Respect For An Lds Church

[Mariner]

Your point being that your are practiced in the art of hyperbole? When was the last time, for example, that your heard a Church leaders say that when the leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done? I've never heard it. I've read it from an early Church apostle, but I'm pretty sure he's been dead a long, long time.

The quote that seems to concern you appeared in 1945 and the LDS Church is still trying to explain it away. There was an entire article on this quote as late as 2009. If statements like this were an isolated outliers, they woud probably receive little attention.

However, when considered in light of the oft repeated claim that the Lord will never let his prophets lead the Church astray (from the time of Brigham Young forward), and the statements of other Church leaders such as Heber C. Kimball;

learn to do as you are told. ...if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it, none of your business whether it is right or wrong.” (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 6:32)

or more recently, President Harold B. Lee, as shown below, it is hard to simply dismiss the 1945 statement.

As has been said, God would remove us out of our place if we should attempt to do it. You have not concern. Let the management and government of god, then, be with the Lord. Do not try to find fault with the management and affairs that pertain to him alone and by revelation through his prophet.” (Harold B. Lee, “The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,” in Charge, p. 112)

“They are just men, you might argue. No, they are not just men. They are chosen above all other men, and they are the servants of the Lord....” (Apostle Boyd K. Packer, Obedience, BYU Speeches of the Year, pp. 6-7)

There are many statements from Church leaders along these lines. Considered together, they leave one with the strong impression that LDS Church leadership expects the members to do what they are told, and without question.

So, if you are okay with "unquestioning obedience" instead of "blind obedience", I think we would be in agreement.

[Mark Beesley]

The quote that seems to concern you appeared in 1945 and the LDS Church is still trying to explain it away. There was an entire article on this quote as late as 2009. If statements like this were an isolated outliers, they woud probably receive little attention.

You're right. I was thinking of a different quote. This one, as far as I can tell wasn't even a quote of any leader of the Church. It was in an article in the Deseret News. The context of the statement was as follows:

Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot speak evil of the Lord's anointed and retain the Holy Spirit in his heart.

It should be remembered that Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting souls that the General Authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. This sort of game is Satan's favorite pastime, and he has practiced it on believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to "do their own thinking." He specializes in suggesting that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding rays of apostasy in the eyes of those whom he thus beguiles. What cunning! And to think that some of our members are deceived by this trickery.

The following words of the Prophet Joseph Smith should be memorized by every Latter-day Saint and repeated often enough to insure their never being forgotten:

I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 156-157.)

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.Improvement Era, June 1945

Your other quotes flow along the same vein of thought, i.e. be wary of openly criticizing leaders in the Church. I'm ok with that. I wait until they are dead before I criticize them!

There are many statements from Church leaders along these lines. Considered together, they leave one with the strong impression that LDS Church leadership expects the members to do what they are told, and without question.

I don't understand those quotes that way. Guess I'm just a rebel.

Incidentally, in well over 50 year I have NEVER had any leader in the Church tell me what to do.

[bluebell]

The belief that my mother loves me comes from the direct face to face interaction with her as a young child, and that belief has been reinforced by direct and indirect interactions since.

To provide you with a counter example, let's say that my birth mother had been unable to care for me and had given me up for adoption at birth. Unless she had kept in contact with me, I would have no idea whether she loved me or not. And I certainly would not bet my life and well being on the someone else's assurance that she did.

The case with God is even more tenuous. Unlike my absent birth mother in the above example, the fact that I am here does not support the existence of God in any logical or rational way. By far the best hypothesis for how I got here - the one that is consistent with all of the physical data available - has nothing to do with God. In fact, the best hypothesis specifically excludes God, or at best, reduces the probability of his having anything to do with my existence to a vanishingly small number.

That's just it. For those of us who believe in the existence of God, we do so because of specific experiences we've had with Him. Experiences that go far and beyond our mere existence-that's the very least of my reasons for believing in Him.

It would be absurd for me to tell you that your belief in your mother is baseless, illogical, or unreasonable because i've never had any experiences with her. Obviously i could (can) believe whatever i want about her, but i cross the line when i try to deny your experiences with her or suggest that my opinion is just as valid as yours.

It's the same with God. The case for God might be tenuous for you, but don't make the mistake of trying to argue that the case for God for everyone rests soley on your experiences.

[Mariner]

Hello Pahoran,

With regard to your call for references as to what the vast majority of people who have heard the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church believe about them, please consider the following.

