Revisit Of Loomis'S Growth Predictions 10-Years Later

[Eldwynn]

People who are simply not believing in something don't hope for its natural demise or mutilation. I have never felt compelled to call my former religion names or oppose its practices.

Observing that one unbelieved in group has faced more push-back than others is not helpful to either group. It just means bigots are equal opportunity.

But thank you for a clear view behind the mask of concerned anti-Mormonism. Ick.

I don't think you are being completely fair here. You seem to have this perception of ex-mormons that only fits those who choose to engage in debates on message boards ran by believers. Obviously, this is a very skewed sample size of ex-mormons. Most ex-mormons I know spend no time engaging in debates online. Thus, you are gleefully ignorant that they even exist. Not your fault by any means, but it's at least something to think about/be aware of. <3

If you were to converse with THEM you mind find that the majority of those that leave the church are perfectly wonderful people as a group.

In fact, you might be surprised, but I have personally found that MANY of the "online critics" on this forum and that other one, actually still attend church regularly. When I first started posting here, I was truly inspired by some of the posts Cinepro wrote. It really convinced me that the church was not true, and that I had made the right choice in leaving. It took about two years for me to realize that he is still a member, who as far as I can tell still attends church regularly. My Mind=Blown.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Eldwynn

[Tarski]

KevinG is quite right here. To state that to disbelieve in something is to hope for its demise is an eminently absurd false dichotomy. There are any number of things I disbelieve in but am indifferent toward their continued existence.

Good for you.

Personally, I hope for the natural demise of:

creationism

communism (how rude of me!)

statism

islamism

biblical literalism

preistcraft and religious authoritarianism

Maybe you have few yourself? How about socialism? Maybe there are specific organization you would like to see disappear? Planned Parenthood? (personally I support it). ACORN?

Don't be a hipocrit now!

Without being pushy about what is at least in part just my opinion, I am also frankly looking forward to the possibility that we will say goodbye to current versions of

evangelicalism

Scientology

Mormonism (well at least that specific ossified corporate entity that sells itself door to door as the one true church)

I am perfectly fine if the good parts of the Mormon zeitgeist survive in some form.

But then it is not up to me nor should it be. Time will tell.

[blackstrap]

Tarski, may we all embrace the truths of atheism. As a good rabbi might say...from your mouth to God's ear.

[why me]

But it's interesting that there has bee far less overt anti-Mormonism manifest in Romney's campaign this time than last. It's as though anti-Mormonism, though it still may be widespread, is not as socially acceptable as it was four years ago.

I think that the media is very careful of intolerance because of one's faith. Also, the public reaction to such news stories would be negative. I think that 4 years ago the situation was different. This also may have something to do with the serious situation of the economy and the turmoil in people's lives because of it. To focus on the religion would be received as nonsensical when the other issues are extrememly important.

[Robert F. Smith]

The most interesting thing about this is that the growth rate peaked out around 1980, and has been slowly going down ever since. The growth of the internet--at least within the U.S., was like a bomb--as I recall, usage went from 6% in 1996 to 55% in 2000, and has remained almost flat ever since. That huge impact over the course of 4 years didn't make any impact on the slowing of the growth rate that started before and continued after.

I'd suggest the following issues:

1- "Pioneer stock" Mormons are having fewer kids. 30 years ago, it seamed that 5-10 kids per family was the norm; now it's in the 3-5 range.

2- Because of past missionary success, a greater percentage of Mormons are no longer "pioneer stock" Mormons, and have 2-4 kids based upon their non-Mormon culture.

3- Missionaries are a lot less successful on a per-missionary basis than they used to be.

4- I suspect there are greater inactivity rates. A greater percentage of Mormons are so inactive, although they are counted on the membership roles, they don't get their kids baptized.

Missionary productivity really started taking a big slide in the late 80's, when "The Missionary Guide" and those simplified pastel discussions came out. It was also the same general time period when the church took a "back to the basics" approach of correlated manuals and meetings, a renewed emphasis on the Book of Mormon, and interesting doctrine (e.g. "as man now is, God once was") was deemphasized. Frankly, I think the gospel message and church participation has become kind of boring because of those things, and I think that has a bigger effect on the strength of the church than the information age.

I do think it has to be harder to get new converts and retain members when they have so much information about church history available from easy-to-search-and-verify information that the Internet makes available in their homes. But there are bigger trends in play here.

Roger

Congratulations on your excellent predictive work. Good reality therapy, and the Brethren do pay attention to such stats.

I was sad to see Kevin Graham use the occasion for some blasphemy, and to ignore several trends which affect nearly all churches. As I pointed out on another thread at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56886-mormons-and-baptist-rule%E2%80%A6others-drool-the-data-is-in/page__p__1209089541__hl__+mormons%20+and%20+baptists%20+rule__fromsearch__1#entry1209089541, the evangelicals (which Xander-Graham touts) are likewise now suffering significant decline in growth rate -- something which mainstream christianity has been experiencing for generations.

