Church Growth Trends

[rhinomelon]

== And who is doing better in Spain? I think it is the JWs.

So what you're saying is getting numbers on your Church rolls is more important than obeying the law?

This assumption colors the rest of your thinking in your post. You assume that I (and others like me) are only out to get numbers on the rolls. Which is not true. It is about preaching the gospel, making disciples, fulfilling the Great Commission. I don't care what denomination Chinese Christians affiliate themselves with, as long as they are followers of Christ.

I think it is the LDS church that is overly concerned with numbers and growth rates, as evidenced by this thread itself.

Just my thoughts. I'll get to the rest of your post later, thanks for your comments! Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Please show me where we're "commanded" to break government laws. I suppose you want to toss out the articles of faith in favor of your weird interpretation of what you think we're "commanded" to do; according to the actions of second-century apostate Christianity. We know God won't command us lest He provide a way, but the fact is that the "way" into these countries hasn't been provided yet.

We are commanded to follow Christ's commands over all others. Preaching the gospel and making disciples is one of his commands. We are commanded to respect the authorities, yes, but not over God's commands. As I previously stated, if the government mandates actions that are against God's explicit commands, what does one follow? This applies beyond missions work, of course.

And it is not the actions of second-century "apostate" Christianity I am referring to. Rather, it is the actions of the apostles and first generation Christians themselves. The apostles were beaten, jailed, and eventually killed by the legitimate governmental authorities of the land. I hardly think they would have been killed or jailed if they had been following all the rules. King Herod threw Peter in prison, and Peter walked out with an angel. Hardly following prison rules, I must say. Also look at Acts 4, in which the rulers and authorities brought Peter and John before them, commanding them to not preach and teach anymore in the name of Jesus. Peter and John's response? "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we've seen and heard." God and the rulers were opposed, so they obeyed God.

And I realize this is an Old Testament example, but what about Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego? Obey the king and worship an idol, or follow God? This is a situation many later Christians would face, choosing between worshipping God or worshipping Caesar.

Since the Church is more focused on the selfish purpose of getting teenage missionaries home safely so they can grow old and live in "joy" with their family, who do you expect to take on these renegade missions against the will of the Church? You? Why don't you go into Iran armed with Arabic scriptures. I'll pay for your ticket if you promise to serve faithfully as you've been bloviating that the "Church" should do.

I might hold you to the offer of a ticket It would probably be to India, however, if that's okay.

I do not fault the LDS church for playing it safe with teenagers. But limiting your missionary force to teenagers can serve to hinder the worldwide spread of the LDS gospel. And as I've said before, there are worse things than dying when one is in Christ. If I had to make a choice between a long, comfortable life, and one spent following God to the best of my ability no matter what the cost, I always pray I choose the latter.

Pot and the kettle.

What are you waiting for? Promise me you'll show every bit of "urgency" as you think a "real Christian" has and should. Start your own "underground" Church and report back with your success stories. What do you say?

People are dying out there with nothing but hell awaiting them. What do you say?

Time's a tickin!

Pots and kettles have similarities, hence the saying. But we are talking about two very different approaches to missionary work, so it doesn't really fit, in my opinion. And you are misunderstanding my point. I am not telling you to go serve another two years somewhere, or to march on Temple Square demanding a change in LDS missionary policy. I am merely answering your original question regarding reasons for slowing church growth. Making this personal while I am simply discussing the issues does little to make a cogent case on your part.

If God calls me to go "start an underground church", I'll go. It's that simple. And thank you for summing up the evangelical drive for missions so nicely. Indeed, time is a tickin'!

I've read enough history to know both Trajan (second century) and Septimius (turn of third century) ruled long after the original apostles were dead. I also know Paul used his citizenship to save himself from death. Seems like he was somewhat concerned about his own safety. Septimius didn't institue new laws or policies against Christians; he simply honored the laws that were already on the books.

Excellent points! Septimius enforced laws that were already on the books, preventing the spread of Christianity. Christianity spread in spite of those existing laws, however. And good point about Paul using his standing as a Roman citizen. I believe that missionaries should work with the government as much as possible, using whatever rights they have to preach the gospel. As far as the government does not conflict my God-given commands, I will go with the government. If I, as you suggest, go to Iran and preach, and I am arrested, I will comply with the government authorities as far as I am able. I will also use my status as an American citizen in whatever way I can. But if that doesn't work, oh well. Paul being a citizen didn't stop him from being beheaded in Rome.

