ALarson Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 On the now locked thread, ("the Church Has Never Been Stronger" -- Elder Cook), I had posted a CFR for Russell C. McGregor. I should have probably just started a new thread for this anyway. Here's his post and my reply from that thread: Russell C McGregor, on 09 Apr 2015 - 3:18 PM, said:Elder Jensen compared the present time to the Kirtland period. A lot of people apostatised at that time.A lot more people joined the Church and gathered with the Saints. The Kirtland period was a time of both growth and apostasy, with the growth outstripping the apostasy by a considerable margin. CFR I'm asking because I truly want to know about this. What do you consider the Kirtland period? 1831 through 1838? I think this would be interesting to know since the Kirtland quote from Elder Jensen is still used quite a bit here and elsewhere.
stemelbow Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 On the now locked thread, ("the Church Has Never Been Stronger" -- Elder Cook), I had posted a CFR for Russell C. McGregor. I should have probably just started a new thread for this anyway. Here's his post and my reply from that thread: Russell C McGregor, on 09 Apr 2015 - 3:18 PM, said: CFR I'm asking because I truly want to know about this. What do you consider the Kirtland period? 1831 through 1838? I think this would be interesting to know since the Kirtland quote from Elder Jensen is still used quite a bit here and elsewhere. According to this table found at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_membership_history The Church has grown every year in existence except for 1839 (the year the church moved to Nauvoo) and 1855-57 (about the time of the Mormon reformation thingy). I'd agree with him on the growth in Kirtland. It seems like we did have more converts than detractors. It seems like that fits nicely with what we're seeing today.
ALarson Posted April 10, 2015 Author Posted April 10, 2015 According to this table found at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_membership_historyThe Church has grown every year in existence except for 1839 (the year the church moved to Nauvoo) and 1855-57 (about the time of the Mormon reformation thingy).I'd agree with him on the growth in Kirtland. It seems like we did have more converts than detractors. It seems like that fits nicely with what we're seeing today.Thanks for the info, stemelbow. But if the church didn't show growth in 1839 (the approximate "end" of the Kirtland era), can it be said that the growth outstripped the apostasy "by a considerable margin" in Kirtland? Maybe there were so many new converts during that time that they replaced those who left? But if there was no growth in 1839, I wouldn't use the words "growth outstripped the apostasy" or "by a considerable margin". Maybe it's all just subjective when using those words.
smac97 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) A few thoughts: 1. Joseph Smith moved to Kirtland in January 1831. (Source.) 2. Kirtland was the headquarters of the Church from January 1831 to December 1837. (Source.) 3. Following are the membership statistics for this general time period (1829 to 1839) (Source): 4. On average, the LDS Church grew at an annual rate of over 95% during the Kirtland Period (1831-1837). In raw numbers, the Church grew from 680 in 1831 to 16,282 in 1837, an increase of 15,602 members. 5. Pahoran said: "A lot more people joined the Church and gathered with the Saints. The Kirtland period was a time of both growth and apostasy, with the growth outstripping the apostasy by a considerable margin." We do not appear to have meaningful statistics regarding the number of people who left the LDS Church during the Kirtland period, but I think the considerable growth of the LDS Church during this period likely validates Pahoran's claim. Thanks, -Smac Edited April 10, 2015 by smac97 2
ALarson Posted April 10, 2015 Author Posted April 10, 2015 A few thoughts: 1. Joseph Smith moved to Kirtland in January 1831. (Source.) 2. Kirtland was the headquarters of the Church from January 1831 to December 1837. (Source.) 3. Following are the membership statistics for this general time period (1829 to 1839) (Source): 4. On average, the LDS Church grew at an annual rate of over 95% during the Kirtland Period (1831-1837). In raw numbers, the Church grew from 680 in 1831 to 16,282 in 1837, an increase of 15,602 members. 5. Pahoran said: "A lot more people joined the Church and gathered with the Saints. The Kirtland period was a time of both growth and apostasy, with the growth outstripping the apostasy by a considerable margin." We do not appear to have meaningful statistics regarding the number of people who left the LDS Church during the Kirtland period, but I think the considerable growth of the LDS Church during this period likely validates Pahoran's claim. Thanks, -SmacWow, thanks Smac! That's the info I was interested in seeing and I appreciate you posting this. Is Pahoran the same poster as Russell C. McGregor or did Russel just quote Pahoran?
