LDS general conference - Fall 2013

[Jazz Spazz]

First of all it's prim! Secondly, that infraction was bogus and you know it.

Hi, welcome to the board.

FYI it is my understanding that at least 3 mods vote on infarctions.

Thanks, and I hope you enjoy your time here and add to the diversity of this group in a positive way.

~Spazz

 

[LogGrad98]

Hi, welcome to the board.

FYI it is my understanding that at least 3 mods vote on infarctions.

Thanks, and I hope you enjoy your time here and add to the diversity of this group in a positive way.

~Spazz

Hi, welcome to the board. Something about diversity and stuff.

 

[infection]

It's been a long known fact that the LDS church has been significantly inflating their membership numbers dating back as early as April 6, 1830. Among the six founding members included Joseph Smith himself, who technically couldn't be considered a member because he was the founder. Among the other five included two of his brothers. This is somewhat akin to your business, band, art studio, etc. getting a bunch of likes of facebook simply from all your family. Two of the other three were Whitmer brothers, who also later left the church so they weren't really members in the true sense. The last is Oliver Cowdery who, just like the Whitmers, left the church and, again, wasn't a member in the traditional way we'd understand it. A very strong argument could be made that these six "members" doesn't even fit the criteria set by the state of New York to organize a new church, yet still the church proudly boasts six "members" organizing in 1830.

Today, little has changed as we now have the church touting, rather boastfully, 15 million members world-wide. Assuming a 30% activity rate (which is being incredibly generous as my estimates put it at closer to 8-10%), then this is only 4.5 million members, a far cry from 15 million. Even still, the church considers people who attend once per quarter as being active, so this further decreases the number because we all know that if you're going just once per quarter everyone in your ward views you as being in-active.

We've all experienced the pressure the LDS church puts on its members and we've all felt the judgments for not having a temple recommend and measuring up to that "gold standard." Only a small portion of church members are even endowed and most who are endowed don't attend regularly and wouldn't identify as being LDS. We also hear all the leaders harping on "regular temple attendance" and those who don't attend regularly obviously aren't rank-and-file members. Much of the membership is in third world countries, too. Places that have scanty access to the internet. The church will go into these places and convert people who have little opportunity to google the church for themselves. Very few of these people would join if they had simple things like internet access, but thus the church gets to continue to pump up its numbers.

Likewise, the church claims great growth in Africa, yet if these members knew more about the priesthood ban, probably less than 10% of the members would still be members, and the ones who stay would likely be made up of those who are too busy or apathetic to renounce their membership. A lot of them are probably staying affiliated for church welfare and aren't really believing members anyway. Most of the supposed membership in South America is all from baseball baptisms, anyway. It's also hard to legitimately count anything outside of North America anyway because there's such a large influence of different culture and most people, though nominally LDS, bring a lot of their Catholic dogma into their belief system and it is not true LDS belief. So also with most of the Asian countries as many of them would be defined as Buddhist or even just spiritually minded if observed by an impartial viewer.

Sure, our board has a few nice guys that claim membership like Colton or Stoked, but Stoked, for instance, claims total inactivity, so much so that nobody from the church visits him. In the non-LDS world, this person would be deemed as not having religious affiliation. Colton, on the other hand, isn't a Utah native and occasionally expresses things that are much less judgmental than what we get from the typical LDS ilk. This is really much more in line with a non-denominational world-view and isn't really LDS at all.

The church uses favorable criteria to count members unlike many organizations. The Hell's Angels, for instance, don't even count people members unless they've been jumped in and everyone has literally urinated and defecated on their jacket; and then after that they aren't allowed to wash their jacket -- these are the people who are counted members. The LDS church will count pretty much anyone who's ever been polled as being familiar with Mitt Romney as a member.

So if we are to really distill down the numbers to those who are actually believing Mormons, we see that the numbers are nowhere close to 15 million but much, much closer to the very low six-figures, which consist mainly of the caricature we continue to purport of those who are typically pretty stiff, root for BYU, are friendly to you only because they want to convert you, and are generally giant asshats to everyone else with their holier-than-thou attitudes.

 

[♪alt13]

Hi, welcome to the board.

FYI it is my understanding that at least 3 mods vote on infarctions.