If they tell me not to preach, that I cannot do. But if they throw me in prison, I will not blow people up in an attempt to escape. I will preach in prison!

More later. Take care, everyone

[charity]

Rhinomelon, it is also true that it just isn't the missionaries who are in jeopardy if they proclaim the Gospel. It is those who listen as well. And their families. Of course, if we can get them in the water, and they are immediately shot by the anti-Christian soldiers, then they go to Heaven. Job done. And probably when their family members who weren't even listening to the Gospel message, are shot, too, then God will count them as sort of Christians and they will be okay, too.

[KevinG]

== So anyone know what was so special about 1989 to make membership spike the way it did then?

The automation corrected the huge undercounts that had been calculated for more than a decade prior.

Darn, and I thought it was cause I joined in 1987 and everyone else just wanted to be with me.

[rhinomelon]

Rhinomelon, it is also true that it just isn't the missionaries who are in jeopardy if they proclaim the Gospel. It is those who listen as well. And their families. Of course, if we can get them in the water, and they are immediately shot by the anti-Christian soldiers, then they go to Heaven. Job done. And probably when their family members who weren't even listening to the Gospel message, are shot, too, then God will count them as sort of Christians and they will be okay, too.

I agree. The danger is always present. However, should that be reason to not take the gospel to these people? One thing that Jesus makes clear in the gospels is that following him does not make life easier. Rather, it has a tendency to make life more difficult and more dangerous. "Taking up one's cross daily" is a phrase that has lost some meaning for us today, but back then, when crucifixion was a horrible reality, these words likely left little doubt in the minds that heard them of the cost of following Christ.

[rhinomelon]

== There are other examples as well. And let's not forget the apostles, who were beaten, imprisoned, etc., because they refused to follow the authorities and stop preaching the gospel.

Uh huh, and we see what good that did; the apostasy ensued. But they were not breaking any "laws" by simply preaching. They were arbitrarily killed without trial.

The apostasy is, of course, a matter of your opinion which has no bearing on what I'm trying to explain. And when you refer to obeying the government authorities, are you now making a distinction between the laws of the government and the actual orders of the government? In other words, are you saying we should obey the laws of a government rather than the governmental leaders? I think this is a good point.

For instance, India's Constitution officially allows freedom of religion. That's the letter of the law. However, government officials in various regions crack down on evangelism, conversion, and missionary efforts, native or otherwise. If we go with your distinction, shouldn't LDS missionaries be flooding India in obedience of the constitution? After all, what does it matter what the authorities think, order, or do, if the law above them allows for proselyting?

Just my thoughts. More later (I can hear you all groaning ) Take care, everyone

[Kevin Graham]

== We are commanded to follow Christ's commands over all others. Preaching the gospel and making disciples is one of his commands.

We are also commanded to be honest, yet that is precisely what Evangelical missionaries do when they "infiltrate" countries that either don't know they're there or don't know what they're doing. The early Apostles didn't have to deal with this quagmire so there is no scriptural clarification which is the lesser commandment, just your interpretation that the urgency is too great.

The LDS Church believes being honest and true is more important than breaking laws and being deceptive, no matter what kind of twisted rationalization you put on it. In the end your Church might be able to boast of having members in more countries, but at least we have out integrity intact. Further, when the time does come when the doors are opened to other faiths, we'll more than likely have government support since we've proved to be trustworthy.

== I might hold you to the offer of a ticket It would probably be to India, however, if that's okay.

Now wait a minute. Accordng to you there are countries where Christianity is needed more than others; that is where we are commanded to go right? Well, Christianity is already established in India. So why would you prefer India and its "negligible" dangers when Saudi Arabia has not one single Christian citizen? Come on, Christ is calling you to infiltrate and baptize. You're not going to go hypocrite on us now are ya?

== But limiting your missionary force to teenagers can serve to hinder the worldwide spread of the LDS gospel. And as I've said before, there are worse things than dying when one is in Christ.

Again, this mentality is what drove the primitive Church into virtual nonexistence. Hey, let me baptize you today and tomorrow we'll be killed together!