In Europe, for example, LDS convert baptisms are nearly always to be found in the immigrant population, and the Church has greatly reduced the number of missions and the number of missionaries there, shifting to other countries where rates of interest are much higher. This is due to a general lack of interest in religion in general in Europe, which is a huge problem for the official Lutheran and Catholic churches. The decline is based on increasing secularism and skepticism of religion generally, rather on any particular focus on the Mormon Church.

As for the internet (so highly touted by Xander-Graham), as you point out, increased information there is certainly not the reason for any decline in LDS growth rates. Indeed, it can be argued (and has) that the internet is an excellent resource for the worldwide LDS missionary effort -- with large numbers of missionaries now using Skype to give lessons online, leaving it to local missionaries to do the actual baptisms -- and LDS websites have taken the effort in new directions, with their "I am a Mormon" videos, etc. Temple work and genealogy have also been streamlined courtesy of the computer, i.e., missionary work beyond the veil is speeding up exponentially.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Analytics]

Got any stock tips?

Buy low and sell high? Lol. The stock market is a lot tougher, because the people who make predictions about it have a huge influence on how it unfolds, so to get a good deal, you have to somehow be smarter than they are as a collective. To a large extent they are a bunch of lemmings so I think it's possible, but it's tough. Here is a portfolio to consider:

cash (30%)

AAPL

DDAIF

DTV

INTC

MAT

MRK

VOD

[Analytics]

Roger Congratulations on your excellent predictive work. Good reality therapy, and the Brethren do pay attention to such stats. I was sad to see Kevin Graham use the occasion for some blasphemy, and to ignore several trends which affect nearly all churches. As I pointed out on another thread, the evangelicals (which Xander-Graham touts) are likewise now suffering significant decline in growth rate -- something which mainstream christianity has been experiencing for generations. In Europe, for example, LDS convert baptisms are nearly always to be found in the immigrant population, and the Church has greatly reduced the number of missions and the number of missionaries there, shifting to other countries where rates of interest are much higher. This is due to a general lack of interest in religion in general in Europe, which is a huge problem for the official Lutheran and Catholic churches. The decline is based on increasing secularism and skepticism of religion generally, rather on any particular focus on the Mormon Church. As for the internet (so highly touted by Xander-Graham), as you point out, increased information there is certainly not the reason for any decline in LDS growth rates. Indeed, it can be argued (and has) that the internet is an excellent resource for the worldwide LDS missionary effort -- with large numbers of missionaries now using Skype to give lessons online, leaving it to local missionaries to do the actual baptisms -- and LDS websites have taken the effort in new directions, with their "I am a Mormon" videos, etc. Temple work and genealogy have also been streamlined courtesy of the computer, i.e., missionary work beyond the veil is speeding up exponentially.

Good points; thanks Robert. It's interesting to watch how the future unfolds.

[Analytics]

By all means, let's relitigate a ten-year-old discussion.

Not only do I have prophetic abilities to foresee the future, I have the power to resurrect dead threads.

Umm, Roger? I've read your paper. You know, the one you linked us to. On the website you so deceitfully mis-named "lds4u", remember?

Thanks for reading the paper.

Now that you've had the opportunity to vent your pet peeve about dishonest URL's, I think we've said almost all there is to say for this round.

The one thing that is missing, of course, is for you to try to score a point by referring to me as "Analytics" (with the scare-quotes). Or does calling me by my IRL name count for checking this one off your list of required Pahoronisms?

[Scott Lloyd]

Good for you.

Personally, I hope for the natural demise of: [snip]

Then it might properly be said that you oppose those thing, not merely disbelieve in them.

There is quite a difference.

[Tarski]

Then it might properly be said that you oppose those thing, not merely disbelieve in them.

There is quite a difference.

I oppose (at least implicitly) all organized efforts to promote belief in things that I don't believe are true.

I believe that the nontrivial supernatural beliefs of Mormonism are false and I am of the opinion that believing them doesn't on the whole help people or society.

OK? Why is that creepy?

Edited April 4, 2012 by Tarski

[wenglund]

Good for you.

Personally, I hope for the natural demise of:

creationism

communism (how rude of me!)

statism

islamism

biblical literalism

preistcraft and religious authoritarianism

Maybe you have few yourself? How about socialism? Maybe there are specific organization you would like to see disappear? Planned Parenthood? (personally I support it). ACORN?

Don't be a hipocrit now!

Without being pushy about what is at least in part just my opinion, I am also frankly looking forward to the possibility that we will say goodbye to current versions of

evangelicalism

Scientology

Mormonism (well at least that specific ossified corporate entity that sells itself door to door as the one true church)

I am perfectly fine if the good parts of the Mormon zeitgeist survive in some form.

But then it is not up to me nor should it be. Time will tell.

Long live intolerance of opposing view. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jskains]

I love Scientology. It's entertaining. Especially packed with entertainers.

JMS

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not only do I have prophetic abilities to foresee the future, I have the power to resurrect dead threads.

Ha, you do have a sense of humor.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Long live intolerance of opposing view. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know, to some extant I see what Tarski is saying. I would not view it as intolerance so much.

