Mormon Missions = Anti-Mormon Ministries?

[KevinG]

By the way? What is the problem with Baptism as a goal. Isn't that a saving ordinance where people covenant to take Christ's name upon them?

Once again I've got a Christian arguing like an Atheist.

Opposition to Mormons makes for strange bedfellows.

[Doctor Ninja]

Baptism is the Lord's goal. In fact, He even went out of His way to show us how to do it.

[Pahoran]

That really depends on the area and the local culture and people. There are some very dedicated missionaries who teach what we believe in Brussels (I've known two) and have almost no hope of baptizing because of the strong Catholic culture. The teach to inform others of our beliefs.

Which is why it is pointless to compare one country (or culture) with another.

If it were about stealing sheep or proving others wrong we wouldn't be wasting so much time in areas where baptism was such a rare thing.

If it were about stealing sheep or proving others wrong, our missionaries would go out into the field laden with tracts on "The Maze of Methodism" and "How to Bash with Baptists" and "Witnessing to Witnesses" and "Luther was a Looter" and "Eddies and Cross-Currents in Christian Science" and "The Many Wives of Henry VIII: How Anglicanism Came to Be" and "The Saint Makers: An Expose of the Occult Practices of the Catholic Church."

But funnily enough, they don't.

For example my son was recently in a poor area the Philippines. He spent a lot of time helping local priesthood leaders strengthen their wards and stakes, He also spent lots ot time helping the poor reinforce their shacks. Converstions were rare but most of the natives were willing to listen to the lessons. He MUCH preferred referrals to door to door visits. So do the rest of the missionaries I've met.

People who want to hear the message are much more fun to visit. Our young men don't like "cold call" missionary work.

That's very true.

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

For those belinging to religions other than LDS.

1) What is your religion/sect?

2) Do you do missionary work?

3) What is the purpose of that work?

4) Who is the audience for that work?

This will help me understand why you have the view of LDS Missionary work that you do.

Thanks in advance.

[LDSToronto]

Or alternatively, as I suggested, maybe baptisms are simply a useful gauge of the effectiveness of the teaching.

It seems to me that missionaries who are effective in their teaching are likely to show that effectiveness in baptisms.

But what think you?

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't think that effectiveness in teaching has as much to do with baptisms as we all think. We've all seen lots of missionaries who are great teachers but don't do much better in terms of conversion than missionaries who are poor teachers.

What I think matters more is social conversion. The majority of converts that I've seen express that the key to conversion was not so much a spiritual feeling, but a feeling of inclusiveness in a new social circle. To my mind, the work of church members who make investigators feel welcome is more important than the effectiveness of teaching.

I think there are exceptions to this - some people will have a spiritual conversion. Some will be 'confused' into joining the church (this happened a lot in the 90's in the Toronto Stake - many poor, non-English, Muslim converts would join without much understanding about what they were doing - we were baptizing like crazy, and losing them the very next week - it was a strange time - missionaries would cram 6 discussion into a week and baptize). Most, though, I think are converted socially.

H.

[Ron Beron]

I think the opposition we received is not because of who we are and what we do, but rather the youngness of many of our adversaries. Catholics, Jews, and Muslims do not feel particularly threatened by us, but evangelicals due perhaps to their relative newness to the religious world find us a threat to their beliefs and structure. If it wasn't the Mormons it would be and has been other groups as well. I like the following from M. Scott Peck ...

• Stage I is chaotic, disordered, and reckless. Very young children are in Stage I. They tend to defy and disobey, and are unwilling to accept a will greater than their own. They are extremely egoistic and lack empathy for others. Many criminals are people who have never grown out of Stage I.
• Stage II is the stage at which a person has blind faith in authority figures and sees the world as divided simply into good and evil, right and wrong, us and them. Once children learn to obey their parents and other authority figures, often out of fear or shame, they reach Stage II. Many so-called religious people are essentially Stage II people, in the sense that they have blind faith in God, and do not question His existence. With blind faith comes humility and a willingness to obey and serve. The majority of good, law-abiding citizens never move out of Stage II.
• Stage III is the stage of scientific skepticism and questioning. A Stage III person does not accept things on faith but only accepts them if convinced logically. Many people working in scientific and technological research are in Stage III. They often reject the existence of spiritual or supernatural forces since these are difficult to measure or prove scientifically. Those who do retain their spiritual beliefs move away from the simple, official doctrines of fundamentalism.
• Stage IV is the stage where an individual starts enjoying the mystery and beauty of nature and existence. While retaining skepticism, he starts perceiving grand patterns in nature and develops a deeper understanding of good and evil, forgiveness and mercy, compassion and love. His religiousness and spirituality differ significantly from that of a Stage II person, in the sense that he does not accept things through blind faith or out of fear, but does so because of genuine belief, and he does not judge people harshly or seek to inflict punishment on them for their transgressions. This is the stage of loving others as yourself, losing your attachment to your ego, and forgiving your enemies. Stage IV people are labeled as Mystics. http://en.wikipedia....ual_Development

