Us Protestants No Longer A Majority

[TAO]

I would argue that full-time missionaries of the traditional Christian variety provide greater effectiveness because they meet and live with people where they live, work and hurt.

Except that we do that too.

From teachers to medical staff to church planters these are people that invest their entire lives in missionary service and, thus, in the lifeblood of individuals and communities. A knock on a door and a few minutes of conversation from an earnest missionary, in my opinion, doesn't compare.

Perhaps you oughta take a look at it again. It certainly isn't just a knock on the door and a few minutes of conversation anymore.

Even more than that though; I find that those who stay in a country for years don't do as much misionary service quite as strongly as the missionaries do. Why? Because they have to get a job, and keep a job there. They often raise a family at the same time. It is pretty much the same as a regular-member in our church, although perhaps a bit more active (you've heard of the phrase "every member a missionary" I'm sure). Full-Time Missionaries have no such obligation, however; they are free to teach their full day. And they do the job well. I don't know if your missionaries are doing this, but my missionaries are always offering to provide service. It certainly isn't just a few minutes anymore.

Edited October 13, 2012 by TAO

[TAO]

Harfad, I think it could also be interpreted to mean that they think other people will stand up against it, thus, they don't say much, or something like that.

But that's just a guess. It's possible many are comfortable with it, or just that many don't hear about it enough to object to it.

Edited October 13, 2012 by TAO

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, I don't know what you are saying here. The number of non-LDS/Catholic/Orthodox Christian missionaries is greater than the number of LDS missionaries, so you must mean if the Evangelicals had the same percentage of their population as missionaries, but then the rest of your comment doesn't make sense. Do you really think there is less than 60,000 missionaries out of hundreds of millions of Evangelicals, let alone Pentecostals, or Protestants?

I really need to get out more. I didn't know they had missionaries like we have, that go door to door or proselyte the way ours do. Do they preach to Christians also? I just picture them going into countries that don't know anything about Jesus Christ. But I'm now aware I have a small world view apparently. Thank you. I've just never had an Evangelical show up at my door I guess. But I see what you're saying also. I need to phrase my posts better.

[3DOP]

I really need to get out more. I didn't know they had missionaries like we have, that go door to door or proselyte the way ours do. Do they preach to Christians also? I just picture them going into countries that don't know anything about Jesus Christ. But I'm now aware I have a small world view apparently. Thank you. I've just never had an Evangelical show up at my door I guess. But I see what you're saying also. I need to phrase my posts better.

Tacenda,

I would estimate conservatively that I knocked on 50 doors a week over a period of about twelve years as a Baptist. To my knoweldge, not one person who answered those 30,000 doors, became and continued to be a Baptist. I would suppose that somewhere, someone who I wouldn't even remember was influenced in that direction. But I don't know. We read in the book of Acts about going two by two and house to house. This was an effective means of Evangelism in the environment in which the early church found itself. I am not convinced that it is a productive way to reach the lost anymore. I commend those who continue to do it, because they have a good motive. They have in mind the important end. The end is to reach souls for the truth, and that is what we must take from the actions we see in the Book of Acts. We must retain their zeal for souls. But while the ends must always remain the same, the means might sometimes be prudently adjusted.

Do Christians in America in 2012 have an obligation to reach out to their neighbours. Absolutely. Does that mean we must knock the doors of their houses. I am not so sure. The long term ineffectiveness of such a method in our day and times seems to me to point to looking for other ways of manifesting our faith. I don't really want strangers knocking on my door. I am immediately dismayed if it is someone who wants me to buy their services or believe their religion. Maybe I am unusual? I do not think so. I suspect that an overwhelming proportion of Americans in 2012 feel the same way about knocks on their door.

It takes a lot of maturity and tact to be able to lovingly get a stranger to open their heart at the door. Often going two by two, I have heard some very stupid and tactless things uttered by my partners. Thankfully, I do not have recollection of the inanities my partners heard me utter. I believe that in our day and times, it is possible that a few of us, and I include myself in that number, could successfully engage strangers. I would tend to think that a better venue than the privacy of someone's home might be a park or other public place suitable to set up a place for speaking, inviting questions, and one on one conversation with those so inclined.

In our day, unlike the days of the Apostles, souls whose hearts are yearning and searching for God's truth aren't waiting in their houses for someone to ring the bell. There are many much better avenues to find out their options. Books, internet, and checking out churches, mosques, and synagogues would seem to have been less available as an option for the searcher in the first century in comparison with a 21st Century city dweller in the West. At this point, over twenty years since I knocked on my last door, I am no longer Baptist but Catholic. More than ever, I understand the urgency of the situation, the need to be salt with savor, my lamp burning, etc. But I have a clear conscience about the largely fruitless practice of cold calling door to door in modern America. It seems to me like it is a mistaken and antiquarian approach to Scripture where we think every practise represents an unchanging statute that must be continuously followed. I know that some practices are unchanging. What you call the ordinances are an instance. But other practices were useful for a particular day and time only. I believe missionaries in most churches use tactics that they think are proper to the place in which they labor.

Think how annoying it would be if every church sent people to knock on everybody else's door!

3DOP

Edited October 13, 2012 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

This made me laugh out loud. In other words, once we accept that Mormonism is the one true church, then we can have a discussion.

You're not very good at inter-religious dialogue, zerinus

Surprise surprise! He's equally effective at intra-religious dialogue as well. There's only one way- his. We don't need Papal infallibility, we have Zerinus.

[mfbukowski]

Zerinus is banned from the board for religion trashing. Get back on topic.

Wow.

