stemelbow Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Thanks. I don't think numbers are significant to the mission of the Church. Well that's directly opposed to the Church's position, isn't it? While we are to take the gospel to the world it is my understanding that the Church will always be a minority. you could be 49 percent and be a minority. And being far less than 1% means you're barely a blip on anyone's radar. There's really a lot of room to play in as minorities. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Could be. As it is, we don't know who are the honest of heart, whether our missionaries have missed them or not, though. It very well could be that our approach needs some fixing in order to reach more of the honest in heart.Vast changes in what and how LDS missionaries perform their roles have been taking place for years, including discontinuance of cold tracting, and an emphasis on the internet. The missionary effort has gone through several permutations of change during my lifetime, and will no doubt go through more. I see nothing at all wrong with "fixing" the system whenever it seems appropriate. Mark Bukowski and I have been suggesting a number of ways in which the entire missionary effort could be broadened to include some seemingly unlikely, but potential converts from the ranks of humanism. I'm not glad or happy about a decline at all. It just so happens we are below 2 percent growth rate, a rate we haven't seen for decades. And not long ago, that rate, like when I was on my mission just under 20 years ago, was 100% greater than it is today. The last time we've seen a 3% growth rate was in the 90s.We should expect ups and downs. Things are bound to be in flux. Should be no surprise or of overwhelming concern. I'm not angry about it. I'm disappointed that we can't seem to acknowledge the obvious and pretend all is well, in some way. I think we'd be wise to be able to adjust to the way the world has gone in order to be more credible to more people.The LDS faith, by its very nature, has to operate withing certain strictures. The danger lies in telling people merely what they want to hear and adapting our message (and theology) to fit virtually any felt need -- many churches trying that are now dissolving into meaninglessness and lack of members.
ERayR Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Well that's directly opposed to the Church's position, isn't it? you could be 49 percent and be a minority. And being far less than 1% means you're barely a blip on anyone's radar. There's really a lot of room to play in as minorities. It is? How?
Robert F. Smith Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) ERayR, on 21 Apr 2015 - 12:25 PM, said:Thanks. I don't think numbers are significant to the mission of the Church. Well that's directly opposed to the Church's position, isn't it?ERayR, on 21 Apr 2015 - 12:25 PM, said: While we are to take the gospel to the world it is my understanding that the Church will always be a minority. you could be 49 percent and be a minority. And being far less than 1% means you're barely a blip on anyone's radar. There's really a lot of room to play in as minorities.The LDS Church is a mere blip based on absolute numbers and likely always will be, and the Church has no reason to expect otherwise, but that doesn't mean that it is not on the radar. Indeed, Mormons are notorious, have far more attention than their numbers would seem to deserve. Perhaps you haven't heard of that Broadway musical, "The Book of Mormon." Reminds me of the notion that the Jews are few in number, which is entirely true. So what?! It has never meant that they are ignored. So you and ERayR are actually in agreement? Edited April 21, 2015 by Robert F. Smith
stemelbow Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Vast changes in what and how LDS missionaries perform their roles have been taking place for years, including discontinuance of cold tracting, and an emphasis on the internet. The missionary effort has gone through several permutations of change during my lifetime, and will no doubt go through more. I see nothing at all wrong with "fixing" the system whenever it seems appropriate. Mark Bukowski and I have been suggesting a number of ways in which the entire missionary effort could be broadened to include some seemingly unlikely, but potential converts from the ranks of humanism. I'm not sure where there is disagreement, then. We should expect ups and downs. Things are bound to be in flux. Should be no surprise or of overwhelming concern. Ups and downs are expected, of course. Large significant changes usually are caused by something. Something's caused a pretty significant drop. The LDS faith, by its very nature, has to operate withing certain strictures. The danger lies in telling people merely what they want to hear and adapting our message (and theology) to fit virtually any felt need -- many churches trying that are now dissolving into meaninglessness and lack of members. Sure, but there's nothing wrong with comparing one's Great Spirit with God, even if one's conception of the Great SPirit is not completely in line with the LDS Church's stance on God.
stemelbow Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 It is? How?numbers are constantly talked about and reported, no? You say numbers aren't significant, but most of what I hear is numbers--how much home teaching? How many baptisms? How many lessons? How many in sacrament meeting? How large is your perspective elder's list? How many TR carrying members? Indeed, Elder Cook in suggesting the Church is stronger alluded to increases in certain measurables.
Robert F. Smith Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) ................................................... I believe the following statement is true: If a member only pays their 10% tithing, they have applied nothing to humanitarian aid.That is true of the missionary fund, and of fast offerings as well, although the members are very generous and often include contributions in other boxes. It is not required of them. Tithing may be used as the Brethren see fit, but most LDS Church funds are tied up in real estate (temples, meeting houses, farms, schools, and such). Edited April 21, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 1
Robert F. Smith Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 I'm not sure where there is disagreement, then.I guess it is your glass half-empty approach versus a more realistic half-full view. You unnecessarily emphasize the negative. Ups and downs are expected, of course. Large significant changes usually are caused by something. Something's caused a pretty significant drop.Perhaps you could describe what that "significance" is, and why we should look on it with such fear. I suggest equanimity instead. Sure, but there's nothing wrong with comparing one's Great Spirit with God, even if one's conception of the Great SPirit is not completely in line with the LDS Church's stance on God.Depends on your theology and the sort of value judgments you insist on making. I suggest a more dispassionate, scholarly appraisal.
stemelbow Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 I guess it is your glass half-empty approach versus a more realistic half-full view. You unnecessarily emphasize the negative. Half-full vs half-empty, neither is more realistic than the other. Accepting the negative helps to understand problems so they can be fixed. Perhaps you could describe what that "significance" is, and why we should look on it with such fear. I suggest equanimity instead. no need to fear. I'm just saying if nearly 20 years ago we grew at a rate that is twice as fast as we are growing today, we might need to consider why that is. Why? I'm not exactly sure, but I mentioned a number of ideas in my response to Eray earlier. Depends on your theology and the sort of value judgments you insist on making. I suggest a more dispassionate, scholarly appraisal. Scholarly doesn't appeal to everyone.
Recommended Posts