"Mass Resignation"

[Guest]

Maureen,

 

The idea is that your definition of "actual members of the church" vs. what the statistical report is SUPPOSED to reflect are two different things.

 

When you say "actual member" you're probably talking about activity, devoutness, etc. 

 

The LDS definition of a "member" is one who has been baptized and whose name is recorded in the proper way, regardless of activity, belief, or devoutness.  We also have a number for "active members" which is closer to what you're trying to describe.

 

Again, our language is, unfortunately the greatest impediment to accurate communication.

 

The reason we do this is that in our faith, we have stewardship in different ways to different people.  Those who have been baptized, but have fallen away have a different status than those who have never been baptized.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Guest

[LeSellers]

The people that I am reading about that have decided to officially resign are the ones that are admitting that they are not active members. I'm taking them at their word.

If they really considered themselves not active members (which does not automatically mean they don't want to be part of the Church), there is a relatively simple method of having their names removed from the roles of the Church. It is easier than getting baptized in the first place. Why do they not just do it?

Lehi

[zil]

... there is a relatively simple method of having their names removed from the roles of the Church. It is easier than getting baptized in the first place. Why do they not just do it?

I've been active in the church my entire life (I'm closer to 50 than 40) and have no idea what this easier way is.  Perhaps that's why - they've never been in, or married to someone in, a branch / ward / stake leadership position.  (I'll bet there are more of us than you'd think.)  I would assume my dad and brothers would know what you're talking about, but they've never felt the need to explain it to me (and, of course, I've never had reason to ask).  But you get the point.

 

(Of course, the other point is that this was all about making a show, not just having their names removed from a list.)

[LeSellers]

I … have no idea what this easier way is.

Sending a letter is much easier than going through the interview process, the baptism itself, confirmation, and the rest of the initiation process.

 

Of course, the other point is that this was all about making a show, not just having their names removed from a list.

Exactly.

Lehi

Edited November 22, 2015 by LeSellers

[zil]

Sending a letter is much easier than going through the interview process, the baptism itself, confirmation, and the rest of the initiation process.

Aaaah.  I misunderstood.  I thought you were saying there was something easier than the letters they were sending.  I get it now.

[bytebear]

Do you ever notice that every time they do a mass resignation, it's the same people resigning (again).

[Guest]

Byte,

 

That would be an interesting find if it is true.  Do you have some pictures or list of names for us to look at to see if this is so?

[Maureen]

If they really considered themselves not active members (which does not automatically mean they don't want to be part of the Church), there is a relatively simple method of having their names removed from the roles of the Church. It is easier than getting baptized in the first place. Why do they not just do it?

 

I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.

 

These people who are resigning are doing just that, having their names removed; and probably via a letter to either SLC, their bishop or SP or all 3. I'm sure many of them were BIC members, baptized when they were 8. So it's not like they had a crystal ball at 8 years old to show them what they would choose to do as adults. So I'm not sure I understand your statement about not being baptized in the first place.

 

M. 

[Maureen]

Maureen,

 

The idea is that your definition of "actual members of the church" vs. what the statistical report is SUPPOSED to reflect are two different things.

 

The terms I "actually" used were actual numbers of church members and actual membership numbers.

 

For example my husband was baptized into the LDS church as a child but left the church when he was about 16 (he is now in his 50s). He has never considered having his named removed from the membership rolls because he says he doesn't want to give the church the satisfaction of credibility (his words). He has been an ex-member longer than he has been a member. His name is still counted as a member but he hasn't been one for decades.

 

If members who resign and have their names taken off membership rolls are "actually" not counted anymore, than those membership numbers will more closely reflect reality. That's all I'm saying.

 

M.

[zil]

His name is still counted as a member but he hasn't been one for decades.

Maureen,

 

I think Lehi's point is that while your husband may not be active and may not consider himself a member, the church does consider him a member.  So long as his name is on the membership records, he's officially / formally a member (by the church's definition).

 

I also get what you're saying: that when already inactive people have their names removed from the records, this causes the official membership numbers to more closely reflect active / practicing membership.

 

The whole thing comes down to the use of "actual".

 

Lehi is using "actual" as a synonym for "official" and "formal".

 

You are using "actual" in a more colloquial sense as a synonym for "active" or "wanting to be a member" or "in practice" (i.e. those who don't want to be members, regardless of whether they formally are members, are not "actual" members in your use of the term).

 

(At least, that appears to me to be where the disconnect lies.)

FWIW.

