WOW: A must watch! Admissions of a mission prez!

[_moksha]

Thanks for posting this. I noticed an even longer version of this on Youtube. His honesty is so refreshing. He is now on my list of Mormon heroes.


Has this been posted at MAD? Are they calling for his excommunication over there??

[_John Larsen]

In my payroll system at work, I have three classes of employees: Active, Inactive, and Terminated. The Inactive employees may be away because they have another temporary job (I'm in the film industry), or we might be slow and not need as many employees. Then I have my full time "Active" staff that are always there. When people ask how many employees I have, I say "X number full time, and X number part time/ on call". It isn't too hard.

Why couldn't the Church just say "We have X members on the rolls, and X actively attending"? Or something like that.

The story of the newsletter and the numbers is a good example of how the reported numbers served to focus and motivate the mission presidents. If we made both the active and the inactive numbers public, I think it would similarly focus the whole Church on both important numbers.

Sounds like a good idea but who's going to keep track of the second number. Bishops and Clerks have enough to do. We could use attendance numbers but if people attend half the time they're still active but they would throw the number way off. I was told as a teenager that about a quarter to a third of the numbers of our rolls worldwide are active. Was no one else told this?

As a former ward clerk, I can tell you that Bishops and clerks already keep track of this and there is a sophisticated reporting system in place. The Church knows exactly how many are attending. They just choose to obfuscate and dissemble.

[_The Nehor]

In my payroll system at work, I have three classes of employees: Active, Inactive, and Terminated. The Inactive employees may be away because they have another temporary job (I'm in the film industry), or we might be slow and not need as many employees. Then I have my full time "Active" staff that are always there. When people ask how many employees I have, I say "X number full time, and X number part time/ on call". It isn't too hard.

Why couldn't the Church just say "We have X members on the rolls, and X actively attending"? Or something like that.

The story of the newsletter and the numbers is a good example of how the reported numbers served to focus and motivate the mission presidents. If we made both the active and the inactive numbers public, I think it would similarly focus the whole Church on both important numbers.

Sounds like a good idea but who's going to keep track of the second number. Bishops and Clerks have enough to do. We could use attendance numbers but if people attend half the time they're still active but they would throw the number way off. I was told as a teenager that about a quarter to a third of the numbers of our rolls worldwide are active. Was no one else told this?

As a former ward clerk, I can tell you that Bishops and clerks already keep track of this and there is a sophisticated reporting system in place. The Church knows exactly how many are attending. They just choose to obfuscate and dissemble.

I was also a Ward Clerk. They do keep track of how many people come. They don't keep track of who is coming and how often. Maybe my ward is filled with slackers?

[_John Larsen]

In my payroll system at work, I have three classes of employees: Active, Inactive, and Terminated. The Inactive employees may be away because they have another temporary job (I'm in the film industry), or we might be slow and not need as many employees. Then I have my full time "Active" staff that are always there. When people ask how many employees I have, I say "X number full time, and X number part time/ on call". It isn't too hard.

Why couldn't the Church just say "We have X members on the rolls, and X actively attending"? Or something like that.

The story of the newsletter and the numbers is a good example of how the reported numbers served to focus and motivate the mission presidents. If we made both the active and the inactive numbers public, I think it would similarly focus the whole Church on both important numbers.

Sounds like a good idea but who's going to keep track of the second number. Bishops and Clerks have enough to do. We could use attendance numbers but if people attend half the time they're still active but they would throw the number way off. I was told as a teenager that about a quarter to a third of the numbers of our rolls worldwide are active. Was no one else told this?

As a former ward clerk, I can tell you that Bishops and clerks already keep track of this and there is a sophisticated reporting system in place. The Church knows exactly how many are attending. They just choose to obfuscate and dissemble.

I was also a Ward Clerk. They do keep track of how many people come. They don't keep track of who is coming and how often. Maybe my ward is filled with slackers?

To report those numbers you do not need to know who is not coming, just the count. The church knows exactly what its average monthly attendance is. It chooses not to share this information even though it publishes an annual almanac. This seems very strange since this is probably the most important statistic.

[_The Nehor]

To report those numbers you do not need to know who is not coming, just the count. The church knows exactly what its average monthly attendance is. It chooses not to share this information even though it publishes an annual almanac. This seems very strange since this is probably the most important statistic.