CCRW Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Wow, thas nks Smac! That's the info I was interested in seeing and I appreciate you posting this. Is Pahoran the same poster as Russell C. McGregor or did Russel just quote Pahoran? Pahoran was banned, Russell C. McGregor is the same poster. Does that make me legal now?
stemelbow Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Wow, thanks Smac! That's the info I was interested in seeing and I appreciate you posting this. Is Pahoran the same poster as Russell C. McGregor or did Russel just quote Pahoran? Smac nailed the analysis end of it.
ttribe Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Wow, thanks Smac! That's the info I was interested in seeing and I appreciate you posting this. Is Pahoran the same poster as Russell C. McGregor or did Russel just quote Pahoran? Same person.
ALarson Posted April 10, 2015 Author Posted April 10, 2015 Same person.Ok. Then I'll count that as an answer to the CFR. Interesting info about Kirtland!
ttribe Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Hey ttribe, long time no see I lurk sometimes. The last couple of days just happened to catch my attention.
CCRW Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I lurk sometimes. The last couple of days just happened to catch my attention.note this is my 3rd post, member since 2012 ...casualty of the basically autobanning of trailpark trash several years back. Seeing the banning of the very elect let me wondering if sockpuppets and previously banned members are now welcome back?
ttribe Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 note this is my 3rd post, member since 2012 ...casualty of the basically autobanning of trailpark trash several years back. Seeing the banning of the very elect let me wondering if sockpuppets and previously banned members are now welcome back? I float in and out every few months. I wouldn't look at my participation as indicative of any kind of policy change.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 note this is my 3rd post, member since 2012 ...casualty of the basically autobanning of trailpark trash several years back. Seeing the banning of the very elect let me wondering if sockpuppets and previously banned members are now welcome back?There goes the neighborhood.
smac97 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Thanks for the info, stemelbow. But if the church didn't show growth in 1839 (the approximate "end" of the Kirtland era), can it be said that the growth outstripped the apostasy "by a considerable margin" in Kirtland? A few thoughts: 1. Pahoran was referring to "the Kirtland period," not just 1839. Also, 1839 saw the commencement of the Illinois period of the Church. Prior to that was the brief Missouri period, which was subsequent to the Kirtland period. (Sources 1, 2, and 3). So I don't think you can fairly analyze Pahoran's comments by analyzing the Church's 1839 contraction in membership numbers. 2. I am not persuaded that all of the departures from the Church indicated by negative numbers in 1839 were attributable to "apostasy." However, if we re-characterize the issue as a contrast of the Church's membership robust growth trend from 1830 to 1838 with its contraction in total numbers in 1839 (attributable to apostasy, but likely also to other more benign factors), then we are still left with an overall period of substantial growth. That was, I think, Pahoran's point. 3. I think we should also take into account the particular circumstances that were taking place at the end of the 1830s (source): 1836 proved to be both a glorious and tragic year. The Kirtland Temple was completed in the spring and was dedicated in March. The day of dedication was full of pentecostal manifestations. Many reported seeing angels and visions. Others heard angels singing. Some spoke in tongues. Some saw fire atop the temple. In April, while praying fervently in the Temple, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery beheld vision of the Savior, Jesus Christ, and were visited by several of the ancient prophets, who bestowed the keys of their dispensations to Joseph Smith to usher in the "dispensation of the fullness of times." In November, several leading members of the Church, including Joseph Smith, established a bank called the Kirtland Safety Society. Financial troubles caused by rampant speculation and a nationwide panic in 1837 led to the collapse of the Kirtland Safety Society. Many blamed Joseph and called him a fallen prophet. Embittered former members stirred up persecution against the Church in the surrounding counties. In 1837, the Twelve Apostles left on missions to England, the first foreign mission of the Mormon Church. Meanwhile, a revelation came to Joseph that the Church needed to be in one body. He