[LeSellers]

I think Lehi's point is that while your husband may not be active and may not consider himself a member, the church does consider him a member. So long as his name is on the membership records, he's officially / formally a member (by the church's definition).

...

Lehi is using "actual" as a synonym for "official" and "formal".

Indeed. That's about where I was coming from.

Were it up to me, I'd excommunicate them all. I'm glad it's not up to me. They should be, also.

Because just as it is much easier to have one's name removed from the records than to join the Church, it is much harder to come back after excommunication than from disfellowshipment or inactivity. There are a few reasons for that, some based on the loss of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, some procedural.

Lehi

Edited November 23, 2015 by LeSellers

[estradling75]

This whole thing started with the idea that these "Mass Resignations" would hurt the Church and it's ability function...  However when it was pointed out that in most cases the Church has already been functioning just fine without them kinda shows that the threat is meaningless.

 

This threat does nothing to the church... it just makes official that which the member has already chosen.  While it is a tragedy on a personal level (from the point of view of the Church) there is really nothing that can be done, when it is a clear act of agency.

[cdowis]

I don't have the sources, but when I remember as a young member of the church that there would be a great separating process in the church, and we were admonished to keep our eye on the prophet and the apostles.

 

That day has coming, and has only just begun in my understanding of events.  We already have those in high positions (Swedish Area Authority)who have left the church and have become enemies of the church.  I think it may eventually reach to the Q70 itself.  Just go and look at church history.

Edited November 23, 2015 by cdowis

[Guest]

I think we would do best to make sure that we and those in our stewardship are guarded against those who would use sophistry and appeal to the natural man, than to speculate over who are wheat and who are tares and who will eventually fall.

 

If I had the means and the time and thought it was the right thing to do, I would declare war on the John Dehlins and Denver Snuffers of the world, who follow Satan's example of leading believers away with flaxen cords, who lie and deceive and stir up ire for their own glory and benefit. I won't poison the board here with the absolutely ridiculous lie that was just presented to me that Dehlin is sending around as a factual account by someone; something so stupid and contrary to what's actually happening that there's no way it's actually true. The thing that freaks me out is the enthusiasm with which people believe and almost worship these lying liars who lie.  

[Guest]

The terms I "actually" used were actual numbers of church members and actual membership numbers.

 

For example my husband was baptized into the LDS church as a child but left the church when he was about 16 (he is now in his 50s). He has never considered having his named removed from the membership rolls because he says he doesn't want to give the church the satisfaction of credibility (his words). He has been an ex-member longer than he has been a member. His name is still counted as a member but he hasn't been one for decades.

 

If members who resign and have their names taken off membership rolls are "actually" not counted anymore, than those membership numbers will more closely reflect reality. That's all I'm saying.

 

M.

 

Yes, I know exactly what you're saying.  I'm not sure if you understand me.  I'll try it a different way.  To us, it IS an ACCURATE number.  It IS REALITY.

 

You'd like our "membership numbers" to reflect all those who are active or who consider themselves members.  Ok.  There would be advantages to that on both sides.

 

How would you accomplish that feat?  Wouldn't we have to be told by such "former members"?  

 

I met a man who was inactive for over 20 years.  He even told people he was no longer Mormon.  But he had a change of heart and decided to come back.  But there are issues with "coming back" after you've had your name removed from the records.  He did not.  So, he was welcomed back into full fellowship.

 

In the case of your husband, how are we to know what he wants?  How are we to know that in his heart he really no longer believes it?  How can we excommunicate someone because he was a little upset about something?  How do we know if he will or will not have a change of heart?

 

Sure, we can make a guess.  But that would just be yet another inaccurate number.  So, what would be the benefit of having one inaccurate number over another inaccurate number?  Because it's closer to "reality"?  Who says what is the "real" number?  And what would be the purpose of getting an estimate anyway, if we already have an estimate for "active" members?

 

What you may not understand is that removing a name from our records is excommunication.  Can we be responsible for someone else's excommunication without proper cause?  Of course not. (your husband's situation does not qualify, based on your words). 

 

As a non-Mormon, it is easy for you to see our records as "just paperwork".  It is not.  To us, they are sacred records.  To us, to remove a name without cause would have consequences that a non-Mormon may not understand.  That is why we don't do it.  That is why we still number them among us even if they don't feel that way.  To us, it IS an ACCURATE number.  It IS REALITY.