== If God calls me to go "start an underground church", I'll go.

So let's get this straight. You'll huff anf puff and criticize the LDS Church for not going into the danger zones, yet you yourself won't go until you think God has "called" you? Oh, now this is just too rich. First you say it is a commandment, but when asked why you don't do it, you say it is just a calling that may or may not come.

== The apostasy is, of course, a matter of your opinion which has no bearing on what I'm trying to explain.

I don't know why but I thought you were LDS.

== And when you refer to obeying the government authorities, are you now making a distinction between the laws of the government and the actual orders of the government? In other words, are you saying we should obey the laws of a government rather than the governmental leaders? I think this is a good point.

I'm saying what you're saying. We should do what the spirit commands. You just can't seem to grasp the concept of a Church being led by a bonfide prophet that just might receive revelation counter to your own. Today's world is much different from the world of the first-century Roman Empire.

I'm also saying we should use our heads. It is just common sense. Going into these countires full-throttle is causing more misery and turmoil, but I know you think it is making all the difference in the hereafter. I understand the Evangelical mindset that says everyone in existence will suffer eternal hellfire unless they or someone else tells them to believe in Christ, but this is also a strict matter of interpretation. Forcing your interpretation on the rest of the world at the expense of the livlihood of others is pretty reckless and selfish in my opinion.

But hey, at least you got some numbers to add on your membership sheets, right?

[rhinomelon]

Thanks for the additional thoughts, Mr. Graham, you'll forgive me if I continue to respond to your earlier post, as it was a big one!

So what are you saying, that the LDS Church must not be true since the First Prsidency hasn't decided to order a "shock and awe" wave of suicide missionaries into forbidden territories?

No, I am not making claims about the truth of the LDS church. I am attempting to answer your original question regarding the slowing growth of the LDS church.

I would hope that the restored Church would play it smart and not drive itself into the ground as the early Church did; which consequently allowed it to be hijacked by a ruthless string of Byzantine emperors.

Again, a matter of perspective. The early church grew by leaps and bounds, through the various persecutions, government sponsored and otherwise. I don't see the early church being driven into the ground at all (unless you are referring to underground churches, of course, then I agree ).

Hogwash. Just how well is the Church doing in Muslim Africa? Do you know? What about Russia? Do you know? Compare these figures with Christian South America, which is booming so much that it had to build extra MTCs there. You're putting too much stock into Evangelical claims of mass conversions in these forbidden lands, which typically involves a microphone, a religious zealot and 170,000 cheering Nigerians. In less than a month a traveling AOG minister can chalk up a half-million "Christians" to his list. You think they're truly "converted" because of these drive-by religious "revivals"? The LDS Church is having enough trouble trying to figure out why activity is so low in the more developed countries. I'm glad it hasn't tried to tap into new territories for the sole purposes of boosting membership figures.

I am not sure about the exact numbers for LDS growth in Africa, perhaps you could provide a link for me. And I do not place much stock in mass conversions, as you say. I place stock in faithful people who take their faith seriously. If their journey of faith began at a crowded crusade, I have no problem with that at all! After all, that happened in the New Testament as well! But that is not the measure of true growth, as I'm sure you'd agree.

You are offensive.

Well, I'm sorry you think that. I am trying to discuss important issues, while you want to focus everything on me personally. That's fine, just don't expect that tactic to get you anywhere. We are talking about the LDS church approach as opposed to the mainstream Christian approach, not about my missionary endeavors versus yours.

Of course, if you thought I was LDS the whole time I was saying this stuff, perhaps some of your anger is justified, if a bit misplaced. No problem! It wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken for a Mormon!

More later. Take care, everyone

[KevinG]

It wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken for a Mormon!

More later. Take care, everyone

Take it as a compliment from this crowd. In fact you are welcome to remove all confusion and join us! We can use you.

When should we schedule your baptism?

[rhinomelon]

Take it as a compliment from this crowd. In fact you are welcome to remove all confusion and join us! We can use you.

When should we schedule your baptism?

 

If I had a nickel for every time somebody said that...

Thanks, Dad, I appreciate the sentiment.

[rhinomelon]

The LDS Church has the most expensive missionary program known to man.

