The Pending Collapse Of Lds Membership

[Coreyb]

Nah, that would be too easy

Then please, condescend to that thread and enlighten us

[JLHPROF]

Nah, that would be too easy

 

Then please, condescend to that thread and enlighten us

 

I'm impressed a 20 year old Church member has even heard of Adam-God.

Ferdinand, Love the avatar btw...although I'm much too old to know who that is...

[Ferdinand55]

Then please, condescend to that thread and enlighten us

Haha No, I meant it would (apparently) be too easy for lvjd66, not for me. It would be very difficult for me. It's not a topic I am particularly interested in, or well informed.  

 

 

I'm impressed a 20 year old Church member has even heard of Adam-God.

Ferdinand, Love the avatar btw...although I'm much too old to know who that is...

There probably aren't many my age who know who it is, so your not alone...

[mormonnewb]

I have come to the conclusion that the LDS faith at some point in the next 20 years is going to see its attendance, retention and conversion numbers drop in a large way in developed countries. The Church cannot change God's word to appease a growing and angry majority. I also think many are married (no pun intended) to their ideologies on this topic and when they see the writing on the wall (that the Church is not changing its stance on SSM) they will leave. 

 

Those of us who remain will be marginalized and vilified. 

 

Meanwhile the Church in developing countries will thrive and grow and its members will be strong and faithful leaders.

 

Let me ... for once ... play the optimist.  The Church will continue along like always, because like always, Church doctrine will "evolve" to make it palatable to societal standards.

 

I'm new around here, but it seems clear to me that the pattern is that we make changes when necessary.  And I know that there seems to be an aversion to making comparisons with past events (the unmitigated gall of trying to LEARN from history), but isn't this the pattern?  The Church declares that polygamy is the new AND EVERLASTING covenant.  The government says, "You will everlastingly go to jail and lose all your stuff!"  The Church says, "Well, on second thought, we'll everlast in the world to come, but for now, can we get out of jail and have our stuff back?"

 

And this is not to disparage those Church leaders.  As Pres. Woodruff noted in OD1, it was either capitulate or lose the restored Gospel on the earth.  We make changes to church practices to reflect political realities ALL the time (different mission rules, no one-year penalty box for marriage outside of the temple in Europe, etc.).  Why would this be any different?  If we were willing to fundamentally redefine our concept of marriage once, why wouldn't we be willing to make a relatively minor tweak in this case?  (After all, polygamy represented a far greater percentage of marriages than SSM ever will)

[mormonnewb]

Last I checked, we were supposed to be following someone else.

Rep standing ovation!

[Mystery Meat]

Haha No, I meant it would (apparently) be too easy for lvjd66, not for me. It would be very difficult for me. It's not a topic I am particularly interested in, or well informed.  

 

 

There probably aren't many my age who know who it is, so your not alone...

 

Samus. She is the bomb.

[Mystery Meat]

Rep standing ovation!

 

I love how people think when we follow the prophets and apostles we are somehow not loyal to the Savior, my Savior, Jesus Christ. Please remember we follow HIS prophets because he commanded us to in scripture.

[Mystery Meat]

Let me ... for once ... play the optimist.  The Church will continue along like always, because like always, Church doctrine will "evolve" to make it palatable to societal standards.

 

I'm new around here, but it seems clear to me that the pattern is that we make changes when necessary.  And I know that there seems to be an aversion to making comparisons with past events (the unmitigated gall of trying to LEARN from history), but isn't this the pattern?  The Church declares that polygamy is the new AND EVERLASTING covenant.  The government says, "You will everlastingly go to jail and lose all your stuff!"  The Church says, "Well, on second thought, we'll everlast in the world to come, but for now, can we get out of jail and have our stuff back?"

 

And this is not to disparage those Church leaders.  As Pres. Woodruff noted in OD1, it was either capitulate or lose the restored Gospel on the earth.  We make changes to church practices to reflect political realities ALL the time (different mission rules, no one-year penalty box for marriage outside of the temple in Europe, etc.).  Why would this be any different?  If we were willing to fundamentally redefine our concept of marriage once, why wouldn't we be willing to make a relatively minor tweak in this case?  (After all, polygamy represented a far greater percentage of marriages than SSM ever will)

 

Because none of those things resulted in a change in doctrine. Homosexuality is not comparable to fulfillment of prophecy that one day blacks would get the priesthood (even if that day came sooner than expected) or the suspension of polygamy. Additionally, to sum up the New and Everlasting Covenant as polygamy is a gross misunderstanding of the New and Everlasting covenant, but that is another conversation for another thread.