Edited October 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...anada-19892837#

It proves that Protestantism (especially Evangelicalism) in the US is in decline; whereas Mormonism is on the rise.

According to the poll, the percentage of the U.S. that identifies as Mormon has remained level for the last 5 years. Our growth rate is therefore probably about the same as the overall population growth in the U.S.

What really caught my eye in this poll was the data about how religious affiliation drops off by age. 34% of Younger Millennials (those who are now 18-22) are unaffiliated, compared to 5% of the surviving Greatest Generation (older than 85). I'm 100% certain that the LDS Church has its own confidential statistics that bear out this trend in the form of retention of younger Mormons. And I think that is one of the biggest reasons for the recent change in the missionary age--to get the missionaries in the field young, so they won't have an opportunity to become "unaffiliated" during their first year of college. (At least the young men. Apparently, we are willing to sacrifice a certain number of young women during that critical year, at least for now.)

[Ahab]

I am a lurker here, and don't post very often, but I think that zerinus has a point. Imagine what would happen if a whole swathe of "Mormons" started publishing all kind of hateful stuff about other churches and religions on the Internet and in print, established hundreds of websites dedicated to that purpose alone, and sent out protesters and "street preachers" to the doorsteps of other churches denouncing them with hateful signs and posters etc, and did it all in the Name of "Mormonism;" what would the reaction of the rest of the Church be? What would the reactions of Church members be? What would the reactions of Church leadership be? Would they sit back and tolerate it? I don't think so. I think the Prophet would be the first to speak at General Conference and denounce such behaviors and declare that they do not speak for nor represent the LDS Church. I would go further, and say that such persons would be cautioned to desist from such activities; and if they didn't, they would be ultimately excommunicated from the Church. The fact that such activities take place on a large scale within the Evangelical movement and in their name; and (with a few rare exceptions) the Evangelical movement as a whole does not condemn nor disapprove of it, and their pastors, community leaders, and prominent academic and theological etc, don't condemn or voice their disapproval, that can only be understood to mean that they are OK with it. I don't see how else one can interpret that. I think that is the point that zerinus was making, and I can find no fault with it. I can see the logic of his argument.

Well, yeah, okay, in that context I can agree with that point. For some reason I thought he was referring to any time there is silence, in the little picture, instead of the big picture.

But, still, it's not like we have to go back and repeat what we have already said to everyone, generally, if someone in specific doesn't get it. We've already shared the gospel with the masses and if someone doesn't agree we can simply point them to the large body of work where we've already shared what we have to say and let each person learn and investigate on their own to see what we have said.

And yes, I know, there is or at least can be some benefit in taking someone under our wing to act as a sort of tutor for them, but we're really not supposed to get all bogged down with counseling our fellow man. Each one of us can learn directly from God for ourselves with no need for anyone to argue.

And yes, I know, arguing can be fun, sometimes, but then there are times when I'd just rather be quiet.

[harfad]

People have their own opinions, and entitled to express them. We do not have to silence people in order to disagree with them. That is intolerance, not disagreement.

[mfbukowski]

People have their own opinions, and entitled to express them. We do not have to silence people in order to disagree with them. That is intolerance, not disagreement.

Bless your pointy little head!

[Ahab]

People have their own opinions, and entitled to express them. We do not have to silence people in order to disagree with them. That is intolerance, not disagreement.

Um, need I remind you that some people equate silence with agreement, sometimes?

Sometimes silence doesn't really mean anything, either agreement or disagreement. That was my point.

[harfad]

Um, need I remind you that some people equate silence with agreement, sometimes?

I thought that was about voluntary silence. I was talking about enforced silence.

[Ahab]

I thought that was about voluntary silence. I was talking about enforced silence.

Oh, okay, although I'm not quite clear on how someone can make someone else be quiet if they don't agree to be quiet.

[harfad]

Oh, okay, although I'm not quite clear on how someone can make someone else be quiet if they don't agree to be quiet.

Why should they be quiet? People have things to say, and ought to be able to say it.

[Ahab]

Why should they be quiet? People have things to say, and ought to be able to say it.

Um, need I remind you that I'm talking about when people choose to be quiet?

When someone does, that doesn't mean someone should take that silence as agreement, or disagreement, though.

Bottom line: Anyone can choose to either be quiet or say something, and either doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Ahab

[Gervin]

Bottom line: Anyone can choose to either be quiet or say something, and either doesn't necessarily mean anything.

[harfad]

Um, need I remind you that I'm talking about when people choose to be quiet?

When someone does, that doesn't mean someone should take that silence as agreement, or disagreement, though.

Bottom line: Anyone can choose to either be quiet or say something, and either doesn't necessarily mean anything.

You are changing subjects to many times. I can't keep up with that.

[Ahab]

Thank you for the example.

[Ahab]

You are changing subjects to many times. I can't keep up with that.

Oh, I think you probably could if you wanted to. Shall we go through all this again, one more time?

[harfad]

Oh, I think you probably could if you wanted to. Shall we go through all this again, one more time?

OK, let's start from the beginning, without changing subjects. What is your question?

[mfbukowski]

So now we're arguing about whether or not to argue.

That's real progress!

[harfad]

Thank you mfb, I like your sense of humor. I think some folks here haven't quite figured what to make of me yet. That must be the explanation for their confusing responses.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Are Mormons not Protestant?

According to us...

[mfbukowski]

Thank you mfb, I like your sense of humor. I think some folks here haven't quite figured what to make of me yet. That must be the explanation for their confusing responses.

Well then we are alike in at least one way. I think no one quite knows what to make of me either.

Edited October 22, 2012 by mfbukowski