I think that many evangelicals, and some Mormons are still at stage one or two while Catholics and older faiths are around stage 4. Just a thought.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Ron Beron

[Hughes]

Hughes - your perspective says more about you than it does the goals and behavior of the LDS Church. Like I said - perhaps its projection.

Once again I have a direct experience of critics having to re-define what the LDS actually believe in order to take issue with what we don't believe.

When you dig up that long lost Joseph Smith letter that says we are out to steal sheep let me know. Until then I'd appreciate you and other critics sticking to the facts and not attempting to tar us with your perceptions that have little to do with the reality of our doctrines and practices.

I haven't defined or redefined what you believe, I've only attempted to explain what my experience has been, and the perception that comes across.

For example?

Of course not. The point you are missing (or evading) is that we don't go out looking for those who go to the XYZ Church to tell them what's wrong with XYZ-ism; we go out looking for anyone who will listen to the message of the restored Gospel, and we invite all to come unto Christ.

Yes, and my perspective is an informed one, while yours -- not to put too fine a point on it -- is not.

See what I mean?

I admit it; our theology is superior to those that have nothing to offer but threats of hayall.

All analogies are imperfect.

You're right.

Just as no amount of jealousy over someone else's flavour will make it false.

However much you might wish it did.

supiourer

Regards,

Pahoran

Let's see. When I say that I believe in the Trinity... How many have told me that I actually don't believe in the trinity (as that's supposedly non-sense) and I actually believe in three gods. Or when I explain that I believe in Inerrancy, and then I'm told what exactly that means, even though the explanations given by Mormon Apologists are inaccurate and even though it's pointed out what the actual definition is, I'm still told what it is by Mormons. Oh well.

As to your thinking that LDS theology is superior? (sorry laughing too hard to reply)

For those belinging to religions other than LDS.

1) What is your religion/sect?

2) Do you do missionary work?

3) What is the purpose of that work?

4) Who is the audience for that work?

This will help me understand why you have the view of LDS Missionary work that you do.

Thanks in advance.

1) Christian (Evangelical/non-denominational)

2) Of course

3) Bring people to Christ

4) Anyone willing to listen

Edited July 8, 2011 by Hughes

[Jeff K.]

I qualified my statements by saying this was *my* experience in *my* geography and asked if other had a different experience. I acknowledge that my experience in my stake may be different. I didn't embellish my story. Perhaps you are biased in your reading of my post because of who I am?

I would presume that in some areas, baptisms aren't the focus; in others, baptisms are the focus.

Then we agree on that, yours and mine are qualified in different terms. I feel that the idea of baptism for baptismal numbers sake is a colored perspective without looking at the underlying issues involved as I stated in a follow up post. Your area may have a focus, but I believe you may not understand the focus given your view of the gospel.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Jeff K.

[KevinG]

1) Christian (Evangelical/non-denominational)

2) Of course

3) Bring people to Christ

4) Anyone willing to listen

#4 was intended to get at where you send missionaries. Do you send them to other Christian peoples?

Why would you oppose the LDS in doing the exact same thing your Church claims the priveledge of doing?

Edited July 8, 2011 by DaddyG

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On another thread posters claimed that the doctrine of Apostacy, our Missionary work and individual Mormon hot heads bashing on other boards all justifiy anti-mormon ministries and directed opposition to the LDS Church and professional and amateur efforts to oppose Mormonism.

What do you think?

Any port in a storm. Hate needs no reason.

[alter idem]

"

Which is why I said this in my original post: "Maybe it's different where you guys live, but where I live, baptism are everything"

And come on, Jeff. I'm not making it out to be a numbers game. I simply told you what I've experienced. Stop reading into it. However, I've got two years worth of emails from the mission president that talk about hitting the goal of 10 baptisms per week across the mission. Close to 100 emails stating that 10 per week is our goal, we have hit it only X many times, here is last week's count, we can do better, etc.