Expensive or expansive? Perhaps the money spent is more than any other one denomination, but I don't really think in terms of individual denominations. And it terms of expansive, if the LDS church has no missionaries allocated for about half the world's population, I would submit that expansive is certainly not a word to describe the LDS missionary program.

The Church is gradually getting there. Sorry, if it isn't according to your preferred time-table.

I have no timetable other than "as soon as possible". But the LDS church is waiting waaaaay longer than that. This issue in and of itself does not have much weight with me in terms of the truth of the LDS church, but it does speak a great deal to me about its priorities. What are the priorities of the LDS church, where missions/evangelism are concerned?

Is that what is keeping you from sacrificing yourself like the early Christians? Church won't pay your way?

I'll assume this was an honest question. What is keeping me from the overseas mission field at this point is lack of money and training. Of course, if you were thinking of me as LDS when you asked this, then it's something of a non-issue.

I think it is smarter to send the missionaries where more baptisms would result, like Latin/S. America. Why send a thousand missionaries to Morrocco when we know it would result in virtually zero baptisms? (no Evangelicals are not experiencing mass conversions there) These same missionaries would averag 6-20 baptisms if they served in the West somewhere.

It is smart if one is thinking only in terms of immedate numerical growth, but if one is thinking stability and long-term potential, starting with five faithful converts in India who are tested and proved by persecution is a great foundation to build on in the future. Also, I think you might be looking at this purely in economical terms, which I think is a common mistake even among mainstream Christians. God can use even one convert to make drastic changes. If one truly has faith that God can work wonders and miracles through those who are following Him, then sending missionaries to extremely difficult areas wouldn't seem like such a waste.

Tell that to the relatives of Australian missionary Graham Staines, who was burned alive along with his two sons (ages 8 and 10) by Indian Hindus. ast month the Pope expressed concerns for the rampant murders of Christians in India. Negligible huh? Read dozens of articles about how "negligible" the persecution is in India: http://www.persecution.org/newsite/country...p?countrycode=3

I am quite familiar with persecution in India. However, I was making that statement more in terms of straight odds, as this thread is more concerned with numerical figures anyway. Considering there are hundreds, if not thousands, of white missionaries in India, the fact that two died is negligible, in terms of straight numbers. And if you are unfamiliar with the response to that atrocity, you should study up on Graham Gaines wife, who went back to India and met with her husbands attackers. She's still a missionary, and her determination to stick with the Indian people she's called to serve remains a great testimony to the people there.

Same place you're putting yours, apparently. So get of your hypocritical butt and start teaching those militant Hindus. You said it yourself; they need the Gospel more than the Amazonians. Your logic is absurd though. Since Christians already exist in Brazil, missionaries teaching Amazonians should instead be tracting in Kiev.

I am talking in terms of people groups, not countries whose borders change with the lines on a map. If the Amazon peoples have no missionaries among them, then the missionaries should go to them, regardless of how the Portugeuse are doing. It's another weakness of the LDS policy, in my opinion. If the government of Brazil suddenly outlaws missionary work, does that mean we should ignore the Amazon people too, even though they have no part in the government and many of them don't even know Brazil exists as a country? Likewise, there are entire peoples and tribes in the borders of difficult countries who desperately need the gospel, and accept it in droves when it finally comes. Look at situation of the Dalits, which I already mentioned.

Again, I see no hypocrisy, as I'm talking concepts and policies here. Maybe if I start telling you to go to Iran, then you can start pointing fingers.

Are you seriously that deluded? If this happend it would be because Church leaders like Gordon B. Hinckley has made official visits with Chinese politicians on their own soil. Your little band of suicidal Evangelicals only make things more difficult for the doors to be opened. It tells the Chinese government that Christians are a bunch of underhanded trixters who are only interested in their own religious cause. They have no respect for Chinese law, anymore than the Muslim terrorists respect US immigration laws.

Not deluded at all. Simply determined. Two problems with the above analysis. First, you are assuming that mainstream Christian leaders (including evangelicals! *gasp*) completely bypass the government without a second thought. The fact is that churches are in constant dialogue with closed countries through official channels, trying to get religious freedom, as well as trying to correct other human rights abuses.

