In Retrospect, Was The Raising Of The Bar A Good Thing?

[Cobalt-70]

Agreed that demanding churches have better survival and thriving value, but don't agree that SDA and JW are more effective than we are "in proselyting and retaining members." Any CFRs that people (not just you, Cobalt) can kick in here would be appreciated.

Matt Martinich has done a lot of work making this comparison worldwide: http://www.cumorah.c...d=497&cat_id=30 ("The percentage increase in the number of Adventist and Witness congregations has dramatically outpaced growth rates for the LDS Church in nearly every nation where all three denominations operate."); http://mormonstories...rah-foundation/

With regard to SDA vs. LDS growth in the U.S. specifically, see http://usatoday30.us...sts_17_ST_N.htm

Here is a Salt Lake Tribune article relating specifically to growth in the U.S.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[MiserereNobis]

So we can determine if we are all on the same page, would give us a concise summary of what you understand the doctrine in the King Follet discourse to be?

Ok, I am specifically referring to the idea that God was once a human and that we have the chance to become gods and create our own worlds.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok, I am specifically referring to the idea that God was once a human and that we have the chance to become gods and create our own worlds.

Here is the full text of the King Follet sermon. Will you quote the specific passages from it that support your understanding of the doctrine it contains?

[cinepro]

So we can determine if we are all on the same page, would you give us a concise summary of what you understand the doctrine in the King Follet discourse to be?

Trick question! The King Follet discourse isn't doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

Trick question! The King Follet discourse isn't doctrine.

Not at all.

I'm just trying to establish a frame of reference here.

[Cobalt-70]

I'm not sure how that affects new LDS members, but I will chime in and say that, from an outsider's perspective, it does appear that the LDS church, or at least its members, have not, as you say, taken ownership of the past. I advocate for all of you a full embrace of your history and beliefs, especially those that appear strange to outsiders. By dodging or downplaying you are only playing into your critics hands.

As far as doctrine is concerned, I think the King Follet Discourse is the prime example. Almost every Mormon I've talked to about it believes it personally and it appears to be deeply ingrained in the Mormon mind, yet many people (this board has loads of examples of this) when confronted with the huge disconnect of the doctrine with Christianity disavow it as not being doctrinal or as only being speculation. To an outsider, this seems like wiggling out of a loophole, since, as I said before, most Mormons believe it. It also makes it appear as if Mormons are somehow embarrassed of the doctrine to outsiders, while openly accepting it with insiders. And again, this plays right into your critics hands, especially to their claim that you hide things from potential converts.

I can tell you as a lifelong Mormon, with probably just about the most conventional of Mormon upbringings, this professed denial or questioning of Joseph Smith's later Nauvoo theology is a very new thing. This theology used to be brought up in church all the time, and it was taught in LDS Seminary and at BYU.

I happen to really like the innovativeness of this theology, and am by no means embarrassed about it. But maybe it is on its way out. I could see the following progression occurring:

1. Mormons believe the Nauvoo theology but don't openly discuss it with outsiders (20th century).

2. Mormons believe the Nauvoo theology but claim that it is speculative, and that we "don't really know."

3. Mormons truly don't know, and are agnostic about the Nauvoo theology.

4. Most Mormons disbelieve the Nauvoo theology, but nobody takes church discipline against those who still teach it.

5. The LDS Church takes disciplinary action against people who openly teach Joseph Smith's Nauvoo theology (i.e., it becomes heresy.)

Basically this same progression happened with the Adam-God theology, so why not Joseph Smith's Nauvoo theology? Personally, I think it would be a waste. I think there is room in Mormonism for several different theological frameworks. It would be much easier if we simply declined to adopt any theology. In that case, we could teach new converts that most Mormons believe that God was once a man, and that we can all literally become gods and create our own worlds. But we can also say that Trinitarianism is a historically-accepted part of Mormonism as well, and that it will be up to the new convert herself to define her relationship with God, be he a white-bearded old man walking among Greek columns, or be he three persons within a single transcendent being beyond space and time that created the universe ex nihilo.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[MiserereNobis]

I can tell you as a lifelong Mormon, with probably just about the most conventional of Mormon upbringings, this professed denial or questioning of Joseph Smith's later Nauvoo theology is a very new thing. This theology used to be brought up in church all the time, and it was taught in LDS Seminary and at BYU.