Like I said, maybe it's different here, I don't know. Maybe in places where there are very few members, like Southern Ontario, there is a focus on baptisms. I can't say why there is such a focus on baptisms. All I can say is that there is a focus on baptisms.

H.

I believe the problem lies in your perceptions, and not in reality--more likely it's no different in your area than anywhere else.

I believe Mission Presidents often use the number of Baptisms as a gauge of their success in an area--but if one has an understanding of the obligation/responsibility of Missionary work, that is not the 'goal' that drives them. Anyone can baptize, what's important is retention--that means bringing truly converted members in and helping them 'endure to the end'. Missionaries' work is to be emissaries of the Lord Jesus Christ, to spread the message of his gospel and the missionaries I know were happy and productive if they were able to teach.

Of course they want people to be baptized, the missionaries truly love the people they teach and their desire is for their investigators to experience the mighty change and join the church.

[Doctor Ninja]

This topic is ironic to the max.

Here we are with critics and the likes telling us that we are the ones that are "anti" and of all places, doing so on a "Mormon dialogue & discussion board". Not one word has been said against these anti-Mormon ministries for in their myopic eyes it is "justified". The arguments on how we are supposedly "anti" are absolutely laughable.

Can anyone say desperation?

[alter idem]

I qualified my statements by saying this was *my* experience in *my* geography and asked if other had a different experience. I acknowledge that my experience in my stake may be different. I didn't embellish my story. Perhaps you are biased in your reading of my post because of who I am?

I would presume that in some areas, baptisms aren't the focus; in others, baptisms are the focus.

While there may be differences in Missions, if a Mission is following the methods of "Preach My Gospel" (which all missions and missionaries are strongly advised to do) then the purpose of Missionary Work is to bring people closer to Christ through the Gospel--specifically the five steps of the Gospel, one of which is Baptism. However, the emphasis in a Missionary's work involves the other four steps as well, equally.

If you feel the mission in your area is not doing this--it may be true or it may be that your perception is incorrect. I would suggest that you give them the benefit of the doubt since you're not actively involved in the mission, but are an outside observer.

[alter idem]

To be anti-(insert other religion here) is to belittle, mock, and insult another religion. Latter-day Saints do not do that, nor do we believe that all other churches are "apostate and false." We believe that God is in all religions, that every religion and philosophy on the face of the earth has at least a portion of the truth, and that all the great religious leaders were raised up by God for a specific purpose. I would hope that no LDS missionary would ever said, "Your church is apostate and false." I better never hear a Latter-day Saint say that.

I hate to break it to you, but we do believe that other churches are apostate--they broke away from the original church which means they are in apostasy. The problem is that the term 'apostate' and 'apostasy' have taken on such a negative meaning from the way they are used on this board.

From the "Preach My Gospel" manual which is the 'bible' of Missionary Work today:

After the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted the Apostles and Church members and killed many of them. With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and the presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth. The Apostles had kept the doctrines of the gospel pure and maintained the order and standard of worthiness for Church members. Without the Apostles, over time the doctrines were corrupted, and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances such as baptism and conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Without revelation and priesthood authority, people relied on human wisdom to interpret the scriptures and the principles and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ. False ideas were taught as truth. Much of the knowledge of the true character and nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost was lost. The doctrines of faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost became distorted or forgotten. The priesthood authority given to Christ's Apostles was no longer present on the earth. This apostasy eventually led to the emergence of many churches.

While there are 'truths' found in other religions, they lack the authority to save souls. Though I expect a missionary would probably be more tactful than to say 'your religion is apostate and false'--they do believe it and they do teach it when they teach about the Apostasy and Restoration. And I don't think they should have to apologize for it, nor should a Latter-day Saint apologize for it. The whole reason for our church coming into being was because all other churches on the earth were in Apostasy.

Either way, though, calling somebody's religion "apostate and false" is not the same as defining their beliefs for them. To do that would be saying, "You believe such-and-such," which Latter-day Saints do not and, I hope, will not do either.

I suspect that rather than tell investigators what they believe, they ask the investigator to define their own beliefs. If an investigator says 'my church believes that too' and clearly, it is not true, I don't see anything wrong with educating them. Actually many investigators don't really know what their churches teach and need to study and yes, for the critics, I know some LDS are guilty of this also.