Second, you are assuming that the missionary efforts and the growth of the church inside China is primarily the result of outside missionaries sneaking in. In reality, the vast majority of people evangelizing and pastoring underground churches in China are native Chinese. Same with other closed countries. Should they simply clam up and not share the gospel with anybody, even though they might want it? To make it more real, if the United States suddenly outlawed missionary work within its borders, would the LDS church stop its missionary programs and outreach? Is the fate of Christ's church so dependent on secular government?

More on the way. I'm trying to keep this short for the sake of the poor people who might actually be reading this stuff Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

We are also commanded to be honest, yet that is precisely what Evangelical missionaries do when they "infiltrate" countries that either don't know they're there or don't know what they're doing. The early Apostles didn't have to deal with this quagmire so there is no scriptural clarification which is the lesser commandment, just your interpretation that the urgency is too great.

So Corrie Ten Boom was simply an "evangelical trickster" when she lied to the governmental authorities of the Third Reich when asked if she had hidden Jews in her house? Or Rahab was a sinner when she hid the Hebrew spies from the Jericho authorities?

Further, when the time does come when the doors are opened to other faiths, we'll more than likely have government support since we've proved to be trustworthy.

But is governmental support really worth the price you pay in lost time? And what of countries full of people who need the gospel, whose government never lets you in?

Now wait a minute. Accordng to you there are countries where Christianity is needed more than others; that is where we are commanded to go right? Well, Christianity is already established in India. So why would you prefer India and its "negligible" dangers when Saudi Arabia has not one single Christian citizen? Come on, Christ is calling you to infiltrate and baptize. You're not going to go hypocrite on us now are ya?

If you call 2-3 percent of the total population being Christian as "established" in India, then it is. And I am not saying that we are commanded to go only to those countries that haven't heard the gospel. We are commanded to go everywhere. The LDS church simply rethinks that, saying that we're supposed to go everywhere the secular governments let us. Where did Christ say that in the Great Commission?

And again, hypocrisy is only present when I am talking in personal "you and me" terms, which I'm not. Sorry.

Again, this mentality is what drove the primitive Church into virtual nonexistence. Hey, let me baptize you today and tomorrow we'll be killed together!

Again, opinion. When did the primitive church disappear? All indication point to growth, not utter destruction. This is your opinion, based on LDS doctrine.

So let's get this straight. You'll huff anf puff and criticize the LDS Church for not going into the danger zones, yet you yourself won't go until you think God has "called" you? Oh, now this is just too rich. First you say it is a commandment, but when asked why you don't do it, you say it is just a calling that may or may not come.

Read the hypocrisy point above. And the commandment is to go everywhere to preach. Some people go to India, others go down the street. Both are equally valid and valuable.

Today's world is much different from the world of the first-century Roman Empire.

For the most part, yes, but in terms of culture and its effect on missionary work, there are some areas that are similar to the old Roman Empire.

I'm also saying we should use our heads. It is just common sense. Going into these countires full-throttle is causing more misery and turmoil, but I know you think it is making all the difference in the hereafter.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think the early church apostasized because they did use their heads as opposed to the Holy Spirit. Common sense has its place, but not when it hinders following Christ's commands to the very best of our abilities. For instance, common sense would say that I should be eating lunch rather than droning on and on in this conversation

Forcing your interpretation on the rest of the world at the expense of the livlihood of others is pretty reckless and selfish in my opinion.

Again, you're assuming that because Christians evangelize where the governments don't want us to, we are "forcing" our beliefs down people's throats. Quite the opposite is true. Missionaries bring the message, and the people make their own choice. One shouldn't assume that government policy speaks for every single citizen under that government.

But hey, at least you got some numbers to add on your membership sheets, right?

And finally, it's only about numbers with you, as you started the thread to discuss such figures. I am not really concerned with numbers, as I am about following Christ's commands. Numbers can always go either way. It's the numbers of the LDS church that are causing you concern, and I'm telling you the biggest reasons why I think the current situation exists. Now, if you can drag yourself out of personal jibes and insults, we might have a fruitful discussion.

Take care, everyone.

[LDS Patriot]

I guess what I'm say is this: no pain, no gain. The LDS church is not taking risks for the gospel they profess, so little is coming from the more "play it safe" mentality.

I think you are on to something.

Applying the principle of opposition-in-all-things, then it makes perfect sense strong opposition begets strong growth. It then follows that weak opposition begets weak growth.