In countries outside the US for which data are available, the number of individuals who self-identify as Mormon runs between approximately 20% and 30% of the number of members claimed by the Church. Within the US, the number is up around 50% (and a significant proportion of these do not believe in the LDS truth claims enough to even attend Church).

It is a pretty safe assumption that the majority of missing people represented by these numbers are people who do not believe the truth claims of the Church to an extent that would lead them to even identify themselves as LDS, let alone attend Church.

So right away we have a majority of people who have heard the the LDS truth claims demonstrating disbelief. When one considers all of the people who have heard the truth claims of the LDS Church by means of missionaries and proselytizing members, compared to the number who actually join the Church and profess belief, we move from majority to vast majority.

Here is a sampling of the kinds of numbers one comes up with when looking into this issue.

For Mexico:

"The Instituto Nacional de Información Estadística y Geográfica has recently published 2010 census results on religious affiliation in Mexico at http://www.inegi.org.mx/. The census counted 314,932 self-identified Latter-day Saints in Mexico ... whereas official... LDS membership statistics for Mexico reported 1,234,545 members in 2010..."

For Chile:

The LDS Church reported 509,592 members at year-end 2000 but only 103,735 Chileans in 2002 self-identified as Mormons(Censo 2002, 26 pdf). Today the LDS Church claims 563,689 members in Chile.

Here is the reference for the numbers I quoted above in the US:

“The ARIS raises significant questions about the true number of persons in the USA who understand themselves to be members of the LDS church. Briefly stated, at the beginning of 1990, the LDS church claimed a membership in the USA of 4,175,400, while the ARIS showed that, during 1990, 2,487,000 Americans claimed to be Mormons, a 40% difference. At the beginning of 2001, the LDS church claimed a membership in the USA of 5,208,827, while the ARIS showed that, during 2001, 2,697,000 Americans claimed to be Mormons, a 48% difference. Finally, at the end of 2008, the LDS church claimed a membership in the USA of 5,974,041, while the ARIS showed that, during the year, 3,158,000 Americans claimed to be Mormons, a 47% difference.”

In response to your mention of your great accomplishment in study of the Mormonism in Post # 50 on this thread, the fact that you have studied the LDS religion more than most certainly does not mean that you understand it in the wider context more than most. (If you want a definition of "wider context", just ask.)

Consider the Catholic monks who spend their entire lives in study, ritual and prayer. They clearly know more about Catholicism than you do. They clearly believe their priesthood to be the only valid priesthood on Earth and know from their studies that Mormons are in grave error.

Yet you clearly do not believe them. You understand that, in the wider context, their claims are not based on credible evidence, but are based on tradition, myth, misunderstanding, and are maintained by a willful ignorance of certain facts. In the wider context, that is how most people in the world would view you, if they took the time to look.

If study time is the criteria, and it is clear that you have clearly not devoted as much of your life to the study of Mormonism as a Catholic monk has devoted to Catholicism, why should anyone believe you?

Edited December 9, 2011 by Mariner

[Mariner]

That's just it. For those of us who believe in the existence of God, we do so because of specific experiences we've had with Him. Experiences that go far and beyond our mere existence-that's the very least of my reasons for believing in Him.

It would be absurd for me to tell you that your belief in your mother is baseless, illogical, or unreasonable because i've never had any experiences with her. Obviously i could (can) believe whatever i want about her, but i cross the line when i try to deny your experiences with her or suggest that my opinion is just as valid as yours.

It's the same with God. The case for God might be tenuous for you, but don't make the mistake of trying to argue that the case for God for everyone rests soley on your experiences.

That is the whole point. Belief in my mother (or my mother's love) comes from direct physical contact, relevant physical evidence, and the fact that this belief can be supported by an evidence based, logical and internally consistent narrative.

The case you make for God, regardless of your perceved experiences, does not, and cannot rise, to this level, or anything close to it. There is simply no real objective evidence in support and too much objective evidence to the contrary.

If you wish to declare you position a matter of pure faith, fine. But you must understand that no faith is needed to believe in the existence of my mother.

[Deborah]

With regard to your call for references as to what the vast majority of people who have heard the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church believe about them, please consider the following.

Your premise is false because at any given time there are many inactive members but rarely is it because of the "truth" claims of the church. People become inactive for many reasons, including family pressures, stress, illness and many other reasons not related to doctrine. Many of these people come back at some point.

