stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 That's already being spearheaded in 3 missions (including here in Dallas)with some good success. Rather than knocking on doors, our missionaries are out in the community doing service projects (food banks, hospitals, nursing homes, community projects, etc) Baptisms have actually gone up. -- see www.justserve.org If true, then the Church should move to change missions completely to the above description. Immediately.
rongo Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 In my experience, the retention rate from "service converts" isn't very good. Then again, it's not very good, anyway. But it seems to me to be even worse than people found through traditional tracting (where the intent and end goals are open and obvious).
DJBrown Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 On another thread: Whether we agree with this list or not (my opinions in red above ) there can be little doubt that just as the Church from 1950 was different from today and the Church from 1900 was different from that and the Church from 1850 was different from that and the Church from 1835 was different from that, so too will the Church of 2050 be different from today. What significant changes (and there will be significant changes, I guarantee it) do you anticipate seeing? To the list above I will add the following:1. Women will be ordained. I don't see how this will be avoided - our current view is as unsustainable in society as the priesthood ban would have been.2. The garment will be eliminated or the whole teaching/usage will be reworked.3. Book of Abraham will be given a new official origin explanation, but remain scripture.4. Young women missions will be the same length as the young men.5. Further changes to the endowment. Come on, speculation is fun... 1950 to 2014- no changes have occurred in doctrine that would come close to 1 or 2 above. Blacks receiving the priesthood really doesn't qualify since it was the belief that it was only a matter of time before they would receive the Priesthood. #3- The church hasn't taken any position on the origin of the Book of Abraham other than believing the things Joseph said about its origin. And that leaves a lot of interpretation and opinion on the details. I see no reason for the church needing to change anything about its current position on the BOA.
JLHPROF Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) What you might call major I may call minor. I can only think of two or three significant changes that have occurred in the past 100 years and they are not changes regarding eternal truths but church practice. 1950 to 2014- no changes have occurred in doctrine that would come close to 1 or 2 above. That is a complete matter of opinion. There have been numerous major changes to the doctrines of the Church.Churchwide Christ wasn't even considered the God of the OT (Jehovah/Lord God etc) until well into the 20th century. Earliest hints at it weren't even until 1871, 41 years into the Church's history. And don't get me started on changes to temple, garments, eternal progression, consecration, plural marriage. NONE of these are minor. So yes, I can forsee female ordination, elimination of the garment, and other changes. Similar changes have happened before. Edited February 18, 2015 by JLHPROF
california boy Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 1950 to 2014- no changes have occurred in doctrine that would come close to 1 or 2 above. Blacks receiving the priesthood really doesn't qualify since it was the belief that it was only a matter of time before they would receive the Priesthood. #3- The church hasn't taken any position on the origin of the Book of Abraham other than believing the things Joseph said about its origin. And that leaves a lot of interpretation and opinion on the details. I see no reason for the church needing to change anything about its current position on the BOA. The doctrine was that the blacks would receive the priesthood after all the rest of the sons of Adam had their chance first. Saying that they would hold the priesthood sometime in the future was a big change in doctrine. Joseph claimed that the papyrus was written by father Abraham himself, and he translated it by the power of God. That doctrine seems to have been totally thrown out. Is anyone still claiming that father Abraham actually wrote the papyrus? Seems to me these were both pretty big changes. Some other big changes for me, but evidently had just not been publicly talked about a lot. Joseph didn't really use the golden plates to translate the Book of Mormon, but rather a peep stone he put in a hat. Joseph married other husbands wives, as well as a 14 year old girl. The indians aren't Lamanites, only a tiny few are. Is that now the official doctrine? Not sure, but a huge change if it is.
ksfisher Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I can forsee...elimination of the garment Why, what purpose would this serve?
JLHPROF Posted February 19, 2015 Author Posted February 19, 2015 Why, what purpose would this serve? Because many members apparently find them an irritating tradition and unnecessary to remind them of their covenants. They are also sometimes considered nothing but symbolic reminders, and therefore a benefit but not a requirement. And someone on this board has posted in the past that the idea of eliminating them was floated by the GA's at one point some years back.
ksfisher Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 They are also sometimes considered nothing but symbolic reminders Just like the sacrament (I realize I'm pulling your quote out of context)
KevinG Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Daytime tracting was completely useless when I was in Chicago. I counted 26 doors we knocked on before someone even answered. Many of them probably were not even home.My wife was trackted out during the day in the Chicago suburbs. For that I am grateful. Edited February 19, 2015 by KevinG
rongo Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 And someone on this board has posted in the past that the idea of eliminating them was floated by the GA's at one point some years back.Can someone CFR that? I would be very interested (and saddened) if this can be verified.