left in late 1837 for Far West, Missouri. The rest followed over the next few years, most of them in spring, 1838. The glorious days of Kirtland were over. The Church moved west.I think it merits observation that one of the most fractious events in the Church's history - the rise and fall of the Kirtland Safety Society - took place before the end of 1837, and corresponded with a nationwide banking crisis. This was a cause of much dissension in the Church (source): In November (1836), several leading members of the Church, including Joseph Smith, established a bank called the Kirtland Safety Society. Financial troubles caused by rampant speculation and a nationwide panic in 1837 led to the collapse of the Kirtland Safety Society. Many blamed Joseph and called him a fallen prophet. Embittered former members stirred up persecution against the Church in the surrounding counties. In 1837, the Twelve Apostles left on missions to England, the first foreign mission of the Mormon Church. Meanwhile, a revelation came to Joseph that the Church needed to be in one body. He left in late 1837 for Far West, Missouri. The rest followed over the next few years, most of them in spring, 1838. The glorious days of Kirtland were over. The Church moved west.And yet despite these substantial difficulties, the Church still continued to grow during this period. My surmise is that the conflict and resulting apostasy from the KSS debacle likely resulted in a disproportional number of people leaving the Church, but that the Church's growth nevertheless was still strong enough to yield overall positive growth numbers in 1837 (2,989 increase, or 22.49%) and 1838 (1,599 increase, or 9.82%).To what, then, can the significant decrease in 1839 be attributed? Well, there was the move of most of the Church to Missouri, mobbings at Far West and Gallitin, violence against Church members (and, via the Danites, by Church members), the Battle of Crooked River, the arrests of Joseph Smith and other Church leaders, the Extermination Order and the resulting expulsion of Church members, and so on. This was one of the lowest and most difficult periods of the Church. It's not particularly surprising that the Church's growth stalled and faltered during this timeframe. Maybe there were so many new converts during that time that they replaced those who left? But if there was no growth in 1839, I wouldn't use the words "growth outstripped the apostasy" or "by a considerable margin". Maybe it's all just subjective when using those words.I don't think it's accurate or fair to focus on the Church's membership contraction in 1839 (which, really, was during the Illinois period of the Church, not the Kirtland period), consisting of an overall loss from the previous year of 1,421 members, to the exclusion of the increase in Church membership by 15,602 members during the Kirtland period.Thanks,-Smac 1
why me Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) The banking crisis took many members out of the church. They blamed the prophet for their loss of money. Following that crisis the church lost more members than it gained and this is why it shows a negative for 38 and 39. The church also lost many people in leadership positions at that time. It took new people arriving from missionary work to regain the membership. These people lost nothing from the banking crisis in kirkland. But for those members who lost their shirts, the bitterness was great. https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-fourteen-the-apostasy-in-kirtland-1836-38?lang=eng Edited April 10, 2015 by why me 1
Gray Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 A few thoughts: 1. Joseph Smith moved to Kirtland in January 1831. (Source.) 2. Kirtland was the headquarters of the Church from January 1831 to December 1837. (Source.) 3. Following are the membership statistics for this general time period (1829 to 1839) (Source): 4. On average, the LDS Church grew at an annual rate of over 95% during the Kirtland Period (1831-1837). In raw numbers, the Church grew from 680 in 1831 to 16,282 in 1837, an increase of 15,602 members. 5. Pahoran said: "A lot more people joined the Church and gathered with the Saints. The Kirtland period was a time of both growth and apostasy, with the growth outstripping the apostasy by a considerable margin." We do not appear to have meaningful statistics regarding the number of people who left the LDS Church during the Kirtland period, but I think the considerable growth of the LDS Church during this period likely validates Pahoran's claim. Thanks, -Smac This also shows that growth as a percentage isn't very meaningful. In 1830 they grew by about 4500%. But that only represents 274 new members. The growth as percentage almost always goes down as the size of the org increases.