[Deborah]

As a convert who was attending another church, I didn't get offended at all when the missionaries talked about the Apostasy. It all made sense then that there were so many different churches teaching so many different things. I knew because I'd been studying many religions at that time trying to find the right one.

[LDSToronto]

Your area may have a focus, but I believe you may not understand the focus given your view of the gospel.

Come on, Jeff, really? I've suddenly lost my ability to comprehend missionary work because I've changed my views? You got that from a few posts where I said that my stake reports baptismal numbers to the A70?

I believe the problem lies in your perceptions, and not in reality--more likely it's no different in your area than anywhere else.

Seriously, alter idem? And you know that my perception is....what exactly? I reported that my stake reports baptismal numbers to the A70. That is the truth. And that's really all I said on the matter. I didn't attempt to state why those numbers are reported. I simply gave facts, with no interpretation.

Of course I know why the Canada Toronto mission focuses on baptisms - the mission president has told us in stake presidency meetings and in talks in stake conference and in individual wards: He has been asked to grow the Canada Toronto Mission, by the brethren, and he feels that this area has many people ready to hear the gospel, and he feels prompted to set a goal of 10 baptisms per week across the mission because, according to his promptings, if we work hard, we will attain those baptisms.

The past two mission presidents told us that the brethren felt our area could be baptizing more. I can't tell you why the brethren feel that way, because I wasn't there when they told the past two mission presidents. Those past two mission presidents also set goals for baptisms and focused on increasing baptisms.

You don't need to read my posts too closely to see that I'm not denigrating the church or it's missionaries. I don't care if the church sets baptismal goals. The church is free to measure whatever they want to measure. I was simply responding to a post that sounded as though the church never used baptisms as a measure of success, and I answered by sharing my experience.

H.

[Hughes]

#4 was intended to get at where you send missionaries. Do you send them to other Christian peoples?

Why would you oppose the LDS in doing the exact same thing your Church claims the priveledge of doing?

Do we send them to other christian people? Not sure how to answer that. The folks I'm aware of go to locations, not necessarily "christian groups" per sey.

Wait, I didn't necessarily oppose the LDS church for doing the same thing. You told me that the LDS church doesn't tell people they are wrong, which didn't make since to me, nor match up with my experience. That's what I was opposed to.

In other words, I see any claim made by the LDS church that the evangelical church is apostate and telling them they are wrong. Which is no different than evangelicals telling the LDS that they are wrong.

I don't see any problem with either, actually. It just is. There's actually no way to avoid it, since we both have opposing views of God/Christ/man/the Bible/History/etc..

[altersteve]

Do we send them to other christian people? Not sure how to answer that. The folks I'm aware of go to locations, not necessarily "christian groups" per sey.

Wait, I didn't necessarily oppose the LDS church for doing the same thing. You told me that the LDS church doesn't tell people they are wrong, which didn't make since to me, nor match up with my experience. That's what I was opposed to.

In other words, I see any claim made by the LDS church that the evangelical church is apostate and telling them they are wrong. Which is no different than evangelicals telling the LDS that they are wrong.

I don't see any problem with either, actually. It just is. There's actually no way to avoid it, since we both have opposing views of God/Christ/man/the Bible/History/etc..

Some Latter-day Saints may tell other Christians (and non-Christians) that they're wrong, but the Church itself does not. The Church actually advises against it. It's important to make that distinction.

[KevinG]

Do we send them to other christian people? Not sure how to answer that. The folks I'm aware of go to locations, not necessarily "christian groups" per sey.

Wait, I didn't necessarily oppose the LDS church for doing the same thing. You told me that the LDS church doesn't tell people they are wrong, which didn't make since to me, nor match up with my experience. That's what I was opposed to.

In other words, I see any claim made by the LDS church that the evangelical church is apostate and telling them they are wrong. Which is no different than evangelicals telling the LDS that they are wrong.

I don't see any problem with either, actually. It just is. There's actually no way to avoid it, since we both have opposing views of God/Christ/man/the Bible/History/etc..

I never said the LDS church doesn't tell people they are wrong. Simply teaching differences in doctrines and having differences in opinions in the continuity of authority is no different than the non-denominational community. The difference is we are respectful of others right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. We also put our actions where our words are by helping others find places to worship, build their temples and sanctuaries and restore them after disasters or fires.

