- Adam F on Regression to the Mean, Survivorship Bias, and Staying in the Church: “Do we have any data available to look at relative departure rate, considering with more membership then even if the departure rate remained around the same, the total numbers leaving would of course be larger?” Jul 2, 09:34
- on Regression to the Mean, Survivorship Bias, and Staying in the Church: “We have Ex Mormons and former Mormons who don’t seem to have a viable reason to call themselves cultural Mormons anymore because the culture is more and more based on devout exclusive behaviors of belief including full tithing payment, WOW adherence, and Temple worship. We also have purposefully tried to be more of a faith than a people since correlation took over. I can see why we did the trade off but I also see it may be at the cost of conflict with aspects that foster a broader community. Agree with OP it’s a part of broader trends our smaller group is trying to navigate.” Jul 2, 08:23
- on Regression to the Mean, Survivorship Bias, and Staying in the Church: “What I see more of a hundred years back is Jack Dempsey’s type of identification, “I’m proud to be a Mormon and ashamed to be the Jack Mormon that I am.” Tenuous connection that would have most today saying “I used to be Mormon” or “I grew up in a Mormon family” would a hundred years ago cause many to say “Yeah, I’m a Mormon” even if they were living lives like Dempsey’s with no connection to the Church. That tenuous connection even got passed down to some portion of their children for generations (the “survivors”). I suspect that for nonreligious Mormons a hundred years ago, closer to the hardships of the 19th Century, ceasing to identify as Mormon at all would have felt like a betrayal a bit like a Jew denying his identity.” Jul 2, 07:52
- on Regression to the Mean, Survivorship Bias, and Staying in the Church: “I’m not a social scientist of any sort, and I cannot provide empirical data, but surely there were people “leaving the church” in the old days — perhaps they were less likely to remove their names from the rolls, but couldn’t they “withdraw” or “retire” from active church participation and even belief while remaining culturally Mormon? As I understand from the old handbook, one really couldn’t remove his or her name from the rolls in the old days — such a request would result in a disciplinary council. The disciplinary council might result in an excommunication, but the handbook instructed leaders to conduct the council to record the facts, and then the council record would be reviewed if there was a subsequent request for re-admission. Anyway, my point is that formally leaving the church was very difficult in the old days.” Jul 2, 05:05
- on Mormon Writing and History Awards: 2026: “Okay. I’ll make an update for that. Thanks, Kent!” Jul 1, 23:50
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, June 2026: “Of course! This month was a gold mine…” Jul 1, 11:32
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, June 2026: “Thanks, again, Stephen. I always look forward to these round-ups.” Jul 1, 08:53
- on Simplifying in Church: Participation and Meaning in Church (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About) Yesterday, 6/28?: “I was grateful for the music I heard. We sang a new song and I didn’t sing along, I just listened and felt a peaceful spirit. Music and the Spoken Word had some of my fav songs that the choir sings and gives me a worship reverence and renewed gratitude for music and for those who share that talent. One of the speakers was a return missionary. He testified of how beautifully simple the gospel is. There are a lot of older members that still dont get this concept. It was nice to see he did at his age.” Jun 29, 15:38
- on The Heavenly Lawsuit: Dan McClellan on the Original Meaning of Psalm 82: “Michael Heiser claims that the elohim in Psalm 82 are the “sons of God.” And I think it’s interesting that when we read how that psalm is quoted in John 10 the element that causes one to be divine is the reception of the word. Now there’s a lot that could be said about what that might mean–even so, I think the long and short of it is–there is a way in which mortal beings may become “divinized.” And that’s by becoming sanctified and then being admitted into the divine council–as was Isaiah. There’s been no shortage of crazy ideas about who the sons of God were in early writings. The writings of Enoch portray them as fallen angels–you know the story. Even so, I’m of the opinion that what has caused so much confusion about their identity is a hermeneutical problem more than anything else. And it is the restoration scriptures that help us to understand how to interpret references to the “sons of God.”” Jun 28, 22:32
- on The Heavenly Lawsuit: Dan McClellan on the Original Meaning of Psalm 82: “Certainly Paul was quoting Isaiah. But in Isaiah the quote is part of a laundry list of good things that the Lord will do for his people, and the meaning is unclear. Paul uses it as part of a discourse on the resurrection, where the image of a god of death who swallows up everything being swallowed up by Christ’s victory is directly relevant. It’s possible that he was just quoting Isaiah without having any idea what Isaiah was referring to. Or maybe he was familiar with the image of death swallowing things without knowing its origin. But the relevance of the reference makes me think it’s more likely he understood it–chronologically he was a lot closer to actual worshippers of Mot than to us. That’s not to say he believed Mot actually existed, but it was part of his cultural vocabulary the way Greek and Roman gods are part of ours. Even if it was just a quote, I find it fascinating that Canaanite religion shows up in the New Testament at all.” Jun 28, 22:01