[Deborah]

The case you make for God, regardless of your perceved experiences, does not, and cannot rise, to this level, or anything close to it. There is simply no real objective evidence in support and too much objective evidence to the contrary.

I for one disagree with this. You have no idea what my experience of and with God has been. He is as real to me as any family member.

[bluebell]

That is the whole point. Belief in my mother (or my mother's love) comes from direct physical contact, relevant physical evidence, and the fact that this belief can be supported by an evidence based, logical and internally consistent narrative.

But without those physical manifestations, could she still convey her love to you enough that you would believe it?

The case you make for God, regardless of your perceved experiences, does not, and cannot rise, to this level, or anything close to it. There is simply no real objective evidence in support and too much objective evidence to the contrary.

You only say this because you have no idea the level of experience that is possible.

If you wish to declare you position a matter of pure faith, fine. But you must understand that no faith is needed to believe in the existence of my mother.

My position on the existence of God and His love for me is not a matter of pure faith any more than your's is about your mother (most else that i believe IS based on pure faith), but it's understandable for you, who places so much importance on physical experiences, to doubt that.

My point isn't to convince you you are wrong, but only to help you to recognize how your arguments look from a believer's perspective.

As far as i know, the mother you have described is a figment of your imagination, but you know the truth because you've experienced it. No matter what i say, i can't take those experiences away or negate them and my opinion on the matter would NEVER not be absurd to you because you are speaking from a position of personal knowledge and i'm not. You are secure in what you know, regardless of anything i could say to the contrary.

For those of us who have had experiences with God, your arguments against His existence are absurd (and i don't mean that in a snarky way or to be demeaning). We don't expect you to stop making them-at least i don't-it's your belief and you're entitled to defend it. But there is a valid reason-that has nothing to do with being brainwashed, not reading opposing literature, or blind obedienc-for why they aren't always taken seriously.

I know why you don't believe. I'm trying to help you to know why I do.

[Pahoran]

Hello Pahoran,

With regard to your call for references as to what the vast majority of people who have heard the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church believe about them, please consider the following.

In countries outside the US for which data are available, the number of individuals who self-identify as Mormon runs between approximately 20% and 30% of the number of members claimed by the Church. Within the US, the number is up around 50% (and a significant proportion of these do not believe in the LDS truth claims enough to even attend Church).

It is a pretty safe assumption that the majority of missing people represented by these numbers are people who do not believe the truth claims of the Church to an extent that would lead them to even identify themselves as LDS, let alone attend Church.

So in fact we see that your confident "in fact" assertion was merely your assumption.

You ought not to present your unsupported assumptions as facts, Mariner.

The reality, as attested by every active Latter-day Saint who has ever worked with less-active members, is that apathy, not disbelief, is the overwhelming consensus response by them towards the Church.

(If you want to know the difference between apathy and disbelief, just ask.)

And while I do and will quite routinely grant the possibility that there might be some who genuinely leave the Church for "intellectual" reasons, those on your side of the aisle seem incapable of admitting even the barest possiblity that there might be any who find such reasons a convenient post facto rationalisation for their apostasy.

And yet we are supposed to be the "dogmatic" ones.

Funny, that.

So right away we have a majority of people who have heard the the LDS truth claims demonstrating disbelief. When one considers all of the people who have heard the truth claims of the LDS Church by means of missionaries and proselytizing members, compared to the number who actually join the Church and profess belief, we move from majority to vast majority.

You are, as you perfectly well know, shifting the goal posts. You initially claimed that it was "the vast majority of people who have heard them, especially after understanding them in context." Now we see that it's really the "vast majority" of those who went inactive as teenagers or who fell away in the first few months or weeks after baptism, swelled by those who (and I know this for a fact) almost entirely never gave serious consideration to the Church's truth claims in the first place.

And these are they who, in your ideologically-driven opinion, "understand them in context" better than believing Latter-day Saints do?

Umm, okay.

You are egregiously padding your numbers. You know that you are.

But will you ever be honest enough to admit it?

Here is a sampling of the kinds of numbers one comes up with when looking into this issue.

Except that, as you perfectly well know, those numbers are entirely irrelevant to "this issue." They merely represent gross numbers of less-active members, which allows for absolutely no valid conclusions to be drawn about what they actually believe.