We don't target specific religions for debunking like the non-denominational community does. How do you feel about the evangelical community producing materials that target specific religions as cults?

That is something we never do.

Sorry but the teaching of the Apostacy just doesn't justify the angry, hate-filled, fear mongering that the EVs dish out towards the Mormons. At least we're not alone, they hate the Catholics, JWs and others with equal fervor.

[Jeff K.]

Come on, Jeff, really?

Seriously, alter idem?

Yes, really and seriously.

The method by which you judge actions always colors how you perceive them. Not so much your ability to comprehend or not, rather it may be your view or emphasis as to the motivation itself.

In your opinion, if you believed the church to be true, and that baptism is important for salvation. If you believed those things do you think members in Canada could do better, and how would you measure the it?

[LDSToronto]

Yes, really and seriously.

The method by which you judge actions always colors how you perceive them. Not so much your ability to comprehend or not, rather it may be your view or emphasis as to the motivation itself.

That's probably true for everyone - the confusion I'm experiencing here is that I didn't judge actions... The church, in my area, measures baptisms. That's all I was saying. I then explained the reason in my last post. I'm completely ambivalent on the matter. I don't care if the church measures nose hairs on a gnat - if the church finds that useful, be my guest.

In your opinion, if you believed the church to be true, and that baptism is important for salvation. If you believed those things do you think members in Canada could do better, and how would you measure the it?

I'm having a hard time parsing your question - are you asking me if I think members in Canada could do better? Well, I've never been a big supporter of saying that 'members should do better' when it comes to baptisms. That has always been my opinion, as a faithful member and now. The reason is this - baptism is dependent on many variables beyond the control of church members. For example, in the Toronto area, multicultural communities are strongly insulators against religious conversion. Also, the liberal nature of the area tends to yield little respect for organized religions, especially religions that are as 'strict' as Mormonism. We can argue all day whether Canadian society is wicked and needs Mormonism, but the fact is that we are a very small minority, and it is a very small minority to whom we appeal.

Those are just two factors that members have little control over. There are lots more. Hence, I just don't agree with the notion of saying 'members should do better'. However, if were to measure 'members doing better', I'd have to answer the question, 'what does it mean for a member to do better? What does a member who is doing better look like, and what is the difference between a member who is doing better and a member who is not doing better?' I would then see if I could measure that difference in a meaningful way. I don't know if baptismal count is the right way to measure that difference. It might be the right way, and it might not be. One can't know unless one knows what they are trying to detect.

H.

[Calm]

I just think it's not correct to state that their primary job is to teach when their primary goal is to attain baptisms.

And that is why there are no restrictions on who can be baptized or requirements for baptism......except that there are.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 08 July 2011 - 03:41 PM, said:

Yes, really and seriously.

The method by which you judge actions always colors how you perceive them. Not so much your ability to comprehend or not, rather it may be your view or emphasis as to the motivation itself.

That's probably true for everyone - the confusion I'm experiencing here is that I didn't judge actions... The church, in my area, measures baptisms. That's all I was saying. I then explained the reason in my last post. I'm completely ambivalent on the matter. I don't care if the church measures nose hairs on a gnat - if the church finds that useful, be my guest.

Perhaps its a perception or rather a reputation you have built singling out the negative that confuses you, after all your motivations are definately not neutral on the matter of the church, they tend to be more on the negative side. So with that reputation you have stepped forward with something that to you appears to be an observation when your reputation gives it a negative conotation.

Quote

In your opinion, if you believed the church to be true, and that baptism is important for salvation. If you believed those things do you think members in Canada could do better, and how would you measure the it?

I'm having a hard time parsing your question - are you asking me if I think members in Canada could do better? Well, I've never been a big supporter of saying that 'members should do better' when it comes to baptisms. That has always been my opinion, as a faithful member and now. The reason is this - baptism is dependent on many variables beyond the control of church members. For example, in the Toronto area, multicultural communities are strongly insulators against religious conversion. Also, the liberal nature of the area tends to yield little respect for organized religions, especially religions that are as 'strict' as Mormonism. We can argue all day whether Canadian society is wicked and needs Mormonism, but the fact is that we are a very small minority, and it is a very small minority to whom we appeal.

