aleph Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Source for numbers: http://newsroom.lds.org/country/mongolia Membership 9,896
aleph Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Lets continue this train of thought. Realizing that all of the members do not reside in the capital let's estimate that 80% do. So 8k / 1.3 million = 0.006, so 6/10 of one percent. Given that global activity rates are about 30% that gives us around 2400 of those Mongolians that are actually active.... I'll be generous, lets say 4k of them or 50% still self identify as Mormon.4k / 1,300,000 = 0.003. 3/10 of 1 percent.Better than the world wide percentage of Mormons in the general populous but 2 orders of magnitude smaller than you 20%.What exactly were you trying to prove with that statement?
Calm Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Could be a misremembered reference to a comment by Elder Holland:"To come here and see the Church in Mongolia — born in a day in a sense — 10,000 strong [and] nearly one in every 10 citizens in Ulaanbaater are members of the Church, I was just unprepared for this," Elder Holland said. "Elder [Carl B.] Pratt [of the Seventy] and I have just come from a priesthoood leadership conference with 120 men or so. All of them have to be, by definition, new to the Church; they are first generation because that's as long as we've been here. And we've got a stake, we had two districts present, we had full presidencies and full councils, bishops and branch presidents. The Church has been born in a day in Mongolia."The first missionaries who arrived in Mongolia lived in Ulaanbaatar, which is home to about half the country's population. Mongolia now has nearly 10,000 Church members spread among 23 congregations.Could be a typo, "nearly 1 in 100" rather than "nearly 1 in 10" or Elder Holland was very, very tired from his trip.http://newsroom.lds....india-hong-kongadd-on: watched the video, he does say "10". He pauses before to think about it so he just may be calculating it in his head and got it wrong. It is in an interview and he is not reading any prepared text, I highly doubt there was any attempt to deceive.Also, while wiki said population was 1.3 mill in 2008, National Geographic had it at between 800-900,000 in 2009 IIRC. Would like to find some official numbers. Edited January 9, 2012 by calmoriah
mfbukowski Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) It is not clear to me what our not-so-anonymous contributor is trying to "prove" and what relevance it has to anything.I know of no one who is a pragmatic social constructivist who has ever been converted to scientism, or the belief that empirical evidence can show us "all there is".I know of no one who thinks about the Bible non-literally or symbolically, who has been converted to our anonymous poster's form of scientific fundamentalism either.This is not about disbelievers becoming believers, it is about those who understand symbolic thinking never becoming fundamentalists.She has apparently never discovered symbolism and remains in scientific fundamentalism believing it is the only way to see the "truth".But of course I cannot reply to her (I mean our anonymous poster).How convient for her. Edited January 9, 2012 by mfbukowski
Grundelwalken Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) deletedLack of real context after further review. mw Edited January 9, 2012 by Grundelwalken
aleph Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Ok, so 4k / 800K = 0.005 or 1/2 of 1 percent. Still 2 orders of magnitude smaller.I have so many questions inspired by the below and the associated inference.Your proposition #3 is manifestly untrue, and Mormon missionaries have great success far away from societies which have previously been indoctrinated in biblical beliefs, e.g., Mongolia is a prime example (1/5 of the population of the capital, Ulan Bator, is now Mormon).Does the 2 orders of magnitude diminished success, still constitute great success? Would fact checking the off the cuff pronouncements of the brethren be worthwhile before posting pure fluff on a website as factual?From what I can tell (and I can provide internet references) the were 4 recognized Christians in Mongolia in 1989. There are now 35,000. Does loosing 3 out of 4 Christian converts to other faiths constitute great success?As I also sense the inference that the 1/5 number was being used to prove the converting power of the Church/Book of Mormon. And if that is proof, is the converse also true?If the rapid growth of the Church in an area is a true proof of the unique, miraculous converting power of the message of the restored gospel, then does the more rapid growth of other faiths then make them "more true"?Does the fact that the LDS church is not the fastest growing faith in: North America therefor make it less true? South America, Europe, the near East, the far East? In fact the LDS church is the fastest growing denomination only in very limited geographical areas. Such examples maybe cherry-picked, but world wide...... not so much (pack leading growth rates).When the growth rate of the LDS Church is falling behind the birth rate of the planet, is the stone rolling forth and filling the world, or is failing to prove such prophetic announcements?IMO, it is unsafe to make that type of argument without allowing for the converse. Probably the type off assertion that is at best avoided.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Robert, your numbers are interesting. According to the data I could find there are under 10,000 total members in all of Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar has a population a 1.3 million. Even allowing for creativeness of the "new maths" being taught these days 10k into 1.3 million does not 20% make.I guess your numbers are "manifestly untrue"?Thanks for the correction. That's what I get for repeating such extraordinary numbers without checking up on them. Edited January 10, 2012 by Robert F. Smith
altersteve Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 If the rapid growth of the Church in an area is a true proof of the unique, miraculous converting power of the message of the restored gospel, then does the more rapid growth of other faiths then make them "more true"?Nobody ever said that.