 

Frankly, I am not all that willing to debate this anymore. It is getting tired. People who have their tents pointed towards Babylon will be who they will and believe as they will. Suffice it to say, the Church will not change on this. If they do it is evidence of apostasy and falling away from the Lord's will, which also is something that will not happen. What is left, therefore, his for the members to decide whose side they are on.

[Coreyb]

Because none of those things resulted in a change in doctrine. Homosexuality is not comparable to fulfillment of prophecy that one day blacks would get the priesthood (even if that day came sooner than expected) or the suspension of polygamy. Additionally, to sum up the New and Everlasting Covenant as polygamy is a gross misunderstanding of the New and Everlasting covenant, but that is another conversation for another thread.

 

Frankly, I am not all that willing to debate this anymore. It is getting tired. People who have their tents pointed towards Babylon will be who they will and believe as they will. Suffice it to say, the Church will not change on this. If they do it is evidence of apostasy and falling away from the Lord's will, which also is something that will not happen. What is left, therefore, his for the members to decide whose side they are on.

You really believe that this church can never go into apostasy? Why not? Also, that's pretty brave to prophesy that the church CANNOT accept SSM because that WOULD be apostasy and that CANNOT happen?! That's pretty confident! Has this been specifically revealed to you?

[Mystery Meat]

You really believe that this church can never go into apostasy? Why not? Also, that's pretty brave to prophesy that the church CANNOT accept SSM because that WOULD be apostasy and that CANNOT happen?! That's pretty confident! Has this been specifically revealed to you?

 

Homosexuality is not the Lord's way as revealed in modern day scripture and throughout the Bible. Furthermore, a prophet of the Lord in this dispensation already said that the Lord would not allow the leaders of this Church to lead the Church into apostasy.

 

So yes, I guess you can say that has been revealed.

[mormonnewb]

You really believe that this church can never go into apostasy? Why not? Also, that's pretty brave to prophesy that the church CANNOT accept SSM because that WOULD be apostasy and that CANNOT happen?! That's pretty confident! Has this been specifically revealed to you?

 

It's interesting how those who are most strident that WE should follow the Prophet feel completely confident that THEY know the will of God and will determine when the Church is in apostasy.

[Coreyb]

Ok, so SSM would definitely be apostasy, but systematized racism wasn't, even if it was wrong? Who are you to define apostasy?

Edited January 31, 2015 by Coreyb

[mormonnewb]

It's interesting how those who are most strident that WE should follow the Prophet feel completely confident that THEY know the will of God and will determine when the Church is in apostasy.

 

I know it's bad form to quote myself, but Mormonnewb just had this thought:

 

The only difference Team Church and Team Apostate is not an issue of faithfulness to Church leaders, but how faithful we feel that the Church leaders are to OUR perception of the Gospel.

 

This week alone, two of Team Church's superstars indicated that they would leave the Church if the Brethren ever allowed SSM.  As I see it, they are no more faithful to the Prophets than those of us who have concluded on our own that they are wrong in their current stance.  In both cases, we have INDEPENDENTLY determined what we think the will of God is on the matter and then we judge the prophets by how close they meet OUR views.  As a result, in neither case do we REALLY believe that the words of prophets are the same as the words of God.

 

Welcome to Team Apostate, lvjd66!

[sethpayne]

They don't.

 

Yes they do. President Uchtdorf was pretty clear on that.  As was the essay on the priesthood ban.

Edited January 31, 2015 by sethpayne

[mormonnewb]

Frankly, I am not all that willing to debate this anymore. It is getting tired.

 

You do realize that YOU started this thread less than 8 hours ago?  Did you expect that the complex issue of Church growth/retention was going to be resolved in your OP?

[Coreyb]

I know it's bad form to quote myself, but Mormonnewb just had this thought:

 

The only difference Team Church and Team Apostate is not an issue of faithfulness to Church leaders, but how faithful we feel that the Church leaders are to OUR perception of the Gospel.

 

This week alone, two of Team Church's superstars indicated that they would leave the Church if the Brethren ever allowed SSM.  As I see it, they are no more faithful to the Prophets than those of us who have concluded on our own that they are wrong in their current stance.  In both cases, we have INDEPENDENTLY determined what we think the will of God is on the matter and then we judge the prophets by how close they meet OUR views.  As a result, in neither case do we REALLY believe that the words of prophets are the same as the words of God.