CCRW Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I float in and out every few months. I wouldn't look at my participation as indicative of any kind of policyany policy would not mater ... a friend
cinepro Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) On the now locked thread, ("the Church Has Never Been Stronger" -- Elder Cook), I had posted a CFR for Russell C. McGregor. I should have probably just started a new thread for this anyway. Here's his post and my reply from that thread: Russell C McGregor, on 09 Apr 2015 - 3:18 PM, said:CFR I'm asking because I truly want to know about this. What do you consider the Kirtland period? 1831 through 1838? I think this would be interesting to know since the Kirtland quote from Elder Jensen is still used quite a bit here and elsewhere. I had understood Elder Jensen's comment not to be referring to growth (or contraction) numbers, but more of a likening to the severity. It was a big enough deal that it gets a whole chapter in the Institute's manual on Church history: According to one historian, “Between November 1837 and June 1838, possibly two or three hundred Kirtland Saints withdrew from the Church, representing from 10 to 15 percent of the membership there.”27The “great apostasy” also carried over somewhat to Missouri. In a nine month period, the Three Witnesses, a member of the First Presidency (Frederick G. Williams), four members of the Twelve Apostles, and several members of the First Quorum of the Seventy left the Church. Because he continued to boldly defend the Prophet, Brigham Young was threatened and forced to flee on horseback to Missouri.So obviously Kirtland was much, much worse than what we're seeing (or not seeing?) today. But it appears to me, from what I have seen in my own wards, heard from friends and relatives who are Bishops and Stake Presidents or Area Seventies, and seen online, is that there are a lot of lifelong formerly "stalwart" LDS members (and some whole families) that are leaving the Church, and it has increased over the past 10 or 15 years, largely due to information that is being first found on the internet. I don't know if their numbers are small compared to the past, but I do know that if a fully active and tithe paying family leaves, it can have an outsized impact (just as a full family joining and becoming active tithe payers can have an outsized benefit). And I don't know if my "sample" is just too small and Elder Cook's superior data shows that church growth is compensating for these active, tithe paying members who leave. But until I see the numbers, I'm just staying skeptical. Edited April 10, 2015 by cinepro 1
Russell C McGregor Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 On the now locked thread, ("the Church Has Never Been Stronger" -- Elder Cook), I had posted a CFR for Russell C. McGregor. I should have probably just started a new thread for this anyway. Here's his post and my reply from that thread: Russell C McGregor, on 09 Apr 2015 - 3:18 PM, said: CFR I'm asking because I truly want to know about this. What do you consider the Kirtland period? 1831 through 1838? I think this would be interesting to know since the Kirtland quote from Elder Jensen is still used quite a bit here and elsewhere. FWIW, I saw your original question. I wasn't ignoring you; I was actually gathering some sources (including a couple of papers by Milton V. Backman, who seems to have more published on the Kirtland-Missouri period than anyone else) when my wretched server went down. So thanks to Smac97 for posting the table. Cheers, Russell
carbon dioxide Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Why do people make passing comments on this board to the Council on Foreign Relations or CFR?
Sleeper Cell Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Why do people make passing comments on this board to the Council on Foreign Relations or CFR? Because the Council on Foreign Relations controls the Mormon Church. Or is it that the Mormon Church controls the Council on Foreign Relations? (I never can keep this sort of stuff straight). 2
CCRW Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Why do people make passing comments on this board to the Council on Foreign Relations or CFR?Because Brother McGregor is a foreigner?
omni Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Why do people make passing comments on this board to the Council on Foreign Relations or CFR?Lol! CFR=Call For References. IOW, you better be able to back up your claim.
Russell C McGregor Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) Lol! CFR=Call For References. IOW, you better be able to back up your claim.That's at one end of the semantic range of the request. There's really a continuuum:Call for references; I don't believe your claim.Call for references; that's the first I've heard of that.Call for references; I'd like to read more about what you're saying.Sometimes it's merely bullying. So that's your opinion is it? So you say that's what you've experienced, do you? Call for references!But I took ALarson's request as being more in the line of, "I'd like to read more about what you're saying."Cheers,Russell Edited April 12, 2015 by Russell C McGregor 3
Recommended Posts