Why do you think the change is happening?

[MiserereNobis]

Here is the full text of the King Follet sermon. Will you quote the specific passages from it that support your understanding of the doctrine it contains?

Ok, instead of getting super technical with specific passages (that wasn't the point), let's just call it the later Nauvoo theology. Cobalt-70 seems to know what I am talking about.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok, instead of getting super technical with specific passages (that wasn't the point), let's just call it the later Nauvoo theology. Cobalt-70 seems to know what I am talking about.

I find the term "Nauvoo theology" much too broad. For example, the bulk of the temple ordinances -- baptism for the dead, the endowment, sealings of spouses and children -- were not revealed until the Nauvoo period.

I would like our discussion to be as specific as possible so as to avoid misunderstanding, and I want to separate authoritative teaching from folklore. Do you object to that?

And the King Follet sermons is as good a source document as any.

We could take this to another thread so as not to derail this one, if you like.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

I can tell you as a lifelong Mormon, with probably just about the most conventional of Mormon upbringings, this professed denial or questioning of Joseph Smith's later Nauvoo theology is a very new thing. This theology used to be brought up in church all the time, and it was taught in LDS Seminary and at BYU.

I happen to really like the innovativeness of this theology, and am by no means embarrassed about it. But maybe it is on its way out. I could see the following progression occurring:

1. Mormons believe the Nauvoo theology but don't openly discuss it with outsiders (20th century).

2. Mormons believe the Nauvoo theology but claim that it is speculative, and that we "don't really know."

3. Mormons truly don't know, and are agnostic about the Nauvoo theology.

4. Most Mormons disbelieve the Nauvoo theology, but nobody takes church discipline against those who still teach it.

5. The LDS Church takes disciplinary action against people who openly teach Joseph Smith's Nauvoo theology (i.e., it becomes heresy.)

Basically this same progression happened with the Adam-God theology, so why not Joseph Smith's Nauvoo theology? Personally, I think it would be a waste. I think there is room in Mormonism for several different theological frameworks. It would be much easier if we simply declined to adopt any theology. In that case, we could teach new converts that most Mormons believe that God was once a man, and that we can all literally become gods and create our own worlds. But we can also say that Trinitarianism is a historically-accepted part of Mormonism as well, and that it will be up to the new convert herself to define her relationship with God, be he a white-bearded old man walking among Greek columns, or be he three persons within a single transcendent being beyond space and time that created the universe ex nihilo.

if you polled a hundred random Mormons I would be extremely surprised if you found 1 who has heard the term "Nauvoo Theology" I think most would not seperate the church theology into places it was revealed, is my guess

[Scott Lloyd]

Matt Martinich has done a lot of work making this comparison worldwide: http://www.cumorah.c...d=497&cat_id=30 ("The percentage increase in the number of Adventist and Witness congregations has dramatically outpaced growth rates for the LDS Church in nearly every nation where all three denominations operate."); http://mormonstories...rah-foundation/

With regard to SDA vs. LDS growth in the U.S. specifically, see http://usatoday30.us...sts_17_ST_N.htm

Here is a Salt Lake Tribune article relating specifically to growth in the U.S.

I see information here about growth but not about retention. I've only scanned the links; perhaps I'm missing something.

[Scott Lloyd]

if you polled a hundred random Mormons I would be extremely surprised if you found 1 who has heard the term "Nauvoo Theology" I think most would not seperate the church theology into places it was revealed, is my guess

I agree.

As I pointed out, the bulk of the temple ordinances as we know them today were unfolded in Nauvoo. Is Cobalt predicting the future demise of the temple ordinances?

[cinepro]

Not at all.

I'm just trying to establish a frame of reference here.

Sorry. I was just skipping straight to the end of the conversation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry. I was just skipping straight to the end of the conversation.

Semantic quibbling about what constitutes doctrine is not my intent.