aleph Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Remind then why this poor statistic was forwarded in the first place? Was it not as an example of the converting power of the BOM?
altersteve Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Remind then why this poor statistic was forwarded in the first place? Was it not as an example of the converting power of the BOM?The fact that the Church is growing quickly is indeed an example of the converting power of the Book of Mormon, but only if the Book of Mormon is true. And the only thing that is a "true proof" of the Book of Mormon and the Church is a witness from the Holy Ghost.
CQUIRK Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I merely point out what is: the only ways into either Christianity or Mormonism are either childhood indoctrination or in profound ignorance of the Bible. The significance is another question. Personally, I don't see that either brainwashing or stupidity figure in at all, nor why one would posit either one. This is where you are WRONG.I was brought up in a strict evangelical family and indoctrinated from the get-go, including having to read the bible often.So when I converted to the LDS church, my knowledge of the bible was already quite good. Yet when I extensively researched the LDS church and its history, and compared its doctrine and beliefs with the beliefs and 'doctrine' that I was brought up with, my perspective was enlightened and broadened despite my biblical knowledge, even after reading a ton of anti-Mormon literature that my parents gave me.To me, the beliefs of my church are more in tune and rational with the writings of the bible alone then any other branch or denomination of Christianity out there, IMO.Adding to that, the vile smears made against the LDS faith and its history by many of its religious & secular critics, along the persecution that it endured in the 19th Century certainly also helped me in my decision, after a ton of study, research, and personal prayer, to become a Latter Day Saint.So your indifferent arrogance doesn't really help your arguments here.
aleph Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 The fact that the Church is growing quickly is indeed an example of the converting power of the Book of Mormon, but only if the Book of Mormon is true. And the only thing that is a "true proof" of the Book of Mormon and the Church is a witness from the Holy Ghost.So to paraphrase: Rapid growth is evidence of truth. Is this what is being asserted?If this is the case then what does it mean when other denominations are growing at a quicker rate world wide?Conversely, 1 in 250 or so is hardly extraordinary. 3 out of 4 Christian converts in Mongolia are joining other faiths, does the logical converse then mean that this is proof of no miraculous power inherent to the message?1 in 5 might have meant something, but following this line of reasoning when the actual numbers are closer to 1 in 250 make such reasoning risky at best to use as evidence of miraculous vs mundane.
CQUIRK Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Robert, your numbers are interesting. According to the data I could find there are under 10,000 total members in all of Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar has a population a 1.3 million. Even allowing for creativeness of the "new maths" being taught these days 10k into 1.3 million does not 20% make.I guess your numbers are "manifestly untrue"? Actually it is interesting because, when compared to other christian denominations that were already present in Mongolia before, this is quite impressive growth, since the LDS church didn't exist in that country before 1992, unlike the many other christian denominations that did.The church doesn't claim to be the fastest growing christian denomination out there- http://newsroom.lds.org/topic/church-growthHowever, I will say that our growth has been constant and very much increasing, especially in South America, Africa, and Asia.
