Thriving Churches Are Those That Have Not Redefined Marriage

[Scott Lloyd]

And I'm saying I intend to keep it alive, if for no other reason than to illustrate the vainness of foolish and unlearned predictions.

 

 

I don't think you'll care for longer than a year or two at most, but I wish you luck!

 

 

Shall I start a clock on that prediction?

 

 

Sure, add it to the list! 

Mike Reed has given two years before the number of missionaries falls back down again, presumably (though he wouldn't specify) to what it was prior to the age changes for missionary eligibility. Since its the same lenghth of time, I'll let his clock count for your prediction as well. How about that? If you see me revisiting his prediction in two years' time you'll know that your prediction was wrong.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

What blessings? Anyone can have moneys and means. Anyone can have access to God's ear. Anyone can be infinitely blessed in any way, whether LDS or not. if its more a blessing to be raised LDS and receive the priesthood as a youth I don't see it, after all even people not LDS can be exalted. 

 

We're just talking past each other. I'm just saying I see no blessings received by LDS in this life that other people can't and don't have.

 

And I'm saying there are numerous blessings that members of the Church receive (even in this life) that are not available to other religions.

And if we include blessings in the next life, there are even more.

 

And no non-LDS person (meaning follower of the gospel as taught by the LDS Church) will ever be exalted without accepting that gospel and receiving its ordinances, either in this life or the world to come.

Edited March 25, 2015 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

And I'm saying there are numerous blessings that members of the Church receive (even in this life) that are not available to other religions.

What are those?

And if we include blessings in the next life, there are even more.

Receiving all that God has, whether Mormon in this life or not, is everything, as I understand it.

 

And no non-LDS person (meaning follower of the gospel as taught by the LDS Church) will ever be exalted without accepting that gospel and receiving its ordinances, either in this life or the world to come.

All will, at some point, confess Christ as the Savior.

[Scott Lloyd]

The point is that watering down of doctrines and expectations doesn't seem to be working too well for those religious groups that are doing it.

It has been suggested that those who are agitating for change in the Church might find the Community of Christ to be a better fit for themselves. Yet look what happened to it after the "progressives" got control of it and started to jettison long-held beliefs: According to Storm Rider's figures, it lost 66 percent of its membership. So much for accommodating societal whims.

 

 

I understand that point and the data behind it.  My point was that, by those standards, our battle against gay marriage hasn't had a strengthening effect either.  Our growth rate continues to decline.

 

 

How do you know it hasn't had a strengthening effect?

 

Nephi beheld in vision that in the last days the devil and his organization would have a strong and pervasive influence. That it might have the effect of blinding people to the truth and thus slowing the growth of the Church of Jesus Christ is unfortunate, but not altogether surprising.

 

Maybe things would have been worse had the Church not chosen to stand up for principle. There are those -- like me -- whose confidence in and esteem for the Church, if anything,has been increased thereby.

[JLHPROF]

What are those?

 

 

- the power of the priesthood

- the gift of the Holy Ghost

- the endowment of power

- the protection of the garment (whether you consider it spiritual only or not)

- more knowledge of God

"Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.” D&C 130:18-19

- the blessings of understanding the eternity of the sealing ordinances and changing our perspective

- the blessings of bringing others to Christ, either as a missionary or a Savior on Mt. Zion (temple work)

 

and that's just off the top of my head.  None of these things are found in any other Church or religion.

 

 

 

Receiving all that God has, whether Mormon in this life or not, is everything, as I understand it.

 

Correct.  But this still requires acceptance of the gospel as taught only by the LDS Church right now.

 

 

All will, at some point, confess Christ as the Savior.

 

And if they want exaltation it will take more than that.  Thank the Lord for the blessing of work for the dead that only the LDS Church has.

 

"Whenever men can find out the will of God and find an administrator legally authorized from God, there is the kingdom of God; but where these are not, the kingdom of God is not. All the ordinances, systems, and administrations on the earth are of no use to the children of men, unless they are ordained and authorized of God; for nothing will save a man but a legal administrator; for none others will be acknowledged either by God or angels." Joseph Smith

Edited March 25, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

That was a condition that had to change and was expected to change all along, the reason being that there are areas of the world where the Church could not have thrived without priesthood leadership among the indigenous black populations.