Thanks, and I hope you enjoy your time here and add to the diversity of this group in a positive way.

~Spazz

Shop smart, shop S-Mart.

 

[LogGrad98]

I find it interesting that people are disputing a 30% to 50% activity rate. I have been ward clerk (or assistant) a few times in a couple different states, and I can tell you that of the official members of record in our boundaries usually about 40% of them (as low as maybe 33%, the high was just under 50%) attended at least one meeting a month on average. I think, extrapolated from this anecdotal information, that 30% generally would be more than reasonable. Again it gets back to your definition of active. Maybe 25% of them attended nearly all meetings, barring vacations/illness, that sort of thing. And maybe as high as 60% went to at least one meeting in a 6 month period. But a good solid 40% or maybe higher (about 60% worst case I saw) never attended anything.

Interestingly enough the lower rates of activity were in a Utah ward, probably due simply to the fact that it is more likely to have higher numbers of members of record in a given geographic area than, say, Vancouver WA.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

It's been a long known fact that the LDS church has been significantly inflating their membership numbers dating back as early as April 6, 1830. Among the six founding members included Joseph Smith himself, who technically couldn't be considered a member because he was the founder. Among the other five included two of his brothers. This is somewhat akin to your business, band, art studio, etc. getting a bunch of likes of facebook simply from all your family. Two of the other three were Whitmer brothers, who also later left the church so they weren't really members in the true sense. The last is Oliver Cowdery who, just like the Whitmers, left the church and, again, wasn't a member in the traditional way we'd understand it. A very strong argument could be made that these six "members" doesn't even fit the criteria set by the state of New York to organize a new church, yet still the church proudly boasts six "members" organizing in 1830.

I refute this idea with a quote of Sy Sperling

"I'm not just the president, I'm also a client."

Nice try, but the prophet of The Church as it is legally formed would definitely be a member of that church.
The father or mother of a family is still a member of that family.

Today, little has changed as we now have the church touting, rather boastfully, 15 million members world-wide. Assuming a 30% activity rate (which is being incredibly generous as my estimates put it at closer to 8-10%), then this is only 4.5 million members, a far cry from 15 million. Even still, the church considers people who attend once per quarter as being active, so this further decreases the number because we all know that if you're going just once per quarter everyone in your ward views you as being in-active.

It's interesting that people not part of the LDS Church have such amazing guesstimates as to what the "true" activity rate of The Church is. I'm going to go based on my experience that it is fairly close to 50% every where I have lived. I'm sure there are places where it is lower, possibly even some where it's higher. I could see it between 40 and 50, but throwing out numbers at 8-10 is absurd and even 30 is comical to me.

Secondly, why would you even care?

We've all experienced the pressure the LDS church puts on its members and we've all felt the judgments for not having a temple recommend and measuring up to that "gold standard." Only a small portion of church members are even endowed and most who are endowed don't attend regularly and wouldn't identify as being LDS. We also hear all the leaders harping on "regular temple attendance" and those who don't attend regularly obviously aren't rank-and-file members. Much of the membership is in third world countries, too. Places that have scanty access to the internet. The church will go into these places and convert people who have little opportunity to google the church for themselves. Very few of these people would join if they had simple things like internet access, but thus the church gets to continue to pump up its numbers.

Absurd, I don't even think I need to address the comment that most places that the LDS Church baptizes people are third world countries without access to the internet.

Likewise, the church claims great growth in Africa, yet if these members knew more about the priesthood ban, probably less than 10% of the members would still be members, and the ones who stay would likely be made up of those who are too busy or apathetic to renounce their membership. A lot of them are probably staying affiliated for church welfare and aren't really believing members anyway. Most of the supposed membership in South America is all from baseball baptisms, anyway. It's also hard to legitimately count anything outside of North America anyway because there's such a large influence of different culture and most people, though nominally LDS, bring a lot of their Catholic dogma into their belief system and it is not true LDS belief. So also with most of the Asian countries as many of them would be defined as Buddhist or even just spiritually minded if observed by an impartial viewer.