[Dill Pickles]

from the Pickle jar: I have 4 returned misisonary sons. None of them was assigned to a dangerous mission (unless NJ counts as dangerous). For the church to knowingly send our young men into dangerous situations would seriously undermine the trust that parents have in the program. I trusted that my sons would come home as whole Pickles, with all their assorted parts intact. If I'd thought my sons were being treated as cannon fodder, I'd never have willingly let them go. Knowingly sending them into dangerous situations would be inexcusable and hugely detrimental to the over all program. When our young men are killed in the mission field, we all mourn. It is a huge tragedy for the whole church when that happens. But to knowingly send our future leaders into harm's way would be downright stupid, and I've never known the church to be stupid.

[rhinomelon]

I think you are on to something.

Applying the principle of opposition-in-all-things, then it makes perfect sense strong opposition begets strong growth. It then follows that weak opposition begets weak growth.

It's a quintessentially LDS phrase, but one that I happen to agree with. And I think that the easy life has tainted American Christianity as a whole, so I hope people don't think I'm simply picking on the LDS church. That just happens to be the focus in this thread.

For the church to knowingly send our young men into dangerous situations would seriously undermine the trust that parents have in the program. I trusted that my sons would come home as whole Pickles, with all their assorted parts intact. If I'd thought my sons were being treated as cannon fodder, I'd never have willingly let them go. Knowingly sending them into dangerous situations would be inexcusable and hugely detrimental to the over all program.

I completely sympathize, I really do! But what does the above statement say about LDS church priorities? Is the emphasis on spreading the gospel, or providing safe missionary experiences for the youth of the church? While the two goals may go hand-in-hand for part of the way (and I thank God for those situations), there are many situations in which one must take priority over the other. Either the gospel is not preached, or the missionary must take some risks in order to preach it.

But to knowingly send our future leaders into harm's way would be downright stupid, and I've never known the church to be stupid.

It would be stupid if safety was the priority. But if you want good leaders, I've found that the best leaders of all are those who have gone through risks and struggles. It is no accident that most of the greatest leaders of history went through wars and persecutions. Such experiences shape the best leadership, in my opinion. And perhaps the LDS church could choose to send missionaries to dangerous areas who really want to go, and who even have their family's support. Just thinking out loud here.

Anyway, good thoughts, and please don't think I'm being callous, pickle, I'm just trying to set priorities.

Take care, everyone

[USU78]

We have two mutually exclusive paradigms here, and comparisons are not very useful, IMHO.

The BAC paradigm is that, since G-d calls me, what I am called to do is sufficient justification for any incidental violations of laws promulgated by purely human institutions.

The LDS paradigm is that, G-d opens up the land for prosyletization by softening the hearts of those in charge (or 3rd parties may affect regime change producing a missionary friendly government) in response to (sometimes) years of prayer and preparation through contact at various levels of the government of the target nation. Only thereupon will the Church machinery start sending a portion of the 60K missionaries into the land in question. Should G-d tell an LDS prophet to start sending missionaries to an unwilling nation notwithstanding best efforts to make 'em willing, we would, of course, comply. I am unaware of G-d having told anybody to start sending kids from Bogata and Nephi to Hunan Province, however. We await His pleasure Who is our King in such matters.

Whether the BAC types have a function in helping prepare a presently unwilling nation to accept the LDS missionaries at a later time I do not comment on.

[thesometimesaint]

rhinomelon:

One of the three "priorities", in LDS parlance "Missions of the Church" is to perfect the Saints. Being dead puts a definite crimp in that.

[rhinomelon]

The BAC paradigm is that, since G-d calls me, what I am called to do is sufficient justification for any incidental violations of laws promulgated by purely human institutions.

I don't really agree with your summary of the "BAC" paradigm. The paradigm is not that "when we think we're called by God to do something, we do it no matter if it's illegal or not". Rather, the paradigm is that God has given commands, and those commands take precedence over conflicting commands from the secular world. Of course, in most cases, God's commands and those of governing authorities are in line, and disobeying governing authorities is disobeying God. But when authorities demand something contrary to God's established commands, the Christian's duty is to the higher law of God. Thus, lying to protect Jews from murder by governing authorities is justified. Stealing a candy bar from a store to feed someone in need, however, is not, as God has also commanded us not to steal.