 

Same-sex "marriage," on the other hand, is absolutely unnecessary -- in society, and certainly in the Church of Jesus Christ -- and furthermore, there has never been a hint of an expectation that such a thing  would ever be accepted in the Church.

 

This is one of the most blatant apples-to-cumquats comparisons I've seen or expect to see.

 

 

I'm not talking about what was expected internally, I'm talking about the pressures of belonging to a religion that discriminates based on race. While that would have been hard in 1977, it would be unbearable now. Who would remain in such a church in 2015? Not many. 

 

And no doubt that is why the Lord chose to lift the restriction when He did. As I said, it was foregone that it would happen. It was only a matter of time.

 

So my point is that I believe it will be just as difficult in 2035 to belong to a church that discriminates based on sexual orientation. It's not so hard now. We're just over the tipping point, just as we were with race a generation ago.

 

 

In my lifetime, I've seen the coming of a gradual and pervasive acceptance of pre-marital and extra-marital sex. I'm old enough to clearly remember when such a thing was viewed as scandalous.

 

Through all of that, the Church of Jesus Christ has continued to grow, and at rates that were unprecedented prior to that. People, when they are taught and when they recognize truth, come to view sexual relations outside of marriage as being deeply wrong, even if they didn't hold such a view before. That will continue to be the case, I imagine, with other things until the coming of the millennial day when the truth will be obvious to everyone.

 

Regarding expectations, I don't think early Utah members expected polygamy to come to an end. But it did. And not putting it to an end would have again severely curtailed church growth, even removing the threats of dissolution from the US government. Churches whose values become too radically at odds with society's will have trouble with recruitment and retention. They retain a small, core group of hard-core adherants, but they don't grow. 

My sense is that even today, when there is apparently greater acceptance of same-sex marriage, the number of people who are passionately in favor of it is not very great. Going into the future, many people, who are more-or-less indifferent to the matter, when they have the plan of salvation explained to them, will come to realize why the Lord has forbidden sex except between a man and woman married to each other.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

Mike Reed has given two years before the number of missionaries falls back down again, presumably (though he wouldn't specify) to what it was prior to the age changes for missionary eligibility. Since its the same lenghth of time, I'll let his clock count for your prediction as well. How about that? If you see me revisiting his prediction in two years' time you'll know that your prediction was wrong.

 

 

Sounds fair to me. 

 

Those that conform to the mind of God and that have stood the test of time, yes.

 

And presumably that also applies to ideas that happen to coincide with current fashions?

 

 

 

Maybe things would have been worse had the Church not chosen to stand up for principle. There are those -- like me -- whose confidence in and esteem for the Church, if anything,has been increased thereby.

 

By that same token, maybe churches that espouse progressive ideals would have been worse off if they hadn't. 

Edited March 25, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

 

In my lifetime, I seen the coming of a gradual and pervasive acceptance of pre-marital extra-marital sex. I'm old enough to clearly remember when such a thing was viewed as scandalous.

 

 

The difference is that while holding on to the idea of waiting until marriage might seem quaint to many people, it's still not offensive, and likely will never be. No one thinks that waiting until marriage to have sex means that you're bigoted. 

 

 

 

My sense is that even today, when there is apparently greater acceptance of same-sex marriage, the number of people who are passionately in favor of it is not very great. Going into the future, many people, who are more-or-less indifferent to the matter, when they have the plan of salvation explained to them, will come to realize why the Lord has forbidden sex other between a man and woman married to each other.

 

 

I can't really speak as to the level of passion for the issue - I really have no way of knowing. I suppose it depends on where you live and how many openly gay people you know. 

[stemelbow]

- the power of the priesthood

The power of the priesthood is to bless other's including non-members. Thus that blessing is not exclusive to LDS.

- the gift of the Holy Ghost

All blessings associated with the gift of the Holy Ghost can be had by anyone who has not officially had that ordinance pronounced upon him/her. Again not exclusive to LDS.