I know people that have been baptized and are from Africa. They know all about any history of the priesthood.
As to people being members to access the welfare, how different do you think that is from people here? There are plenty of people that walk away from the church, but come back when going through a hard time financially to get some help and go through the motions of church attendance to get it? It happens here, so I'm sure there is some of that there... but... I'm also very positive that there are many people that join The Church there for more spiritual reasons and have a testimony/belief as a reason.

Is there truly an impartial viewer anywhere in the world? No. Everybody has experiences in life that shape them, and who they are, and how they view things. Being "impartial" is just a buzzword for "listen to me, I'm telling the truth, really".

Sure, our board has a few nice guys that claim membership like Colton or Stoked, but Stoked, for instance, claims total inactivity, so much so that nobody from the church visits him. In the non-LDS world, this person would be deemed as not having religious affiliation. Colton, on the other hand, isn't a Utah native and occasionally expresses things that are much less judgmental than what we get from the typical LDS ilk. This is really much more in line with a non-denominational world-view and isn't really LDS at all.

On the contrary, Colton is absolutely LDS and if he is "much less judgmental" than other LDS members, then he is doing things right.

As to the whole "not having religious affiliation", that is off the mark imo as well. If Stoked says he's non practicing LDS then that's his affiliation and choice. There are millions of Catholics and other types of religious people that claim they are that religion but never go, or only go on Easter and Christmas. Like somebody said earlier, the religious affiliation should be based on what that person says it is, not what some "impartial" observer says it is.

The church uses favorable criteria to count members unlike many organizations. The Hell's Angels, for instance, don't even count people members unless they've been jumped in and everyone has literally urinated and defecated on their jacket; and then after that they aren't allowed to wash their jacket -- these are the people who are counted members. The LDS church will count pretty much anyone who's ever been polled as being familiar with Mitt Romney as a member.

uh-huh

So if we are to really distill down the numbers to those who are actually believing Mormons, we see that the numbers are nowhere close to 15 million but much, much closer to the very low six-figures, which consist mainly of the caricature we continue to purport of those who are typically pretty stiff, root for BYU, are friendly to you only because they want to convert you, and are generally giant asshats to everyone else with their holier-than-thou attitudes.

This was a nice story, I like fiction.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I find it interesting that people are disputing a 30% to 50% activity rate. I have been ward clerk (or assistant) a few times in a couple different states, and I can tell you that of the official members of record in our boundaries usually about 40% of them (as low as maybe 33%, the high was just under 50%) attended at least one meeting a month on average. I think, extrapolated from this anecdotal information, that 30% generally would be more than reasonable. Again it gets back to your definition of active. Maybe 25% of them attended nearly all meetings, barring vacations/illness, that sort of thing. And maybe as high as 60% went to at least one meeting in a 6 month period. But a good solid 40% or maybe higher (about 60% worst case I saw) never attended anything.

Interestingly enough the lower rates of activity were in a Utah ward, probably due simply to the fact that it is more likely to have higher numbers of members of record in a given geographic area than, say, Vancouver WA.

Also in Utah you find people visiting other wards all the time for baby blessings and stuff like that. Tough to get a solid number when people visit other wards all the time.

 

[sirkickyass]

That's too bad, and means someone's not doing things the way they are supposed to. The procedure is supposed to be: individual writes letter to bishop requesting name removal, bishop* contacts individual to make sure they are certain, then bishop removes name. At least, I assume the procedure hasn't changed since then. In my opinion bishops who don't follow that really give the church a black eye--and I've heard about other similar stories, so I'm sure that it happens. Why are they so intent on making it difficult for people to disassociate themselves from the church? It's not like Mormonism teaches your salvation will be any different based on whether you are still a church member in name only.


* If the individual is a Melchizedek priesthood holder, then I believe the stake president must also be involved.

I actually know a little bit about the process because my mom resigned her membership this year (the exact reasons are a little esoteric, but it involves the church effectively sponsoring some tea party events in Gilbert, AZ). Writing a letter to your bishop doesn't get it done because the bishop doesn't actually maintain your official membership records. You have to actually send your letter stating your full name, address, and that you wish to resign to this address:

Member Records Division, LDS Church
50 E North Temple Rm 1372
SLC UT 84150-5310

If you have a common name you may have to give more information, such as which ward/stake you last attended. If there is valid confusion over which member in the membership records, your records will not be removed and you'll either receive no further communication or have your letter returned with instructions to schedule a meeting with your bishop so you can resign your membership. Of course, since the bishop can't directly remove your name from the records that meeting is of no real use to you and likely will only be an attempt to get you to change your mind.