[estradling75]

The disconnect isn't really that hard to understand.  Different Churches get compared all the time.  A common metric is membership number.  A number that has to be provided by the different churches.  The problem is the assumption that the churches will use the same metric to figure this out.  They don't.  If you ask the different churches to provide a membership record numbers and one church reports total members on record (which is how they count it), another church counts it based on butts in the pews on Sunday (which is how they count it) and another Church the number of people who have donated money to the church in the last year (which is how they count it), you will get three "membership" numbers.

 

Then you take those number and compare them and try to draw conclusions based of them and you come to false conclusions.  This happens repeatedly in Church comparisons.  Its not surprising that there would be people that want a more accurate apples to apples comparison.  Rather then watermelon, to orange to grape comparison that we currently get. 

 

And the LDS church does take a count of members who attend church on Sunday,  The monthly averages are reported and are used to determine the Wards budget. And I am also positive they have a number of people who donate money too.  So the LDS church already has the numbers.  So the people making the comparison could (in theory) get that number if they they knew the right way to ask for it.  However as long as they ask for membership number, the LDS church is going to give them the number of people it thinks of as members  

[Vort]

As another example, I had a judo instructor who, upon learning I was LDS, said, "You know, I'm a Mormon, too." He had been baptized as a teen-ager, and had not seen the inside of a chapel in decades, He was in his sixth decade, loved his beer, talked like a sailor -- but still considered himself a Mormon. So not all inactives are anti-Mormons who "don't want to give the Church the satisfaction of credibility." I suspect such people are relatively few in number.

[LeSellers]

As another example, I had a judo instructor who, upon learning I was LDS, said, "You know, I'm a Mormon, too." He had been baptized as a teen-ager, and had not seen the inside of a chapel in decades, He was in his sixth decade, loved his beer, talked like a sailor -- but still considered himself a Mormon. So not all inactives are anti-Mormons who "don't want to give the Church the satisfaction of credibility." I suspect such people are relatively few in number.

My experience is that there are a lot more of them than either we or the antis would believe.

I once ran into a guy who told me he was a "member of the 'Mormon Elder' church." He would not have passed the smell test to be a faithful, Temple-worthy Saint, but he was a member of the Mormon Elder church, nonetheless. When I lived in Salt Lake City, most inactive people were antagonistic, but even there, a sizable fraction were just inactive. I've lived in several countries, many stakes, dozens of wards and branches. In each one, there was a sizable number of people who were not active, but who were still, in their minds at least, Mormons. I felt they were, too, especially when I home taught them for 19 years.

It seems that any of us, Saints or antis, or anyone in between, should be reticent about labeling anyone as being belligerent and "worthy" of excommunication.

Lehi

Edited November 24, 2015 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

it was a temper tantrum, frankly. They grossly miscalculated their own worth. I feel sorry for them, but I also feel sorry for a three pack a day smoker who doesn't admit cigarettes cause cancer. Sympathy also only goes so far. 

Just saying. 

[Guest]

it was a temper tantrum, frankly. They grossly miscalculated their own worth

 

 

Nothing can lessen their worth in the eyes of God. Now impact, I'd say yes, they definitely miscalculated that. 

[Guest MormonGator]

Nothing can lessen their worth in the eyes of God. Now impact, I'd say yes, they definitely miscalculated that. 

 Right, they miscalculated their own impact. Well said. 

[Vort]

Nothing can lessen their worth in the eyes of God.

 

I am not convinced this is true. I presume that Satan and his minions have no eternal worth, though (as I presume) they once did. I would also guess that in some sense, an exalted being has more eternal worth than a telestial being. I may be wrong. (Then again, I may be right.)

[Guest]

Well, until they are proclaimed perdition, I'm going to go with "The worth of souls is great in the sight of God." There isn't a qualifier in that scripture, and they are still redeemable. 

[Vort]

Well, until they are proclaimed perdition, I'm going to go with "The worth of souls is great in the sight of God." There isn't a qualifier in that scripture, and they are still redeemable. 

 

Oh, I agree with the quoted scripture. But, as you note, "great" is not qualified. Another scripture tells us that where there are two intellegences, one will be greater than the other, and a third will be greater than both.

 

I do not know whether we can lessen our worth in the sight of God, but my point is that maybe we can. Making bad choices that take us further from God might do just that. I know of no scripture that directly supports or contradicts this point.

[Guest]

I see what you're saying. I just tend to believe that it's a call that will only be made after we've completed our probation here. . . and far be it for me to try and make that call as it pertains to anyone, whether I'm right about that or not.