Basing the "BAC" paradigm on something as ephemeral as a calling from God, when not based in the commands and injunctions of Scripture, is a recipe for disaster, in my opinion.

rhinomelon:

One of the three "priorities", in LDS parlance "Missions of the Church" is to perfect the Saints. Being dead puts a definite crimp in that.

Then shouldn't the LDS church forbid anything that might cause premature death, like driving? I realize I'm being facetious.

It seems like an odd priority to me, at least the way you frame it in this context. Perfecting followers of Christ should be a priority of any church. However, the way it's framed above makes it sound as though one should stay alive as long as possible, in order to perfect themselves more before they die and go to be with God. It seems a far cry from "away from the body, at home with the Lord," and other similar comments from the apostle Paul.

If one dies in the service of God, in following God's commands to the uttermost, how is that somehow damaging to their chances of perfection? I'm genuinely curious.

Also, where does one find the "Missions of the Church" you referenced? Do you happen to have a link? I think I'd like to read that, it sounds interesting. Thanks for your thoughts!

Take care, everyone

[USU78]

USU 78:  The BAC paradigm is that, since G-d calls me, what I am called to do is sufficient justification for any incidental violations of laws promulgated by purely human institutions.

I don't really agree with your summary of the "BAC" paradigm. The paradigm is not that "when we think we're called by God to do something, we do it no matter if it's illegal or not". Rather, the paradigm is that God has given commands, and those commands take precedence over conflicting commands from the secular world. Of course, in most cases, God's commands and those of governing authorities are in line, and disobeying governing authorities is disobeying God. But when authorities demand something contrary to God's established commands, the Christian's duty is to the higher law of God. Thus, lying to protect Jews from murder by governing authorities is justified. Stealing a candy bar from a store to feed someone in need, however, is not, as God has also commanded us not to steal.

Perhaps your point is too subtle for me to grasp here, but I think we just agreed, notwithstanding you said we didn't.

It is the "incidental violation[] of laws promulgated by purely human institutions" that I focused on.

If you find this quite value neutral description objectionable, while finding your own accusations of LDS girlymanism are not objectionable, then I suggest a probably not intended double standard imbues your thinking.

Or not.

[thesometimesaint]

rhinomelon:

We are told to drive carefully.

Yes. We are under no obligation to be martyrs. Death comes to us all and we are under an obligation to preserve our lives. From our understanding it is much easier in this life to make the necessary changes in our lives.

And if your Service to God is living your life to bring your own family to God?

I don't know of a link.

[rhinomelon]

Yes. We are under no obligation to be martyrs. Death comes to us all and we are under an obligation to preserve our lives. From our understanding it is much easier in this life to make the necessary changes in our lives.

And I don't want everyone to chase after martyrdom, either, don't get me wrong. Life is precious, and should be preserved. But not at the cost of ignoring God's commands. Sometimes God commands things that could shorten life, but that simply underscores the fact that this life is merely an eyeblink compared to the eternity God prepares for those who love and follow Him.

And if your Service to God is living your life to bring your own family to God?

Then by all means do it with all your heart with God's blessing. There are as many ways to faithfully serve God as there are people who faithfully serve God.

If you find this quite value neutral description objectionable, while finding your own accusations of LDS girlymanism are not objectionable, then I suggest a probably not intended double standard imbues your thinking.

LDS girlymanism! Nice turn of phrase, straight from Ahnold himself My description of both the paradigm of "BACs" and the perceived shortcomings of the LDS church are based upon one standard, the biblical commands and examples of Christ and the apostles.

What I disagreed with in your interpretation of the BAC paradigm was the lack of any standard by which one judges the call of God and/or the response to unjust laws of secular government. It seemed to suggest that all that mainstream Christians are waiting for is a little feeling inside before following God to Iran with a Bible or to the local abortion clinic with a bomb.

And I don't mean to suggest that preaching the gospel wherever is a task for those who are called. It is not a particular office or duty; it is a command given to all those who call themselves followers of Christ, whether they live in Utah or China or India or Germany.