Those are just two factors that members have little control over. There are lots more. Hence, I just don't agree with the notion of saying 'members should do better'. However, if were to measure 'members doing better', I'd have to answer the question, 'what does it mean for a member to do better? What does a member who is doing better look like, and what is the difference between a member who is doing better and a member who is not doing better?' I would then see if I could measure that difference in a meaningful way. I don't know if baptismal count is the right way to measure that difference. It might be the right way, and it might not be. One can't know unless one knows what they are trying to detect.

H.

You have deftly attempted to move the focus away from effort to obstacles. I didn't ask what the obstacles are, we are all well aware of them, living in California I can account for the difficulty involved.

Given: (if you believe) Baptisms are important

Can members do better, that is part of the question.

How would you measure it? is the second part of the question.

If the number of baptisms isn't what you are particularly fond of, what measure would you use?

[LDSToronto]

Perhaps its a perception or rather a reputation you have built singling out the negative that confuses you, after all your motivations are definately not neutral on the matter of the church, they tend to be more on the negative side. So with that reputation you have stepped forward with something that to you appears to be an observation when your reputation gives it a negative conotation.

Ah, so it's not so much *what* is being said, it's *who* is saying it. Got it. At least now I understand that it is you who has the perception problem. Could I ask you to set that aside and focus on *what* is being said?

You have deftly attempted to move the focus away from effort to obstacles. I didn't ask what the obstacles are, we are all well aware of them, living in California I can account for the difficulty involved.

I didn't really understand what you were asking so I did my best to answer.

Given: (if you believe) Baptisms are important

I accept that baptisms are important. I don't accept that they are indicator of anything more than the number of people baptised.

Can members do better, that is part of the question.

How would you measure it? is the second part of the question.

Well, I think my answer still stands. If you want to know how many baptisms you've had, then I say, count baptisms. An earlier poster pointed out, and I agree, that baptismal count is not a good measure of the effectiveness of a missionary. Therefore, I can't imagine how it would be a good indicator of "members doing better".

As I mentioned, if you want to measure "members doing better", you need to know the following:

1. What does a member who does better look like? That is, what do they do, how do they act, etc - what are their characteristics?

2. What does a member who does not do better look like?

3. What is the difference between the two? That is, does one of them do more of/less of something? Can you detect some difference between the two?

4. How do you measure that difference?

If you can get all the way to #4, then you can measure "members doing better". I doubt that you will come up with "baptismal counts" as your answer to number 4.

Any takers - can any of you answer all four questions?

If the number of baptisms isn't what you are particularly fond of, what measure would you use?

Again, I don't care if baptisms are measured. I'll say it a thousand more times if I have to. So far, I've only parroted what I've heard directly from the mission president(s) in this area. Not sure what to say beyond that, except this - PLEASE STOP saying that I am being negative towards baptismal counts! I couldn't care less if baptisms were counted from here to the end of time!

H.

[Doctor Ninja]

Ah, so it's not so much *what* is being said, it's *who* is saying it. Got it. At least now I understand that it is you who has the perception problem. Could I ask you to set that aside and focus on *what* is being said?

I didn't really understand what you were asking so I did my best to answer.

I accept that baptisms are important. I don't accept that they are indicator of anything more than the number of people baptised.

Well, I think my answer still stands. If you want to know how many baptisms you've had, then I say, count baptisms. An earlier poster pointed out, and I agree, that baptismal count is not a good measure of the effectiveness of a missionary. Therefore, I can't imagine how it would be a good indicator of "members doing better".

As I mentioned, if you want to measure "members doing better", you need to know the following:

1. What does a member who does better look like? That is, what do they do, how do they act, etc - what are their characteristics?

2. What does a member who does not do better look like?

3. What is the difference between the two? That is, does one of them do more of/less of something? Can you detect some difference between the two?

4. How do you measure that difference?

If you can get all the way to #4, then you can measure "members doing better". I doubt that you will come up with "baptismal counts" as your answer to number 4.

Any takers - can any of you answer all four questions?

Again, I don't care if baptisms are measured. I'll say it a thousand more times if I have to. So far, I've only parroted what I've heard directly from the mission president(s) in this area. Not sure what to say beyond that, except this - PLEASE STOP saying that I am being negative towards baptismal counts! I couldn't care less if baptisms were counted from here to the end of time!

H.

No one should be able to answer those questions unless they have stewardship. A mission president for missionaries and a Bishop for members and both are guided by the Spirit to answer.