 

Welcome to Team Apostate, lvjd66!

The problem for me would not be that SSM would be accepted (which will eventually happen IMO). I worry that it will just be a simple policy change without any revelation of further light on the subject. Just all pray and make it OD3, not explaining anything, no text for us to study and ponder. The seeming lack of revelation is my biggest concern

[mormonnewb]

The problem for me would not be that SSM would be accepted (which will eventually happen IMO). I worry that it will just be a simple policy change without any revelation of further light on the subject. Just all pray and make it OD3, not explaining anything, no text for us to study and ponder. The seeming lack of revelation is my biggest concern

 

I understand your point, but do we really need official "revelation"?  Church leaders make important decisions all the time without an official declaration and we don't seem to be bothered by it.

 

For example, I'd argue that the mission age changes are far more significant to the Church than the Proclamation of the Family.  Lowering the mission age and allowing young men to go on a mission right out of high school will have a much bigger impact on church retention than the Proclamation.  In sheer numbers, it probably will have a bigger effect than OD2.

 

And I predict that lowering the mission age for women will fundamentally alter the Church (and the priesthood itself).  In short, as women become as integral in the mission field as men, it will be even harder for the Church to justify not ordaining them.  Moreover, their increased participation will create a greater sense of "entitlement" to the priesthood.

 

If I'm right (it's happened once or twice ... well, at least, once), the missionary age change will be HUGE and no one will claim that it was invalid because it didn't come through "revelation."  So why the need for revelation in making the change in re SSM?  Isn't HF putting the right people in leadership enough involvement?  We don't need Him to whisper every direction into their ears?  After all, they are prophets of God, not 5 year-olds at F&T meeting (sorry, I couldn't help myself on that one).

[The Nehor]

Ok, so SSM would definitely be apostasy, but systematized racism wasn't, even if it was wrong? Who are you to define apostasy?

It would not be apostasy. God can change the rules. He has done it before and can do it again. I personally do not think God will on this point but if he does I will follow along.

Who know? It woman go in a stranger direction. God could also announce that homosexual relations do not fall under the law of chastity and those so inclined may indulge recreationally but eternal marriage stays the same. He could institute polyandry and require men to accept brother husbands. He could restore arranged marriages by parents and require it be done in the child's 16th year. He could Give the Priesthood to women but only blue-eyed women.

If any of these crazy scenarios happened I would hope for an explanation and ask God for one but he is under no obligation to give one.

[mormonnewb]

It would not be apostasy. God can change the rules. He has done it before and can do it again. I personally do not think God will on this point but if he does I will follow along.

Who know? It woman go in a stranger direction. God could also announce that homosexual relations do not fall under the law of chastity and those so inclined may indulge recreationally but eternal marriage stays the same. He could institute polyandry and require men to accept brother husbands. He could restore arranged marriages by parents and require it be done in the child's 16th year. He could Give the Priesthood to women but only blue-eyed women.

If any of these crazy scenarios happened I would hope for an explanation and ask God for one but he is under no obligation to give one.

 

Take note, lvjd66!  THIS is a faithful perspective.  Nehor is willing to follow HF's commandments (as explained through the mouths of the prophets) regardless of whether they make sense to him.  He has FAITH that he can trust the prophets to accurately reflect HF's will and if it doesn't make sense to him, then it must be because he lacks understanding.

 

Now that I think about it, I'm going to have to do a new fantasy apostate draft because I just realized that the apostate ranks are quite a bit more crowded than I first thought.  In fact, I'm starting to think that I'm actually a member of Team Church.

 

Now, don't get me wrong.  Like many of the so-called "faithful," I am just as apt to judge the prophets by how closely they match up to MY view of the Gospel.  However, unlike some of the most "faithful," I am willing to stay in the Church and sustain them as my leaders, even when I think they are wrong.  To date, I haven't declared that the Church is in "apostasy" just because the Prophet has not come to MY view of the Gospel.

 

Go, Team Church!

[Mystery Meat]

Take note, lvjd66!  THIS is a faithful perspective.  Nehor is willing to follow HF's commandments (as explained through the mouths of the prophets) regardless of whether they make sense to him.  He has FAITH that he can trust the prophets to accurately reflect HF's will and if it doesn't make sense to him, then it must be because he lacks understanding.

