halconero

I don't typically delve into prospective (or in this case, cyclical) speculation, but I lean towards a hypothesis for eternal progression nested within Multiverse theory. Specifically, Max Tegmark's Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble hypothesis. Intelligences are fundamental informational/mathematical structures with no end nor beginning. However, these structures do not have the ability, on their own, to observe their eternal existence. They must observe reality to comprehend their own existence and the existence of others, i.e., experience mortality. Within this ensembles of possibilities, one must not only exist at the meta-level as a theoretical bundle of information, but exist within a reality to begin to comprehend oneself. Thankfully, loving, caring beings exist at the meta-level who not only have the ability to know themselves and know others, but desire the same for others. They heat or reheat a reality, or eternity, (see the Greene or Steinhard-Turok models of creation), giving form to intelligences. Put another way, they become their parents, giving them the ability to observe their existence. Yes, the above sounds like crazy talk, but it's simply my attempt at a fun thought experiment that seeks to reconcile seemingly contradictory truth's like the eternal nature of God with a God who experiences mortality, along with Joseph Smith's ideas around a plurality of eternities (this idea began to emerge towards the end of his life and never got fleshed out), or the course of the Lord being one eternal round. Anyway:

Tangential, but a part of Church history I think gets misconstrued is Brigham Young's relative tolerance for exegesis on the scriptures or the uncanonized sayings/writings of Joseph Smith. I could use the term "doctrinal speculation," but I think that understates the amount of time, reasoning, and even scientific experimentation that President Young and his colleagues put into discovering and asserting what they believed to be true principles. Take one look at Elder Pratt's small, but significant contributions to math (he's cited on several wikipedia pages), and you can draw a reasonable line to how he approached theology. Gary James Bergera makes a decent case that the conflict between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young was (a) not as bitter or spiteful as some portray it as, and (b) had much more to do with President Young's position of dynamic revelation (living revelation supersedes past revelation) versus Elder Pratt's adherence to the written canon and past revelation. We've tended towards institutional consistency among the public views of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, which I sustain and support for a variety of reasons, but it still makes me smile to see moments like this where members of the First Presidency and Twelve open the doors to revelatory or textual exegesis just a wee bit.

Note, the above graph for total converts in absolute numbers (i.e., not the rate) doesn't conflict with the Deseret News article. The figures use calendar year data, while the data cited by Elder Cook uses midyear data. This isn't obfuscation on either part: using midyear estimates (typically July 1 to June 30) is very common among national and international statistics agencies: the United States, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, EU, and UN all use the midyear point as the their annual population count. For various reasons the midyear estimate yields better denominators for annual population changes than a start- or end-year snapshot, dampens seasonal swings in population, and tends to align well with close of the accounting period, which matters given the interplay between demographic and fiscal policy. There's also some institutional inertia: we use midyear estimates because that's what we've done forever and we need to use some sort of international standard, so whatever has been around the longest wins.

Yes, see below:

Baptisms by calendar year, in both absolute terms and several per capita metrics. I'm happy to extend out the time period, but changes in growth over the past 15 years are of particular interest to me.

The situation for Chinese members living in the PRC is tough. I happen to know far more about this than I should due to my parents living in China for several years. Taiwanese members can choose to attend expat branches or national ones, with the caveat that once they choose, they can't switch. My parents happened to know a couple in their local expat branch that had other family members attending the national branch, and were able to periodically get vague details and news there. Without elaborating too much, I think people would be surprised at the size and organization of the Church in China. I'm not talking about major numbers, but it is surprisingly more "typical" than you might expect when it comes to opportunities for Chinese members to engage in the Gospel with regards to patriarchal blessings, meetings, going abroad to serve missions, etc. That is while staying within the confines of Chinese law. What is different is the extent to which members are under surveillance. My parents told me of one particular incident where Chinese members were planning an activity via WeChat and were subsequently told in no uncertain terms that the branch would be banned if they followed through. The activity itself was rather banal, but there was one obvious tension point (which I won't elaborate on) that likely flagged it.

This came up in Elders Quorum a month or so ago. One brother pointed out that "daily transgression and daily repentance" function as a noun phrase: a group of words that functions grammatically as a single noun or subject. Put another way, daily transgression and daily repentance are joined together as a single idea. This is an oversimplification, and risks turning our relationship to God into an accounting exercise, but for illustrative purposes let's say that transgression puts us in a spiritual deficit of -1. Repentance nets out this deficit with a +1 and returns us to a sum status of 0. If we do this day after day, we persist in a state of spiritual stagnation. Not only that, but Joseph Smith states that we're actually displeasing God through such a pattern of living, suggesting that we're actually worsening our position in relation to Him. Now, let's compare that with President Nelson's remarks in which he used the phrase "daily repentance." Emphasis mine: Also: I bolded the above because, in both cases where "daily repentance" is mentioned, they proceed the subject of getting on, walking, or staying on the "covenant path." President Nelson discusses this concept in greater detail throughout his talk, and outlines a pattern of spiritual momentum focused on learning of and becoming as the Saviour. Put it all together, I don't think Presidents Nelson and Smith are discussing the same patterns of behaviour. The latter focuses on a spiritual stagnation leading to degradation; someone treating a spiritual turn towards God as a trifling nod in His direction. By contrast, President Nelson outlines a pattern of deeper and greater spiritual holiness, recognizing that we periodically falter, but always seeking to move forward and work with the Saviour to fulfill our full potential as sons and daughters of both Him and our Heavenly Father.