In response to your mention of your great accomplishment in study of the Mormonism in Post # 50 on this thread,

Your sarcasm verges upon misrepresentation. As you perfectly well know, I claimed no "great accomplishment," and in fact explicitly denied any such thing.

the fact that you have studied the LDS religion more than most certainly does not mean that you understand it in the wider context more than most. (If you want a definition of "wider context", just ask.)

I diffidently suggest that I might understand the "wider context" of the level-B factoids that apostates use to justify their apostasy better than most.

Consider the Catholic monks who spend their entire lives in study, ritual and prayer. They clearly know more about Catholicism than you do. They clearly believe their priesthood to be the only valid priesthood on Earth and know from their studies that Mormons are in grave error.

Yet you clearly do not believe them. You understand that, in the wider context, their claims are not based on credible evidence, but are based on tradition, myth, misunderstanding, and are maintained by a willful ignorance of certain facts. In the wider context, that is how most people in the world would view you, if they took the time to look.

And what "facts" about LDS Church history do "most people in the world" understand that I don't, Mariner?

See, now you are intentionally moving the goal posts yet again.

This tactic is a rather infallible sign that the person resorting to it knows that he has no valid argument.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERayR]

The quote that seems to concern you appeared in 1945 and the LDS Church is still trying to explain it away. There was an entire article on this quote as late as 2009. If statements like this were an isolated outliers, they woud probably receive little attention.

However, when considered in light of the oft repeated claim that the Lord will never let his prophets lead the Church astray (from the time of Brigham Young forward), and the statements of other Church leaders such as Heber C. Kimball;

or more recently, President Harold B. Lee, as shown below, it is hard to simply dismiss the 1945 statement.

There are many statements from Church leaders along these lines. Considered together, they leave one with the strong impression that LDS Church leadership expects the members to do what they are told, and without question.

So, if you are okay with "unquestioning obedience" instead of "blind obedience", I think we would be in agreement.

Not so in fact all I have heard from LDS Church leadership is the admonition to seek ones own revelation. The procedure is to hear then seek verification by personal revelation.

[Mariner]

Your premise is false because at any given time there are many inactive members but rarely is it because of the "truth" claims of the church. People become inactive for many reasons, including family pressures, stress, illness and many other reasons not related to doctrine. Many of these people come back at some point.

Sorry. If people the Church claims as members do not themselves even indentify as Mormons, they have rejected the fundamental truth claims. Please look at the numbers.

We are not just talking about "inactives". We are talking about the number of people who know about Joseph Smith's fundamental truth claims regarding the golden plates, the angels, and the personal visitation by God and Jesus, Nephites and Lamanites, etc., as compared with the number of people who actually believe these claims. The former constitute a vast majority when compared to the latter.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Mariner

[Mariner]

Not so in fact all I have heard from LDS Church leadership is the admonition to seek ones own revelation. The procedure is to hear then seek verification by personal revelation.

This may indeed be policy, but just look at the practice.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Mariner

[Hamba Tuhan]

Right.

You are joking, of course.

This may indeed be policy, but just look at the practice.

Is this the part where the meanness and nastiness referred to in the OP overtake the nostalgia and sense of regret we're supposed to be noticing?

[ERayR]

Right.

You are joking, of course.

This may indeed be policy, but just look at the practice.

It is practiced quite extensivly where I live. You must be willing to receive said personal revelation before it is given.

[Hamba Tuhan]

It is practiced quite extensivly where I live.

Of course this is the practice of the Church. It's exactly what my parents taught--and modelled for--me when I was little. It's exactly what my teachers and advisors taught me as I got older. It's the very same process which I taught to investigators when I was a fulltime missionary: Don't just accept what we're telling you; you can find out for yourself that these things are true. It has been the invitation of every single leader I've ever had in the Church, including my stake president, with whom I had a serious disagreement last year.

After I told him that I thought he was making a mistake, he asked me if I would go to the Lord and seek confirmation of what he'd asked me to do. I told him I would. In return, I asked him if he would take my concerns to the Lord in prayer. He said he would. Later that week, as I was shivering in my car waiting for my Young Men to finish up their seminary class, I prayed again for guidance and then opened up my Book of Mormon to the end of 3 Nephi. As I read the chapter, the Spirit plainly manifested to me that I was right and that the answer lay in the verses I was reading. This unsettled me because my stake president had been quite certain that I was going to receive a different answer. I spent Saturday in the temple performing baptisms, and the Lord specifically instructed me to humbly stand my ground.