- the endowment of power

Done by proxy. Not exclusive to LDS.

- the protection of the garment (whether you consider it spiritual only or not)

God can grant such protection to anyone in any situation. Again not exclusive to LDS.

- more knowledge of God

No one needs to be LDS to have that. And it might some day be realized that many non-LDS are not burdened by the LDS vehicle of assumption and may be more open to knowledge of God that LDS simply can't see. Not exclusive to LDS.

"Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.” D&C 130:18-19

Not exclusive to LDS. As I said perhaps many have such a perspective that we simply can't see and thus have knowledge we don't have.

- the blessings of understanding the eternity of the sealing ordinances and changing our perspective

But such a blessing is not exclusive to LDS.

- the blessings of bringing others to Christ, either as a missionary or a Savior on Mt. Zion (temple work)

hey, we're all in this together. My non-LDS friends bring me closer to Christ just as many of my LDS friends and family.

 

and that's just off the top of my head.  None of these things are found in any other Church or religion.

None of these "blessings" are exclusive to LDS. 

  

Correct.  But this still requires acceptance of the gospel as taught only by the LDS Church right now.

 

 

And if they want exaltation it will take more than that.  Thank the Lord for the blessing of work for the dead that only the LDS Church has.

That was my point that started this.

 

"Whenever men can find out the will of God and find an administrator legally authorized from God, there is the kingdom of God; but where these are not, the kingdom of God is not. All the ordinances, systems, and administrations on the earth are of no use to the children of men, unless they are ordained and authorized of God; for nothing will save a man but a legal administrator; for none others will be acknowledged either by God or angels." Joseph Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

 

 

And presumably that also applies to ideas that happen to coincide with current fashions?

 

 

 

 

The mind of God is what it is.

 

 

By that same token, maybe churches that espouse progressive ideals would have been worse off if they hadn't.

 

Then you have to identify some other causal factor for their decline. What is it?

[Scott Lloyd]

The difference is that while holding on to the idea of waiting until marriage might seem quaint to many people, it's still not offensive, and likely will never be. No one thinks that waiting until marriage to have sex means that you're bigoted. 

 

 

 

 

I can't really speak as to the level of passion for the issue - I really have no way of knowing. I suppose it depends on where you live and how many openly gay people you know. 

So, I take it, then, that  you really have "no way of knowing" how many people today or in the future would regard me or someone else as a bigot simply because we oppose same-sex "marriage" -- or would be apt to regard such opposition as bigoted if it were well presented within a theological context such as the plan of salvation.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Sleeper Cell]

When did they start ordaining women, and when did their numbers start dropping? Do you have any evidence that there is a correlation between the two? CFR please. 

 

 

1984.  

 

William D. Russell (an RLDS/CoC history professor)  wrote:  “When the 1984 [RLDS] conference approved Section 156  [which authorized ordaining women] … it became clear that the largest schism  .. in the history of the RLDS church was in the making.  In the 6 years that  followed … at least ¼ of the active RLDS members terminated their involvement.”  

 

In fairness, he later points out that many of those who left had, for some time, been unhappy with other liberalizing trends. For them, “the ordination of women was merely the last straw.”  But whether a significant number of this group would have eventually left anyway over other issues is a matter of pure speculation.  

(Dialogue; Fall 2005; p 76; 79)

 

BTW., Professor Russell explicitly defines “schism” as “the formal and willful separation from the unity of the church.” It is not clear whether the 25% figure also includes those who informally separated or just those who formally separated.   

 

I trust this will satisfy your CFR, especially since it was not directed at me.  

[rockpond]

How do you know it hasn't had a strengthening effect?

Nephi beheld in vision that in the last days the devil and his organization would have a strong and pervasive influence. That it might have the effect of blinding people to the truth and thus slowing the growth of the Church of Jesus Christ is unfortunate, but not altogether surprising.

Maybe things would have been worse had the Church not chosen to stand up for principle. There are those -- like me -- whose confidence in and esteem for the Church, if anything,has been increased thereby.

The "maybe it would have been worse" argument could be used for both sides which makes it a rather useless hypothetical.

[Gray]

The mind of God is what it is.