If they can locate your records you'll usually receive a card in the mail. This card weirdly does not confirm that they have removed your name from the records but instead states that removing your records is a local ecclesiastical matter and that your request has been forwarded to local leaders. This actually means they're removing your records in the next 30 days or so while they ask the bishop and stake president to fill out some paperwork, but they're giving the local boots on the ground one last shot at you if they want it. However, legally, once you have received this acknowledgement they received your letter you are no longer a member and they cannot count you on their rolls.

The church used to stealthily excommunicate some members that went through this process rather than accept the resignation. That practice stopped in 2005 after they were subject to a class-action lawsuit.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I actually know a little bit about the process because my mom resigned her membership this year (the exact reasons are a little esoteric, but it involves the church effectively sponsoring some tea party events in Gilbert, AZ). Writing a letter to your bishop doesn't get it done because the bishop doesn't actually maintain your official membership records. You have to actually send your letter stating your full name, address, and that you wish to resign to this address:

Member Records Division, LDS Church
50 E North Temple Rm 1372
SLC UT 84150-5310

If you have a common name you may have to give more information, such as which ward/stake you last attended. If there is valid confusion over which member in the membership records, your records will not be removed and you'll either receive no further communication or have your letter returned with instructions to schedule a meeting with your bishop so you can resign your membership. Of course, since the bishop can't directly remove your name from the records that meeting is of no real use to you and likely will only be an attempt to get you to change your mind.

If they can locate your records you'll usually receive a card in the mail. This card weirdly does not confirm that they have removed your name from the records but instead states that removing your records is a local ecclesiastical matter and that your request has been forwarded to local leaders. This actually means they're removing your records in the next 30 days or so while they ask the bishop and stake president to fill out some paperwork, but they're giving the local boots on the ground one last shot at you if they want it. However, legally, once you have received this acknowledgement they received your letter you are no longer a member and they cannot count you on their rolls.

The church used to stealthily excommunicate some members that went through this process rather than accept the resignation. That practice stopped in 2005 after they were subject to a class-action lawsuit.

Thanks. Repped.

 

[colton]

I actually know a little bit about the process because my mom resigned her membership this year (the exact reasons are a little esoteric, but it involves the church effectively sponsoring some tea party events in Gilbert, AZ). Writing a letter to your bishop doesn't get it done because the bishop doesn't actually maintain your official membership records. You have to actually send your letter stating your full name, address, and that you wish to resign to this address:

Member Records Division, LDS Church
50 E North Temple Rm 1372
SLC UT 84150-5310

Thanks for the info. They must have changed that since I was in the bishopric.

 

[infection]

Nice try, but the prophet of The Church as it is legally formed would definitely be a member of that church.

Sure, but it's convenient he could count himself as his own follower to pad the numbers and make it look like he had six followers rather than just five (of which those five, as previously mentioned, are highly debatable in their own regard).

It's interesting that people not part of the LDS Church have such amazing guesstimates as to what the "true" activity rate of The Church is. I'm going to go based on my experience that it is fairly close to 50% every where I have lived. I'm sure there are places where it is lower, possibly even some where it's higher. I could see it between 40 and 50, but throwing out numbers at 8-10 is absurd and even 30 is comical to me.

But you're only seeing the numbers you think you see. You're not seeing the tons on the "cannot find" list in SLC that must obviously be huge because it does not pass the eyeball test.

Secondly, why would you even care?

Because no inflated claim of the church need go unchallenged. It's important for those that believe these things know that they're wrong.

I know people that have been baptized and are from Africa. They know all about any history of the priesthood.

Then they obviously don't know enough. If they knew enough then they'd obviously not be members. They'd come to the same rational conclusion that anyone with any degree of sophistication and intellect would reach.