 

Now that I think about it, I'm going to have to do a new fantasy apostate draft because I just realized that the apostate ranks are quite a bit more crowded than I first thought.  In fact, I'm starting to think that I'm actually a member of Team Church.

 

Now, don't get me wrong.  Like many of the so-called "faithful," I am just as apt to judge the prophets by how closely they match up to MY view of the Gospel.  However, unlike some of the most "faithful," I am willing to stay in the Church and sustain them as my leaders, even when I think they are wrong.  To date, I haven't declared that the Church is in "apostasy" just because the Prophet has not come to MY view of the Gospel.

 

Go, Team Church!

 

Where you have me wrong, is that my saying I would leave is strictly academic. I think it is more likely that Luke Skywalker will come to earth tomorrow and tell us about his prophet, George Lucas, taught us important truths, and call me to be Jedi Knight, than the Brethern deciding that homosexuality is part of God's plan.

Edited January 31, 2015 by lvjd66

[Stargazer]

I have come to the conclusion that the LDS faith at some point in the next 20 years is going to see its attendance, retention and conversion numbers drop in a large way in developed countries. The Church cannot change God's word to appease a growing and angry majority. I also think many are married (no pun intended) to their ideologies on this topic and when they see the writing on the wall (that the Church is not changing its stance on SSM) they will leave.

I hope they don't let the screen door injure them on their way out.

Those of us who remain will be marginalized and vilified.

We've been there and done that. The T-Shirt is folded neatly in the drawer.

Meanwhile the Church in developing countries will thrive and grow and its members will be strong and faithful leaders.

OK, that's fine, and it's the pattern from the Book of Mormon, where the Church became strongest among the Lamanites at one time. And then the Lord came.

[Mystery Meat]

Ok, so SSM would definitely be apostasy, but systematized racism wasn't, even if it was wrong? Who are you to define apostasy?

 

I think this post deserves a response.

 

I am a nobody, who wouldn't dream to define it. But President Harold B. Lee could.

 

He said:"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer and revelator­ . . . you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them "standard" -- it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it."

 

The scriptures are clear on homosexuality. Abraham, Moses, and Paul have all condemned its practice. Using a modern day prophet's words, then, there is no way a man can undue the scriptural precedent.

 

What would be more apostate than defiling the Lord's Holy House with an abomination? Mixing a sacred ordinance with a perversion?

 

"The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant."

 

This is apostasy. This is what would be required to accept homosexuality within the Church. It contradicts scripture. It contradicts modern day prophets. Most importantly it contradicts God's law and his ordinance.

Edited January 31, 2015 by lvjd66

[readstoomuch]

I find this thread to be quite interesting. It is so refreshing to enjoy reading Mormonnewb, Rockpond, Coreyb and others. I find them giving me hope about the future. I don't agree with every thing they are saying, but thank you.

Then I just find ljvd66 dogmatic. You don't have the right to dictate some of the things you are pushing. Please stop judging.

[why me]

I have heard modern day Apostles say virtually the same thing. They don't believe many of us actually have testimonies. My participation on this board tends to lead me to the same conclusion.

You may be correct about this. I have the same feeling. The board has changed over the years. Insteand of debating critics we are debating members. If this board was a mirror into the church, the church would be in big trouble. It is disheartening to see active members disparage church leaders etc. Back in the day, I came to this board because of what I read on the internet and what the critics were saying. The board gave me a better understanding of what was being said. But now, it would only cause more confusion and misunderstanding. And I think that this is the problem today on this board: the main critics are active members  Times change which is okay with me but it does make me wonder just what members who come here for help by lurking must think when they read the posts. It would be interesting to research this.

 

Testimonies are indeed weak today. When I listen to testimonies now, I think weakness and not strength because of what I see on this board and lds blogs etc.

Edited January 31, 2015 by why me

[why me]

I find this thread to be quite interesting. It is so refreshing to enjoy reading Mormonnewb, Rockpond, Coreyb and others. I find them giving me hope about the future. I don't agree with every thing they are saying, but thank you.

Then I just find ljvd66 dogmatic. You don't have the right to dictate some of the things you are pushing. Please stop judging.

You don't find the posters you listed above to be judging? We all judge on this board. It is just a question of agreeing or disagreeing with a judgement. When we disagree we exclaim don't judge. When we agree with the judgement we can be silent about the judgement.

 

Did you not just judge the poster you mentioned?