 

 

Then you have to identify some other causal factor for their decline. What is it?

 

I believe the causal factor is the fact that religion in general has become politicized and has now been "branded" as having something to do with right wing politics. (I'm getting that from David Campbell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Campbell_(academic))

 

So I don't think making churches less liberal is going to get the liberals back in church. They didn't leave because the churches supported their causes. 

Edited March 26, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

So, I take it, then, that  you really have "no way of knowing" how many people today or in the future would regard me or someone else as a bigot simply because we oppose same-sex "marriage" -- or would be apt to regard such opposition as bigoted if it were well presented within a theological context such as the plan of salvation.

 

I know that the trajectory of public opinion has been quickly moving in the direction of more and more acceptance of gay marriage. I don't see that trajectory reversing any time soon, do you?

 

Does presenting a theological framework for the priesthood ban make it more palatable? Probably not to the average American.  

[Gray]

 

1984.  

 

William D. Russell (an RLDS/CoC history professor)  wrote:  “When the 1984 [RLDS] conference approved Section 156  [which authorized ordaining women] … it became clear that the largest schism  .. in the history of the RLDS church was in the making.  In the 6 years that  followed … at least ¼ of the active RLDS members terminated their involvement.”  

 

In fairness, he later points out that many of those who left had, for some time, been unhappy with other liberalizing trends. For them, “the ordination of women was merely the last straw.”  But whether a significant number of this group would have eventually left anyway over other issues is a matter of pure speculation.  

(Dialogue; Fall 2005; p 76; 79)

 

BTW., Professor Russell explicitly defines “schism” as “the formal and willful separation from the unity of the church.” It is not clear whether the 25% figure also includes those who informally separated or just those who formally separated.   

 

I trust this will satisfy your CFR, especially since it was not directed at me.  

 

 

Interesting, thank you for the references. It sounds to me like a result of church leadership not being on the same page as a great deal of the membership, rather than a case study for the dangers of liberalizing per se. A liberal congregation isn't going to blink at women clergy. 

[Storm Rider]

 

1984.  

 

William D. Russell (an RLDS/CoC history professor)  wrote:  “When the 1984 [RLDS] conference approved Section 156  [which authorized ordaining women] … it became clear that the largest schism  .. in the history of the RLDS church was in the making.  In the 6 years that  followed … at least ¼ of the active RLDS members terminated their involvement.”  

 

In fairness, he later points out that many of those who left had, for some time, been unhappy with other liberalizing trends. For them, “the ordination of women was merely the last straw.”  But whether a significant number of this group would have eventually left anyway over other issues is a matter of pure speculation.  

(Dialogue; Fall 2005; p 76; 79)

 

BTW., Professor Russell explicitly defines “schism” as “the formal and willful separation from the unity of the church.” It is not clear whether the 25% figure also includes those who informally separated or just those who formally separated.   

 

I trust this will satisfy your CFR, especially since it was not directed at me.  

 

 

Thank you for offering that information.  When I learned about their drop in membership it was from their website.  Going from memory, they had for a long time cited a membership in the 750,000 range and then they dropped it to 250,000.  It surprised me and I started asking questions to my aunt and uncle who are members.  They have been on a roll for a while of becoming more of a standard Protestant church with a decidedly liberal bent.  

 

I guess Gray has concluded that liberalizing is only valid if the membership demands the liberalizing.  Gray, that sounds an awful lot like creating a religion to meet the itching ears of the membership.  Do you think that is the best way to manage the affairs of God?  What role do think that inspiration should play in such an organization?  

[Sleeper Cell]

I believe the causal factor is the fact that religion in general has become politicized and has now been "branded" as having something to do with right wing politics. (I'm getting that from David Campbell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Campbell_(academic))

 

 

 

If true, this doesn’t speak very highly of liberals, in general.  Right wingers are able to distinguish between “liberal” and “conservative” churches.  But liberals reject even liberal churches because of the beliefs and actions of conservative churches?  The phrase  “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” comes to mind. If anything, this is an argument against a church becoming more liberal.  The conservatives will leave and the liberals will still not join.  