CQUIRK Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 If this is the case then what does it mean when other denominations are growing at a quicker rate world wide?Some of those denominations that have been growing more then us (either numbers, or percentage wise), don't necessary have a steady growth history like we do. In fact the JW's went through a serious membership decline during the 1980's.
Pahoran Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) That's your conclusion not mine. I never said brainwashed and never said anything at all about stupid. I merely point out what is: the only ways into either Christianity or Mormonism are either childhood indoctrination or in profound ignorance of the Bible.No, you don't "merely point out what is." You stake out an ideological position that is clearly informed by no facts, but only by a pervasive, determinative hostility.The reality is that the majority of people remain in whatever belief system they are brought up in, whether it be Buddhism, atheism, Catholicism or, yes, Mormonism. The further reality is that people with varying degrees of knowledge, education, intelligence and/or understanding become converted to different belief systems at some time in their lives. Among Latter-day Saint members, missionaries and converts there is a continuum of knowledge ranging from ignorance as "profound" as that which you project upon them from your own plenitude, to a depth of understanding utterly beyond your grasp, and every possible point in between.Regards,Pahoran Edited January 10, 2012 by Pahoran
aleph Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 What is to be concluded by this logic then, given that the Seventh Day Adventist have 3 million more members and have existed for 30 years less than the LDS church?
Pahoran Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 What is to be concluded by this logic then, given that the Seventh Day Adventist have 3 million more members and have existed for 30 years less than the LDS church?What is to be concluded? Nothing. There is no argument in view such as you are trolling for.Incidentally, while the present SDA Church has only existed since the 1860's, its roots go back to the Millerite movement. William Miller evidently started his ministry in 1831 or thereabouts. The SDA organisation in 1863 merely formalised an already robust movement into an institutional church; one that has the distinct advantage, vis-a-vis the Church of Jesus Christ, of not having been the subject of a series of pogroms in its history.Regards,Pahoran
CQUIRK Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) What is to be concluded by this logic then, given that the Seventh Day Adventist have 3 million more members and have existed for 30 years less than the LDS church?The same could be asked of the SBC and the many other protestant, pentecostal denominations out there as well.I believe that the SDA's missionary program is more aggressive then ours, since we're more cautious and considerate in developing countries, or in countries where the church has a fragile relationship with the country's government. Edited January 10, 2012 by CQUIRK
aleph Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 The only conclusion I am trolling for is an admission that spouting any growth numbers as proof of any religious veracity or power is silly at best and risky at worse. Those who turn to such assertions do themselves no favors.
aleph Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Sorry about the duped. Who do I have to bribe to get "edit" privileges for my own posts?
aleph Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Make that dupes. Between the inability to edit and autocorrect I am in perilous straits.
Hestia Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Sorry about the duped. Who do I have to bribe to get "edit" privileges for my own posts?Done.Use the Report function.
altersteve Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 So to paraphrase: Rapid growth is evidence of truth. Is this what is being asserted?No. That's not what I said.
aleph Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Steve, I am referencing Robert Smith's post/assertion as a proof in reply to the following question:3. Childhood indoctrination and/or relative ignorance of the Bible are the only ways in which people enter into either Christianity or Mormonism.Your proposition #3 is manifestly untrue, and Mormon missionaries have great success far away from societies which have previously been indoctrinated in biblical beliefs, e.g., Mongolia is a prime example (1/5 of the population of the capital, Ulan Bator, is now Mormon).
Pahoran Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Steve, I am referencing Robert Smith's post/assertion as a proof in reply to the following question:Yes. The fact that people join the Church without "childhood indoctrination" proves one part of the previous poster's uninformed opinion false.Your point?Regards,Pahoran
Recommended Posts