[Judd]

I can state the following as fact, as my companion and I helped transition in a new mission president in Phoenix and he showed us the videos from the mission presidents' seminar.

President Monson told mission presidents to try and keep missionaries in their areas for at least 9 months. The longer an effective, obedient missionary was in an area the higher the retention rate, the more converts were baptized and the more trust the ward gained with missionaries.

My two most effective areas on the mission were my first and second-to-last where I spent 7 1/2 months in each. I knew the members well, I knew the area geographically and demographically, I had a good relationship with the recent converts.

Our mission started shifting to longer areas. There were some sisters and elders that were in their areas for up to 13-14 months and those were some of the best in the mission.

9 months? Yikes. Glad I went when I did. My longest area was 7.5 and even still when I look back, that was the only place I didn't like, but there were also some other reasons. Served in one for 6 weeks and then the rest I was there for 3 transfers each.

[mapman]

The best analysis I've seen about raising the bar is here (the whole website is wonderful):

The 2011 increase in the number of missionaries serving indicates some recent success in the Church reversing the decade-long trend of stagnant numbers of members serving missions worldwide. Consistent increases in the number of members serving missions and the maintenance of reasonably high standards for missionary service will be requisite for the Church to make greater proselytism inroads through the use of a professional full-time missionary force. Continued emphasis on earlier missionary preparation and focus on learning and teaching gospel principles instead of meeting quotas and numerical goals will be required to increase both quality and quantity of worldwide missionary manpower. Significant progress will especially require greater numbers of members serving missions from outside the United States where most Latter-day Saints reside, receptivity is higher, and opportunities to expand outreach into unreached areas abound. The construction and maintenance of additional MTCs may spark greater growth as church leaders focus on achieving self-sufficiency in staffing missions principally from native members. Augmenting the full-time missionary force especially in Africa, Oceania, and Latin America has great potential to accelerate growth, provide additional church leadership from larger numbers of returned missionaries, and expand outreach into countless areas with no LDS presence.

[Cobalt-70]

I find the term "Nauvoo theology" much too broad. For example, the bulk of the temple ordinances -- baptism for the dead, the endowment, sealings of spouses and children -- were not revealed until the Nauvoo period.

I would like our discussion to be as specific as possible so as to avoid misunderstanding, and I want to separate authoritative teaching from folklore. Do you object to that?

And the King Follet sermons is as good a source document as any.

We could take this to another thread so as not to derail this one, if you like.

I was referring to theology proper, which would not include things like the Endowment, sealings, etc. Nauvoo theology would include Joseph Smith's teachings about there being three distinct beings in the Godhead, Heavenly Mother (which I ascribe to Smith based on the statements of Eliza Snow), God was once and still is a man, exaltation consists of literally becoming Gods and reigning on thrones, that there were multiple creator gods including Michael, that humans are coeternal with God, and the idea that God is different from humans only as a matter of degree.

Of the above doctrines, I think that the LDS commitment will differ, depending on the doctrine. For example, we have a stronger commitment to the idea that humans will become Gods, because this is just an extreme version of the idea of theosis, which has traditional Christian roots. It seems that the doctrine that God was once a man is already starting to weaken, however. The idea that we are coeternal with God was abandoned a long time ago, thanks to Brigham Young. We all believe in "spirit babies" now, which is the only surviving remnant from Adam-God.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Why do you think the change is happening?

Because of the internet. It used to be that the only people who knew about this theology were those who had some access to anti-Mormon propaganda, which was usually in written form or in the form of the God Makers video. Now, there is no use hiding it. The only way out for those who are embarrassed by this theology is to claim that it is merely speculative, and not really LDS doctrine. So the most recent shift has been from (a) "it is the true doctrine, but not the doctrine we talk about," to (b) "we don't know whether or not it is the true doctrine, and it is useless to talk about it because it is just speculation."