As to people being members to access the welfare, how different do you think that is from people here? There are plenty of people that walk away from the church, but come back when going through a hard time financially to get some help and go through the motions of church attendance to get it? It happens here, so I'm sure there is some of that there

Excellent. And this further demonstrates the point that you could chalk up at least 10% of the membership to being members for ulterior motives, so right there that's another 1.5 million you can subtract from the "15 million" claim.

Is there truly an impartial viewer anywhere in the world? No. Everybody has experiences in life that shape them, and who they are, and how they view things. Being "impartial" is just a buzzword for "listen to me, I'm telling the truth, really".

The church has something to gain in these claims. The church says it and then nobody questions. Surely it's better to turn to someone with less bias and who has no dog in the fight.

The church must obviously have a lot of motivation to continue to prop up and pad the numbers to make it appear more legitimate than it really is. They're only building temples to give the appearance of maintaining relevance in a world that's becoming less and less inclined to its archaic ways and is hemorrhaging members left and right. Why do you think they're clinging to members like a squirrel to a nut and not letting them out easy without the complicated process described above? Obviously because they're desperate to have those numbers keep going up so they can continue to announce them in conference.

As kicky demonstrated, it's a stagnating organization. It's DYING and they have nothing better to do than sit around and think of ways to manipulate the membership numbers because they really get off on wooing the world with the Jedi mind tricks. That's why it's really important to dig down deep on these issues to show everyone that the LDS church just can't be trusted with how they count members and really need to count members the same way Sam's Club or the Hell's Angel's do.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Sure, but it's convenient he could count himself as his own follower to pad the numbers and make it look like he had six followers rather than just five (of which those five, as previously mentioned, are highly debatable in their own regard).

It was a legal requirement to have a minimum of 6 people to legally organize a church at that time. There were many, many more people at that organizational meeting that were ready and willing and Joseph Smith chose 6 people from among them to be the original 6, himself being one of them of course. There is absolutely no debate, they of their own free will chose to be members of the church.

I'm sorry I just find this whole argument weak and petty. I'm not even going to bother with the rest. It's just ridiculous.

 

[Stifle Tower]

How many Catholics are there in the world? Muslims? Lutherans?
I know a ton of Baptists in my area who have not set foot in a church in many, many years but they still consider and identify themselves as Baptists. Same with any other faith. And don't even get me started with Jewish people. I don't think the LDS Church has ever claimed to have 15 million ACTIVE members. I'd say the 30-50% estimate is probably accurate depending on the measurement. If you count people who regularly attend Sunday services (say 2x mth?), the figure is likely 30%. Count those who may go for a holiday meeting, some missionary farewell/homecoing or maybe even a ward or stake activity, then you might get up to 40-50%. My grandmother (before she passed) had not attended church in probably 30 years. But if you asked her, she would say quite adamantly that she was LDS.

 

[colton]

Today, little has changed as we now have the church touting, rather boastfully, 15 million members world-wide. Assuming a 30% activity rate (which is being incredibly generous as my estimates put it at closer to 8-10%)...

Wow, infection, there is so much wrong with your post its hard to even know where to start. But rather than do a point-by-point reply let me just ask you about this one, since I've talked about it a bit with kicky. My question is: where is your 30% activity rate number from? Kicky mentioned something like that also, and I haven't been able to track down a reliable source. And where is your own estimate of 8-10% from? And what do you think about my previous comment about the number of wards & stakes in the church?

Colton, on the other hand, isn't a Utah native and occasionally expresses things that are much less judgmental than what we get from the typical LDS ilk. This is really much more in line with a non-denominational world-view and isn't really LDS at all.

I appreciate the compliment, but the idea that somehow my worldview isn't LDS because it's not judgmental seems quite odd.

 

[bigb]

Because no inflated claim of the church need go unchallenged. It's important for those that believe these things know that they're wrong.

Important to whom? Based on this next statement of yours, it's obvious you don't exactly view the church with a lot of openness.

Then they obviously don't know enough. If they knew enough then they'd obviously not be members. They'd come to the same rational conclusion that anyone with any degree of sophistication and intellect would reach.

Saying something like that reflects WAY more about you than anyone else.

 

[Stoked]

Sure, but it's convenient he could count himself as his own follower to pad the numbers and make it look like he had six followers rather than just five (of which those five, as previously mentioned, are highly debatable in their own regard).