I've discussed this elsewhere, but part of this stems, in my opinion, from our lack of a universal theory of atonement. I'm not suggesting we lack doctrines of the atonement, but we don't always organize them in relation to each other and ourselves in an X → Y → Z fashion. Put more simply, what problem(s) is the atonement trying to solve? When did it solve them? What fundamentally changed about ourselves individually and the world around us the day Christ condescended (our Catholic and Orthodox friends might prefer the term "incarnated"), on that Friday afternoon he was crucified, or that Easter Sunday when he rose? My understanding is that Catholic theology on the atonement is primarily grounded in a framework that first developed under Anselm of Canterbury and Bernard of Clairvaux, and later Doctors of the Church like Thomas Aquinas, and is commonly referred to as Satisfaction Theory. My external understanding (looking outside-in) is that sin dishonours are relationship to God. God himself in Christ, suffers for us and more-than restores this honour to God. It is not so much that Christ was punished in our stead, but that Christ acted with perfect obedience and honour towards the Father, including in his suffering. Given Anselm and Bernard's medieval worldview, my own personal comparison is that of King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, and Sir Galahad. Where Lancelot dishonoured his relationship to Arthur, Sir Galahad acted above and beyond with perfect love and duty. His obedience was such that it not only restored a proper relation to God, but provided an abundant surplus that transform us from not only being innocent, but saintly, should we yoke ourselves with Christ.* Considering this, I personally think it lends itself quite well to the practice of confession. The priest, as proxy, affirms the forgiveness of sin, or the restoration of honour between God and the penitent, because we are able to conceive of how Christ's perfect love and obedience completes the quest necessary to restore this relationship. That isn't a criticism on my part, or an accusation of oversimplification. I likewise don't think a satisfaction model of the atonement is incongruous with other conceptualizations. It's just a subjective observation on my part. By contrast, I think there is a sort of subconscious question on the part of Latter-day Saints with regards to what we want or hope the atonement is doing for us. Is it releasing us from the long-term consequences of sin? Are we being healed from the consequences of our own actions or that of others? What exactly is sin doing to us and what does forgiveness look like? I actually don't think there is anything prohibiting bishops—morally or procedurally—from affirming that someone is forgiven, but there may be some hesitancy in doing so in order to not elevate ourselves to the level of God or assume a particular individual outcome for an individual given the varying nature of sin. The ironic part, if my idea is true, is that we routinely act vicariously for God in applying the atonement to others, both living and dead, through the administration of ordinances. I remember watching a training video when I was a worker in the temple that described ordinances as "portals of grace," and couldn't help but reflect on my own gratefulness for being able to serve as the conduit to others seeking to access this grace. It's not that I was a gatekeeper, but rather, playing the role of opening doors to people who were seeking to enter anyways. In that sense, there are times where it may be entirely appropriate for a bishop working with someone to affirm their engagement with Christ, explain how they've worked with various mechanisms of grace in their lives, and confirm, given their journey, that they are indeed forgiven. *Please feel welcome to correct me, @3DOP and @MiserereNobis. I'm limited but adverse to understanding Catholic teaching on the atonement as I understand it, so the last thing I want to do is mischaracterize teachings on this matter.

What's interesting to me is how those scattered for sin are not always the ones who are themselves sinning. I think it's reasonable to infer from the writings of Jeremiah and Ezekiel both that those taken into the first captivity (which occurred prior to the destruction of the first temple) were actually among the more righteous in the Kingdom of Judah. We can likewise see this in Lehi and his family, who were themselves scattered away from the covenant people and land to another one.

Mote meet beam. Ironically, I don't think they're entirely wrong; they just don't generalize their threat evaluations. My sincere belief is that the philosophies of men, particularly political and social philosophies, are currently the largest threats to Church members. The -isms all provide answers to ontological questions of the soul like why things exist, what existence means, and relationships between individuals, groups, and sociopolitical entities that may be compatible with Gospel principles. At the same time, each of them provide answers that incongruous with Gospel doctrines and principles. I worry that people are increasingly willing to prioritize these incongruous teachings over Gospel principles, particularly in regards to their actions towards others.