[Scott Lloyd]

I was referring to theology proper, which would not include things like the Endowment, sealings, etc. Nauvoo theology would include Joseph Smith's teachings about there being three distinct beings in the Godhead, Heavenly Mother (which I ascribe to Smith based on the statements of Eliza Snow), God was once and still is a man, exaltation consists of literally becoming Gods and reigning on thrones, that there were multiple creator gods including Michael, that humans are coeternal with God, and the idea that God is different from humans only as a matter of degree.

OK, but that still seems to go quite a bit beyond was Miserere Nobis was initially referring to with his reference to the King Follet sermon and his subsequent response to my request for clarification. I'm trying to nail down what it is specifically he is talking about before addressing his criticism that Mormons dodge and downplay their doctrine. I thought that if he were to consult the text of the King Follet discourse, he could clarify, in his own mind perhaps, what it actually states as opposed to what has been said about it over the years.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Cobalt-70]

9 months? Yikes. Glad I went when I did. My longest area was 7.5 and even still when I look back, that was the only place I didn't like, but there were also some other reasons. Served in one for 6 weeks and then the rest I was there for 3 transfers each.

I don't think the difference between 3 months and 9 months is that great. You really need to be there for more than a year, or two years, because it takes that long, at least, for a new member to become acculturated.

[Scott Lloyd]

For example, we have a stronger commitment to the idea that humans will become Gods, because this is just an extreme version of the idea of theosis, which has traditional Christian roots. It seems that the doctrine that God was once a man is already starting to weaken, however.

I don't perceive a weakening of it so much as an honest acknowledgment that, as President Hinckley phrased it, we don't know a lot about it.

Nor do I see the creeping disavowal of the other things on your list.

The idea that we are coeternal with God was abandoned a long time ago, thanks to Brigham Young.

It depends on what meaning you attach to it, I suppose, but I can't agree with this statement as you have expressed it here. That is, I believe that individuals have always existed in one form or another, and that, in my view, makes them co-eternal with God. I don't perceive an abandoning of this belief.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Cobalt-70]

I see information here about growth but not about retention. I've only scanned the links; perhaps I'm missing something.

If you are just looking at retention, then the SDA and JW advantage is even more stunning, because of the difference in how membership is defined. The LDS Church counts everybody that is baptized. The SDA and JW only count active members in their growth statistics. As I understand it, JWs, in particular, only count people who have been attending bible study for a year and are actively going out "witnessing." So for the SDA and JW, by the time they count as a member, they are already "retained."

The JWs do, however, have trouble retaining their youth. The number I've seen is about 37%, which is quite a bit lower than the LDS figure of around 60%. (That number used to be 90% in the 1970s.) The LDS youth programs are hard to beat, but every church is hemorrhaging youth these days. I'm sure that part of the thinking that went into lowering the mission age had to do with retaining youth.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Scott Lloyd]

If you are just looking at retention, then the SDA and JW advantage is even more stunning, because of the difference in how membership is defined. The LDS Church counts everybody that is baptized. The SDA and JW only count active members in their growth statistics. As I understand it, JWs, in particular, only count people who have been attending bible study for a year and are actively going out "witnessing." So for the SDA and JW, by the time they count as a member, they are already "retained."

But doesn't that cook the books in their favor?

If the Church only counted active members as growth, it seems to me our retention figures would look a lot better as well.

[rongo]

76% knowable (still residing in stake) retention over past 3 years, with current YTD baptisms (end of Sept) being 47, with last 3 years end-of-year being respectively 56, 62, and 68.

David, what do you attribute this to? You mentioned that your stake president doesn't like programs.

What region are you located in (state, if you don't mind)?

Thanks!

[Cobalt-70]

But doesn't that cook the books in their favor?

If the Church only counted active members as growth, it seems to me our retention figures would look a lot better as well.

Not really, because in the LDS Church, we consider someone to be a "convert" as soon as they get baptized and confirmed, even if the next day they convert to Catholicism and never see the inside of an LDS chapel again. And we continue to count them as members until they are 110 years old. It's more like we are cooking the books. The JWs and SDAs don't consider a person to be a "convert" until they have shown themselves to be actively involved in the religion. But until they reach that point of being counted, there is nothing to "retain." They are still just investigating the religion.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Cobalt-70