But you're only seeing the numbers you think you see. You're not seeing the tons on the "cannot find" list in SLC that must obviously be huge because it does not pass the eyeball test.



Because no inflated claim of the church need go unchallenged. It's important for those that believe these things know that they're wrong.



Then they obviously don't know enough. If they knew enough then they'd obviously not be members. They'd come to the same rational conclusion that anyone with any degree of sophistication and intellect would reach.



Excellent. And this further demonstrates the point that you could chalk up at least 10% of the membership to being members for ulterior motives, so right there that's another 1.5 million you can subtract from the "15 million" claim.



The church has something to gain in these claims. The church says it and then nobody questions. Surely it's better to turn to someone with less bias and who has no dog in the fight.

The church must obviously have a lot of motivation to continue to prop up and pad the numbers to make it appear more legitimate than it really is. They're only building temples to give the appearance of maintaining relevance in a world that's becoming less and less inclined to its archaic ways and is hemorrhaging members left and right. Why do you think they're clinging to members like a squirrel to a nut and not letting them out easy without the complicated process described above? Obviously because they're desperate to have those numbers keep going up so they can continue to announce them in conference.

As kicky demonstrated, it's a stagnating organization. It's DYING and they have nothing better to do than sit around and think of ways to manipulate the membership numbers because they really get off on wooing the world with the Jedi mind tricks. That's why it's really important to dig down deep on these issues to show everyone that the LDS church just can't be trusted with how they count members and really need to count members the same way Sam's Club or the Hell's Angel's do.

How? They are still members.

From the length and tone of your posts on the subject that does not appear to be you. It might just be me but you come off as that generalization that Bean was using.

 

[Stoked]

Wow, infection, there is so much wrong with your post its hard to even know where to start. But rather than do a point-by-point reply let me just ask you about this one, since I've talked about it a bit with kicky. My question is: where is your 30% activity rate number from? Kicky mentioned something like that also, and I haven't been able to track down a reliable source. And where is your own estimate of 8-10% from? And what do you think about my previous comment about the number of wards & stakes in the church?



I appreciate the compliment, but the idea that somehow my worldview isn't LDS because it's not judgmental seems quite odd.

It's projecting the very bias and judgemental attitude that he is accusing others of having.

Not to mention that if we only knew more and were smarter we would not be Mormons.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Important to whom? Based on this next statement of yours, it's obvious you don't exactly view the church with a lot of openness.


Saying something like that reflects WAY more about you than anyone else.

I thought he was referring to the fact that blacks couldn't hold the priesthood. Wasn't he specifically talking about African converts? If you had a physical trait that was beyond your control and discovered that an organization that was trying to recruit you was set up to permanently ban you from full membership because of that trait, would you join? I think it's fairly easy to argue that you lack either knowledge of the situation or the sophistication to understand the situation if you did. Of course, this argument could also be applied to women.

 

[Stoked]

I thought he was referring to the fact that blacks couldn't hold the priesthood. Wasn't he specifically talking about African converts? If you had a physical trait that was beyond your control and discovered that an organization that was trying to recruit you was set up to permanently ban you from full membership because of that trait, would you join? I think it's fairly easy to argue that you lack either knowledge of the situation or the sophistication to understand the situation if you did. Of course, this argument could also be applied to women.

I can assure that some of the active LDS women in my life are very smart and sophisticated. Are their those that are less intelligent and sophisticated? Of course there are. In any group with large membership numbers you will have that.

To assume that all members must be that way is foolish and to be honest a little bigotted. What that arguement is basically arguing is that Mormon women are unsophisticated and dumb. How is that different, in principle, from saying that all non Mormons are sinners and unelightened?

Edit: My response is targeted at the arguemernt and not you Joe.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I thought he was referring to the fact that blacks couldn't hold the priesthood. Wasn't he specifically talking about African converts? If you had a physical trait that was beyond your control and discovered that an organization that was trying to recruit you was set up to permanently ban you from full membership because of that trait, would you join? I think it's fairly easy to argue that you lack either knowledge of the situation or the sophistication to understand the situation if you did. Of course, this argument could also be applied to women.

Not all Africans are black.

Not all black converts to the church are idiots.

Not all women are idiots.