Now in that case of some people it certainly is intolerance. I am quite intolerant of communism. Not a fan.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Scott Lloyd]

You know, to some extant I see what Tarski is saying. I would not view it as intolerance so much.

Now in that case of some people it certainly is intolerance. I am quite intolerant of communism. Not a fan.

I still say there is a distinctive difference between opposing something and merely disbelieving in it.

I'm not an activist against Communism, but by sentiment alone, I oppose it.

Catholicism, on the other hand, is an example of something I disbelieve in but I do not oppose. I am indifferent toward it.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I oppose (at least implicitly) all organized efforts to promote belief in things that I don't believe are true.

I, on the other hand, disbelieve many things but don't oppose them. I regard them as harmless and am indifferent toward them.

I believe that the nontrivial supernatural beliefs of Mormonism are false and I am of the opinion that believing them doesn't on the whole help people or society.

OK? Why is that creepy?

Did I use the word "creepy"?

But it's never "OK" to oppose something that is true or good, however misguided one might be in doing so.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't say "mutilation". I said mutation as in "change". It has already changed. I just hope for a Mormonism with more truth added and superstition subtracted. Or it could just fade like many other old timey religions.

It occurs to me that "mutilation" might actually be the more appropriate term here.

Over the years, I've seen a number of commenters on these boards who, if they could, rather than destroy Mormonism would seek to alter it beyond any reasonable semblance of its unique identity. In the end, the effect is the same.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Jaybear]

I, on the other hand, disbelieve many things but don't oppose them. I regard them as harmless and am indifferent toward them.

Yet here you are openly opposing Tarski's belief that he "should oppose (at least implicitly) all organized efforts to promote belief in things that [he doesn't] believe are true."

[Scott Lloyd]

Yet here you are openly opposing Tarski's belief that he "should oppose (at least implicitly) all organized efforts to promote belief in things that [he doesn't] believe are true."

Well, yes, I don't deny that.

And I'm afraid I don't grasp your point here. Are you claiming some inconsistency? I don't see it.

Add on:

Upon reflection, I think it would be more accurate to say I disagree with Tarski's belief as you describe it above. I actually don't care about Tarski's opinion fervently enough to rise to the level of opposition to it.

Still wondering what point you are trying to make with this post,

Edited April 4, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I still say there is a distinctive difference between opposing something and merely disbelieving in it.

I'm not an activist against Communism, but by sentiment alone, I oppose it.

Catholicism, on the other hand, is an example of something I disbelieve in but I do not oppose it. I am indifferent toward it.

Well, you do have a point.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Still wondering what point you are trying to make with this post,

I am sure Jaybear is wonder the same thing.

(Runs and hides)

[Tarski]

Catholicism, on the other hand, is an example of something I disbelieve in but I do not oppose. I am indifferent toward it.

I am not indifferent for many reasons. In fact, overall, I am pretty unhappy with the influence of the Catholic church. I think they have historically had a negative influence on society with respect to many issues; from secrecy to science to contraception to sexuality to politics (support of the likes of Franco etc.) Run by a small group of totally unelected celebate old white men who use superstition and fear of hell as a method of maintaining power and influence especially over the poor and uneducated --and all this with the same divine authority as a walnut.

Oh and they get to do it all without paying taxes and while claiming persecution whenever someone questions this set up.

Did I mention the inquisition?

[Pahoran]

I am not indifferent for many reasons. In fact, overall, I am pretty unhappy with the influence of the Catholic church. I think they have historically had a negative influence on society with respect to many issues; from secrecy to science to contraception to sexuality to politics (support of the likes of Franco etc.) Run by a small group of totally unelected celebate old white men who use superstition and fear of hell as a method of maintaining power and influence especially over the poor and uneducated --and all this with the same divine authority as a walnut.

Oh and they get to do it all without paying taxes and while claiming persecution whenever someone questions this set up.

Did I mention the inquisition?

You know what? You're right.

In approximately sixteen centuries of near-total domination throughout Europe, the Catholic Church managed to do a tiny fraction of the harm carried out in a single generation by a little clique of atheist fanatics bent on bringing about a "radiant future" of "scientific" socialism.

And while historically ignorant people relying upon sound-bite summaries of a few events assume that the Catholic Church held back scientific progress, the reality remains that Christian Europe, in every century, led the world in scientific advances.

OTOH, your Tovarishchi were so "enlightened" that they used to lock religious believers up in mental institutions.

An atheist proselyting for scientism would do well not to start a game of "whose ideology did the most harm," because he will lose before he starts.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Eldwynn]

m.

And while historically ignorant people relying upon sound-bite summaries of a few events assume that the Catholic Church held back scientific progress, the reality remains that Christian Europe, in every century, led the world in scientific advances.

You're kidding right?

I find it hard to be critical of "mass atheists" doing bad things, because literally EVERYONE is an atheist in respect to some myth. can you say Muslims lack of belief in Odysseus was the major cause of 9/11?

Can you say a belief in Christianity was the major cause of the Crusades?

Edited April 4, 2012 by Eldwynn

[Pahoran]

You're kidding right?

Nope.

But if you think you know better, feel free to enlighten me.

Regards,

Pahoran