Just out of curiousity (and I know everyone hates it when Nazis enter any conversation, but I think this is a good example--don't worry, I don't think you are a Nazi ), in the situation of Corrie Ten Boom, and other Christians who resisted the Nazi regime, do you think they were wrong in working against the authorities to stop slaughter and atrocity? What would you have done in that situation? I am genuinely curious. From reading the gist of several posts, it seems to me that obeying the governing authorities is a "prime directive" of sorts for the LDS church, not to be discarded even when the authorities are corrupt or directly opposed to the work of God. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks for the thoughts, take care, everyone

[thesometimesaint]

rhinomelon:

The problem comes when we try to impose our timetable on God. I by nature am rather impatient. The Lord has on more than on one occassion "gently" reminded me of this.

We believe that the Lord is in control and that when He calls one of His missionaries to a specific area of the world that is where He wants them to be.

The Church has the stated belief of obeying the laws in which we reside. It is also a stated belief that we own no obligation to those governments that become destructive to the freedom of conscience.

[USU78]

Just out of curiousity (and I know everyone hates it when Nazis enter any conversation, but I think this is a good example--don't worry, I don't think you are a Nazi ), in the situation of Corrie Ten Boom, and other Christians who resisted the Nazi regime, do you think they were wrong in working against the authorities to stop slaughter and atrocity? What would you have done in that situation? I am genuinely curious.

LDS Germans were all over the map in '36-'45. Some supported the regime during the first years. Some did not. Some were in the German underground. A good read on this subject is the series of books and articles on Helmuth Huebner, a Mormon kid who was guillotined by the Nazis.

Here's a nice bit on him, if you know German:

Kids Fighting Nazis

As for how I myself would have reacted at age 15 as Helmuth did, I am enough of a self-doubter to wonder. He had the examples of not only Captain Moroni and [Nephite] Gideon, as well as the OT stories of exceptional Israelite bravery, but also his native German Wilhelm Tell and others to stand as examples. Alas, he also appears to have had a self-destructive streak, as he paid too little attention to proper security. To his credit, he took the fall for everybody else, and nobody else in his circle was killed, even by the Sovs after the fall of Berlin.

When those who will conduct pogroms against Jews and Mormons in the coming decades do their worst, I will side with my cousins and do my bit. I've passed along my bit of genetic material, raised my kids (for the most part), and would be delighted to die as bravely and in as good a cause as Helmuth did.

[rhinomelon]

Dang, I don't know German! But I would like to, eventually. So this kid, Helmuth Huebner, resisted the German regime? How does that fit with obeying the authorities?

The Church has the stated belief of obeying the laws in which we reside. It is also a stated belief that we own no obligation to those governments that become destructive to the freedom of conscience.

Isn't this something of a contradiction in real life? What about the governments that are destructive to freedom of conscience now?

I am all for obeying the laws, as long as the laws do not force me to ignore the commands of God. When there is a conflict between the two, then I side with the apostles in Acts 5. "We must obey God rather than men."

The problem comes when we try to impose our timetable on God. I by nature am rather impatient. The Lord has on more than on one occassion "gently" reminded me of this.

I can understand the impatience! It gets me too But I am not imposing a timetable on God. I don't demand that He work salvation for all 1 billion people in India by next year or risk losing my support (what a weak threat ).

But I see the LDS policy as imposing a timetable on God's commands to all believers, basically saying that the LDS church will not really fulfill the Great Commission until certain other things happen.

The core issue for me is not, "Are all the people in India going to come to faith?" That is between the individual Indian and the Holy Spirit; I cannot force it. Rather, the core issue here is, "Are we being faithful to the task Christ gave the Church?"

We believe that the Lord is in control and that when He calls one of His missionaries to a specific area of the world that is where He wants them to be.

I agree! So are you saying God does not want missionaries preaching His gospel to about a third of the world's population? Doesn't sound like the God spoken of in the Bible to me, the God who wants all to come to faith in Christ. This is just where I'm coming from.

I had a thought this morning. When it comes to following the authorities, I can see the LDS position, even if I don't agree. Why, then, is the LDS church not saturating India with missionaries? The laws of the land promote religious freedom, even though some people don't like it. The LDS church has a mission there (in Bangalore, I believe) with fewer than a thousand active members. Out of a billion people. The LDS church is there, established, but not many missionaries go there. Why? Why not send half the missionaries that walk the streets of Utah over to India, where they are most needed?

I am really curious. Thanks for the thoughts everyone, take care.

[charity]

Rhinomelon, God knows where the missionaries are most needed.