rongo Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 My wife was trackted out during the day in the Chicago suburbs. For that I am grateful.That's my whole point with tracting. While inefficient from some points of view, there are simply people found through that who would not have been found any other way. When missionaries have no appointments, they can talk to people in public or knock on doors, and that's *something*, even if nobody answers or is interested. They are seen doing missionary *work* (in my city, many non-members call them the "Schwinn twins"). And, in my experience, retention rate is better among people who willingly invite them in as strangers than it is for other "easier" finding methods (although the retention rate in general, overall, is not good). Speaking of Chicago (where I went to high school and left on my mission from), when I got back, I went out with the missionaries. When their appointment and other options fell out, they were frustrated and flustered (this was in 1996). I suggested that we knock on some doors, and we were let in on the second door. The woman accepted a Book of Mormon, and we made a return appointment (she said that she was pressed for time). They were really energized with their own real-life "from the trenches" tracting experience. I told them that you don't always get in on the second door (to say the least!), but you *do* get in fairly often if you do it. 2
Sleeper Cell Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Because many members apparently find them an irritating tradition and unnecessary to remind them of their covenants. They are also sometimes considered nothing but symbolic reminders, and therefore a benefit but not a requirement. And someone on this board has posted in the past that the idea of eliminating them was floated by the GA's at one point some years back. Speaking for myself, I need all the reminders of my covenants I can get. 1
JLHPROF Posted February 19, 2015 Author Posted February 19, 2015 Can someone CFR that? I would be very interested (and saddened) if this can be verified. Found the post - Devery S. Anderson's book The Development of LDS Temple Worship 1846-2000 A Docuentary History, on pg. xl of the introduction, has this:"According to a Church educator whose brother-in-law was in the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, the quorum once discussed doing away with garments altogether except when inside the temple. The idea originated with Apostle Melvin J. Ballard, according to the second-hand account, whose wife found the garments uncomfortable." (“Conversation with George T. Boyd, July 3, 1986,” Buerger Papers.) Melvin J. Ballard sounds like a real faith-filled leader. God forbid that his wife should find garments uncomfortable.
KevinG Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I have found that the in laws and siblings of LDS of church general authorities, as well as US Presidents, are pretty good sources to ignore.
rongo Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Found the post -Thanks! That makes me feel better. According to an anonymous "Church educator's brother-in law's" third-hand account of something Melvin J. Ballard said. I think that this would be much too dramatic of a change for most members. It would cause many to question whether there are any truths or ordinances that would never change due to sea changes in society and members' commitment. 1
JLHPROF Posted February 19, 2015 Author Posted February 19, 2015 Thanks! That makes me feel better. According to an anonymous "Church educator's brother-in law's" third-hand account of something Melvin J. Ballard said. I think that this would be much too dramatic of a change for most members. It would cause many to question whether there are any truths or ordinances that would never change due to sea changes in society and members' commitment. I have to disagree a bit. When you consider all the many changes already made to the garments and the temple endowment, I don't think the members would even bat an eye. The garment has already been changed due to changes in society. That was the main reason behind the changes in the 1920s. The endowment has likewise been changed drastically due to changes in society.However for both these major changes, the membership at large considers them merely administrative even though they have also altered the doctrines attached by these changes. Most members wouldn't make a peep if the garments were eliminated and the endowment cut out the initiatory all together.
ksfisher Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I have to disagree a bit. When you consider all the many changes already made to the garments and the temple endowment, I don't think the members would even bat an eye. The garment has already been changed due to changes in society. That was the main reason behind the changes in the 1920s. The endowment has likewise been changed drastically due to changes in society.However for both these major changes, the membership at large considers them merely administrative even though they have also altered the doctrines attached by these changes. Most members wouldn't make a peep if the garments were eliminated and the endowment cut out the initiatory all together. I strongly disagree with your disagreement. I feel that most members who regularly attend the temple and participate in all the ordinances available in the temple would do a lot more than "bat an eye" if the garment or the initiatory ordinance were eliminated. Many "peeps" would be made if these were done away with. Personally, I find the initiatory highly instructive and that if fits in with the totality of what is being taught in the temple. 3
JLHPROF Posted February 19, 2015 Author Posted February 19, 2015 I strongly disagree with your disagreement. I feel that most members who regularly attend the temple and participate in all the ordinances available in the temple would do a lot more than "bat an eye" if the garment or the initiatory ordinance were eliminated. Many "peeps" would be made if these were done away with. Personally, I find the initiatory highly instructive and that if fits in with the totality of what is being taught in the temple.I certainly hope you are right because I agree with you. I just don't think history is on our side.
Recommended Posts