 

 

So I don't think making churches less liberal is going to get the liberals back in church. They didn't leave because the churches supported their causes. 

Apparently, making them more liberal will not get them back in church, either. 

[Gray]

 

If true, this doesn’t speak very highly of liberals, in general.  Right wingers are able to distinguish between “liberal” and “conservative” churches.  But liberals reject even liberal churches because of the beliefs and actions of conservative churches?  The phrase  “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” comes to mind. If anything, this is an argument against a church becoming more liberal.  The conservatives will leave and the liberals will still not join.  

 

 

Apparently, making them more liberal will not get them back in church, either. 

 

 

Somehow I think if the situation were reversed conservatives would be the ones leaving, but who knows. 

 

There is nothing inherently liberal about environmentalism, but you don't see a lot of conservative environmentalists. Probably because the movement has already been associated with liberalism. 

Edited March 26, 2015 by Gray

[Sleeper Cell]

Interesting, thank you for the references. It sounds to me like a result of church leadership not being on the same page as a great deal of the membership, rather than a case study for the dangers of liberalizing per se. A liberal congregation isn't going to blink at women clergy. 

 

I agree that a liberal congregation isn’t likely to object to liberalizing.  And I realize that there are successful and growing churches which have women clergy.  I know little about the Adventists, for example, but wouldn’t be surprised if this fast growing church has women clergy.  

 

But is one thing for a church to carry on a tradition of church leadership that goes back to it founding.  Quite another for it to make a radical change in its traditional doctrines and practices and still expect church traditionalists to remain.   The OP’s point was that a church won’t necessarily die because it refuses to succumb to societal trends. If anything, the ones that are declining seem to be the ones that have succumbed to societal trends.  And the ones which are growing seem to be the ones which have not.   

[Sleeper Cell]

 

Edited March 26, 2015 by Sleeper Cell

[Sleeper Cell]

Somehow I think if the situation were reversed conservatives would be the ones leaving, but who knows. 

 

 

I believe you said in an earlier post:

 

Is there a point where members of a religious community have progressed enough to where they no longer particularly need to participate formally?

Perhaps that is why liberals who leave a conservative church usually do not join liberal churches which reflect their beliefs.  Maybe they feel they have progressed enough where they don’t particularly need to participate formally in any religious community.  On the other hand, conservative dissenters tend to join other churches because they still feel the need to participate formally in a religious community.  

[Calm]

I know little about the Adventists, for example, but wouldn’t be surprised if this fast growing church has women clergy.

Apparently they don't ordain women:

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/15/seventh-day-adventists-decide-2015-womens-ordination/

[Gray]

 

I believe you said in an earlier post:

 

 

Perhaps that is why liberals who leave a conservative church usually do not join liberal churches which reflect their beliefs.  Maybe they feel they have progressed enough where they don’t particularly need to participate formally in any religious community.  On the other hand, conservative dissenters tend to join other churches because they still feel the need to participate formally in a religious community.  

 

 

Possibly, yes. 

 

I feel like a blind person groping in the dark on this one because so much if it is inference and guesswork, but your statement makes sense to me. 

[Gray]

 

I agree that a liberal congregation isn’t likely to object to liberalizing.  And I realize that there are successful and growing churches which have women clergy.  I know little about the Adventists, for example, but wouldn’t be surprised if this fast growing church has women clergy.  

 

But is one thing for a church to carry on a tradition of church leadership that goes back to it founding.  Quite another for it to make a radical change in its traditional doctrines and practices and still expect church traditionalists to remain.   The OP’s point was that a church won’t necessarily die because it refuses to succumb to societal trends. If anything, the ones that are declining seem to be the ones that have succumbed to societal trends.  And the ones which are growing seem to be the ones which have not.   

 

 

Good points. 

 

Although at this point growth within churches in the US might be primarily cannibalistic (ie poaching members of other denominations) or based on birth rate. The fastest growing group of all is people without a particular religious affiliation. There can be no sustained growth without young people to replace the old, and young people are the ones rejecting organized religion. They're also the group most sympathetic to gay rights issues. 

Edited March 26, 2015 by Gray