The next morning, I had my return appointment with my good stake president. It was my intention to share with him what I'd read in 3 Nephi and then again plead my case in humility. God is good, though, and I didn't have to. After I'd said an opening prayer, he thanked me for the opportunity to engage in the process of seeking revelation and then asked me if we could begin by reading together the very same verses from 3 Nephi which I'd hoped to share with him. He'd got the same answer I had. We were edified and rejoiced together.

[Mariner]

Is this the part where the meanness and nastiness referred to in the OP overtake the nostalgia and sense of regret we're supposed to be noticing?

Good point.

Please note that I have edited the subject post to remove the unnecessary commentary.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Mariner

[Storm Rider]

Sorry. If people the Church claims as members do not themselves even indentify as Mormons, they have rejected the fundamental truth claims. Please look at the numbers.

We are not talking about "inactives". We are talking about the number of people who know about Joseph Smith's fundamental truth claims regarding the golden plates, the angels, and the personal visitation by God and Jesus, Nephites and Lamanites, etc., as compared with the number of people who actually believe these claims. The former constitute a vast majority when compared to the latter.

Can you back that up with a viable reference or is that just your opinion?

[Storm Rider]

This may indeed be policy, but just look at the practice.

I have lived in Europe, Washington state, Florida, Utah (for a very short time), Alaska, and the United Arab Emirates. I have never know anything different from this one fundamental teaching: read (hear) and pray. Nothing more and nothing less. If you have heard anything else or seen a different practice then I must deduct that it is the exception rather than the norm.

[Storm Rider]

We are not talking about "inactives". We are talking about the number of people who know about Joseph Smith's fundamental truth claims regarding the golden plates, the angels, and the personal visitation by God and Jesus, Nephites and Lamanites, etc., as compared with the number of people who actually believe these claims. The former constitute a vast majority when compared to the latter.

This last claim is the type of mantra that I read incessantly on the typical ex-mormon sites. It is almost as if they have to repeat it in order to comfort themselves that they are not the minority and that the vast majority remain members fo the Church and believe in the restoration of the Gospel. It is a strange phenomena within this group.

[Mariner]

So in fact we see that your confident "in fact" assertion was merely your assumption.

You ought not to present your unsupported assumptions as facts, Mariner

The reality, as attested by every active Latter-day Saint who has ever worked with less-active members, is that apathy, not disbelief, is the overwhelming consensus response by them towards the Church.

(If you want to know the difference between apathy and disbelief, just ask.)

And while I do and will quite routinely grant the possibility that there might be some who genuinely leave the Church for "intellectual" reasons, those on your side of the aisle seem incapable of admitting even the barest possiblity that there might be any who find such reasons a convenient post facto rationalisation for their apostasy.

And yet we are supposed to be the "dogmatic" ones.

Funny, that.

Again, we are not talking about "less actives" or people who do not attend as often as the Church would like.. We are talking about people who reject the Church to the point that they will not even self-identify as Mormon. Are you going to argue that such individuals, in fact, actually believe the fundamental truth claims of the LDS Church?

You are, as you perfectly well know, shifting the goal posts. You initially claimed that it was "the vast majority of people who have heard them, especially after understanding them in context." Now we see that it's really the "vast majority" of those who went inactive as teenagers or who fell away in the first few months or weeks after baptism, swelled by those who (and I know this for a fact) almost entirely never gave serious consideration to the Church's truth claims in the first place.

And these are they who, in your ideologically-driven opinion, "understand them in context" better than believing Latter-day Saints do?

Umm, okay.

You are egregiously padding your numbers. You know that you are.

But will you ever be honest enough to admit it?

The context to which I was referring is that of common decency and morality, not superstition. Once one buys into a worldview where magic, practice of the occult, polygamy, and polyandry are okay (see Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman) , and the scriptures that are looked to for guidance describe the slaughter of thousands of innocents to please an angry God, one is not considering truth claims in a context that is realistic, or even relevant, to the world in the 21st, Century.

Many practices described in the OT and the BoM are not acceptable today in western Christianity, nor were they acceptable in 19th Century Christianity. Yet the context required for belief in the foundation truth claims of Mormonism requires acceptance of such practices.

Are you going to argue that the vast majority of people who learn the basics of Mormonism and do not believe the fundamental truth claims are not considering these claims in the context of 21st Century Christian ethics and morality?

Your sarcasm verges upon misrepresentation. As you perfectly well know, I claimed no "great accomplishment," and in fact explicitly denied any such thing.