To who?

[_solomarineris]

So the Church can not find 210,000 members in Chile, cuts back the number of stakes and wards significantly, but apparently they never removed the names from the roles of the church or else you would have seen a decline in total membership or at least nearly flat from one year to the next. What BS.

Because we don't excommunicate people just because we can't find them? Some are undoubtedly fraudulent but should we purge everyone we can't find and hope none of those people are real?

Besides, who cares? The only people who do are those who base their testimony on Church growth (we'll lose them eventually anyway) and those who are sure the Church is rapidly shrinking and want it to die faster (why in the world would the Church care enough to spend tithing money and member time to do a purge to satisfy these nitwits?)

Do you realize how disingenuous you sound? Hinkley bragged about membership growth in every Grosskreutz in glowing terms, knowing well
his numbers were worst than AMWAY's yearly turnovers, (7 out of them quits first year).
If numbers are not so important why brag about them, knowing fully well it is BS?

[_Boaz & Lidia]

So the Church can not find 210,000 members in Chile, cuts back the number of stakes and wards significantly, but apparently they never removed the names from the roles of the church or else you would have seen a decline in total membership or at least nearly flat from one year to the next. What BS.

Because we don't excommunicate people just because we can't find them? Some are undoubtedly fraudulent but should we purge everyone we can't find and hope none of those people are real?

Besides, who cares? The only people who do are those who base their testimony on Church growth (we'll lose them eventually anyway) and those who are sure the Church is rapidly shrinking and want it to die faster (why in the world would the Church care enough to spend tithing money and member time to do a purge to satisfy these nitwits?)

Do you realize how disingenuous you sound? Hinkley bragged about membership growth in every Grosskreutz in glowing terms, knowing well
his numbers were worst than AMWAY's yearly turnovers, (7 out of them quits first year).
If numbers are not so important why brag about them, knowing fully well it is BS?

Hinckley on the Relief Society numbers, November 1998 Ensign

Each of you is a part of this vast enterprise, the Relief Society, a great family of sisters, more than four million strong.

Hinckley, May 1999 Ensign

At the opening of the conference, President Hinckley greeted Church members: “We gather together again as a great family, more than 10 million strong.

Packer, May 1999 Ensign

Often we are asked how the relatively few Apostles in the First Presidency and the Twelve can manage the Church, now more than 10 million strong.

Perry, May 2000 Ensign

It’s deeply appreciated, I’m sure, by nearly 11 million other members of the Church.

Hinckley, November 2000 Ensign

This millennial year of 2000 has been a remarkable year for the Church. We have expanded on every front across the world. We have passed the 11 million membership mark. What a significant thing that is.

Hinckley, July 2001 Liahona

I am thankful for every one of you in this great family, more than 11 million strong, which constitutes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You get the point... Funny thing is they seem to have toned down the "millions strong" bragging during the 12 and 13 million marks..

[_Scottie]

My preference would be to remove from the rolls as members all those who don't attend Church (unless they are very sick, elderly/invalid, etc.) for a certain amount of time; say a year.

However, I do also see value in keeping on the records all who have professed by baptism to keep the covenants thereof, recognizing that many may lose their way and holding out hope that they may yet find it again and that we can be instrumental in that.

There are some problems with this as well.

Do they lose all their ordinances? If they decide to come back, do they have to be re-baptised, preisthood re-instituted, endowments taken out again, sealed again?

[_harmony]

This will be seen as someone overstepping his stewardship. This guy is toast. No wonder he's nervous. He just put his eternal salvation in jeapardy; he publically implicated the church in falsifying numbers; he embarrassed the Brethren. Not only did he jeapardize his own membership, but he probably made it nigh onto impossible for the Brethren to correct the situation or even to look into it, without looking like they don't know what's going on in their church. No one likes to be held up the ridicule this MP just heaped on the heads of the Brethren.

Yeah, he's toast. That's why he's now a temple president.

Ah, then he's untouchable. Is that the way you see it? That he's part of the inner circle, so what someone with less clout could not say, he can?

[_moksha]

I am reflecting back to when he said some missionaries created imaginary members to baptize in order to both please the Mission President and advance in the Church.