotional is held for all the ordinance workers. Attendance is enough to fill the chapel and overflow/cultural hall of a nearby stake center, so it’s about the size of a stake conference. Now, some workers do bring their spouses to the devotional, but a good many serve with their spouses in the temple. 
 

Given all this, it is scarcely surprising that missionary couples would be needed to serve as ordinance workers in areas of the Church where  membership density is less. But to me it defies reason that the Church would place a temple where there is not enough demonstrated devotion among members receiving their own ordinances and returning as frequently as circumstances allow for vicarious ordinances to justify said temple placement.

And temple construction continues to proliferate year after year, as I said, the best indicator of real growth. 

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. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes 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. 

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?

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, cacheman said:

In future recountings of this story, I recommend you go back to using the "literally 1/10" version.

Thanks for remembering better than I did. The earlier post is correct. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/24/2022 at 12:49 PM, BluePlanet said:

Served as a bishop in a suburban U.S. ward, worked with youth forever (current seminary teacher), been in the same stake for 20 years--watching trends carefully--and know the lay of the land pretty well.  My observations:

- I don't believe we are facing a true membership crisis (we are doing better than most churches), but..

- The trends are definitely concerning and I'm confident this is an fact-based conclusion and not simply explainable by social media feedback loops or those leaving being louder than previous generations (though both things do happen). *We are in an especially difficult period for the church.*

- LGBT issues: young people cannot find the sin in a committed, loving, same-sex relationship. They ask me: Where is the danger? Where is the "badness"?  Increasingly they feel tension between the church's view and the goodness they see in their LGBT friends (and they have many).  They cannot see how allowing an LGBT marriage hurts a heterosexual marriage.  The dissonance between their lived experience and certain church teachings is difficult to rationalize.  One third of our ward's YW identify as queer.  About a fourth of my seminary class identify this way.  Similar trends are found in every ward in our stake.  (And of course, these feelings are stronger in youth but obviously many adult church members feel the same).  I cannot see how this issue just melts away.  It will only grow in prominence and difficulty.  If we are going to die on this hill, we seriously need to find a new way to message the rallying cry (I'm not sure such a message exists).

- Women's issues:  certainly not all, but many women I know, including more and more young women, do not like to be treated *in any way* as second class.  You can invoke all the "different but equal* talks you want, but the fact remains that men run the church and younger women, especially, will not just stand idly by as the rest of the world affords them growing equality.

- The messages that worked for people in the past -- e.g. the one true church, The Family™, perfect leaders, pristine history (never stated, but implied) -- are not resonating as before.  Especially for youth, these elements do not seem to stoke the fire of faith as they once did.  We are not speaking the faith language of the upcoming generation, or, we are not translating the old messaging very effectively.

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

Quote

I will now say, not only to our delegate to Congress, but to the Elders who leave the body of the Church, that he thought that all the cats and kittens were let out of the bag when brother Pratt went back last fall, and published the Revelation concerning the plurality of wives: it was thought there was no other cat to let out. But allow me to tell you, Elders of Israel, and delegates to Congress, you may expect an eternity of cats, that have not yet escaped from the bag. Bless your souls, there is no end to them, for if there is not one thing, there will always be another.

Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1756366-brigham-young-i-will-now-say-not-only-to-our-delegate-to-congre/

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Stargazer]

40 minutes 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. 

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.