If I misunderstood your claim to having knowledge regarding Mormonism greater than that of most who have studied it, I apologize.

I diffidently suggest that I might understand the "wider context" of the level-B factoids that apostates use to justify their apostasy better than most.

And what "facts" about LDS Church history do "most people in the world" understand that I don't, Mariner?

Please see my comment on context above.

See, now you are intentionally moving the goal posts yet again.

This tactic is a rather infallible sign that the person resorting to it knows that he has no valid argument.

Perhaps in your rush to explain away the numbers I referenced you did not look up long enough to accurately determine the position of the goal posts. I trust that I have been able to address your misunderstanding regarding the context in which most people who encounter the LDS truth claims reject them.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Mariner

[Mariner]

This last claim is the type of mantra that I read incessantly on the typical ex-mormon sites. It is almost as if they have to repeat it in order to comfort themselves that they are not the minority and that the vast majority remain members fo the Church and believe in the restoration of the Gospel. It is a strange phenomena within this group.

Are you saying that most people who hear the basic truth claims of Mormonism actually join the Church and become lifelong faithful members? Because all I am saying is that this is not the case, especially when those who hear the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church and its founder consider them in context as described in post #70 above.

[Mariner]

I have lived in Europe, Washington state, Florida, Utah (for a very short time), Alaska, and the United Arab Emirates. I have never know anything different from this one fundamental teaching: read (hear) and pray. Nothing more and nothing less. If you have heard anything else or seen a different practice then I must deduct that it is the exception rather than the norm.

Storm Rider,

I understand that what you are saying about the issue is what the Church leadership says, even in the face of statements like the ones I cited above. So we have no disagreement there.

If I were to use the best argument to make my point, I would be skating dangerously close to content not allowed on this site. So I will simply ask you if you would feel comfortable answering an SP interview question regarding your full support of the Leadership of the LDS Church in other than the affirmative.

[Storm Rider]

Now I understand what you are saying. It does not demand a genius to understand that 15 million people are a puny minority of the inhabitants of the earth. However, I fail to understand the value of your statements. Jesus told his desicples that wide is the gate, but narrow the way and few there be that find it. What do you think he meant by that statement? What does it mean that few will find the truth of his gospel; particularly when he commanded his disciples to teach every people, go to every nation and procliam the Good News?

On another note, Christianity is a minority of the inhabitants on the earth also. Should we care who follows Jesus or not?

[Storm Rider]

Storm Rider,

I understand that what you are saying about the issue is what the Church leadership says, even in the face of statements like the ones I cited above. So we have no disagreement there.

If I were to use the best argument to make my point, I would be skating dangerously close to content not allowed on this site. So I will simply ask you if you would feel comfortable answering an SP interview question regarding your full support of the Leadership of the LDS Church in other than the affirmative.

I am afraid you do not know me very well. I think if you asked my stake president and/or bishop, you might hear the word "irreverent" mentioned. I have had some very frank conversations with many leaders at all levels. Most of what people read from me here is also what they hear from me. Men are men; it is the mantle that is of value. Some GA are not people I like or enjoy while others are the best that mankind produces. I don't follow foolish traditions and I will reject if one attempts to teach it from the pulpit. I served in the temple as an ordinance worker for nine years and served in all capacities of that function. I am only a man and I am most certainly a sinner. I speak better than I do or live; I fall so very short of mark of a true man of God. Yet, I love my Father in Heaven and I sing the praises of my Savior and Master, Jesus Christ. I am not worth emulating, but I point those who seek to the source of all truth. My testimony is not based in Joseph Smith or any other prophet; it rests firmly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

[Deborah]

Sorry. If people the Church claims as members do not themselves even indentify as Mormons, they have rejected the fundamental truth claims. Please look at the numbers.

The question is what does identifying as Mormon mean? I don't always identify as a Mormon either. And btw most Mormons refer to themselves as LDS not Mormon. Is that in the statistics you use? The only occasion I would have to identify my faith is in a hospital admission where they ask your religious preference and I always put LDS. Under what other circumstances would someone ask your religious affiliation in a recorded format? Just because people don't go around shouting "I'm Mormon" doesn't mean they aren't faithful members. I certainly don't announce I'm a Mormon in groups of people I don't know. Often they start asking questions when they find out I don't drink coffee and it comes out.

You are jumping to conclusions based on numbers that are very subject to interpretation.