Slowest Church Growth Rate Since the Great Depression

[rockpond]

 

A great step.  Hoping that this is just the beginning of some open and honest dialogue.

Elder Oaks said, yesterday, that they are trying to be transparent.  Hopefully that will continue with even more information on membership figures as well as financial transparency. 

Or perhaps it was just lip service. 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Elder Oaks said, yesterday, that they are trying to be transparent.  Hopefully that will continue with even more information on membership figures as well as financial transparency. 

Or perhaps it was just lip service. 

Time will tell.  I do hope it is the former.  Church members have a right to know.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

A great step.  Hoping that this is just the beginning of some open and honest dialogue.

i don't get this.  Haven't they always released church membership data?  If so, how is it just the beginning?

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

i don't get this.  Haven't they always released church membership data?  If so, how is it just the beginning?

Yes, they do..but I have heard that it is not always correct and not sure if they are counting all resignations to date.  Not to mention that I was speaking of transparency as a whole including financial data.

[stemelbow]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's because they are.

The first prophecies you mention are that missionaries would take the gospel to all the world.  Not quite there yet, but pretty close.  The prophecy never specifies limited methods of doing this.  With the internet and LDS.org, the worldwide broadcast of conference, the missionaries, heck, even boards like this one, pretty much anyone who wants to learn about Mormonism and the Church can do so.

The second prophecies you mention are that people will begin to leave the Church, the earth will ripen in iniquity, the missionaries will be called home, etc.

These are not mutually exclusive - we are just trying to determine which of the two stages we are in or if they are overlapping.
Despite what some may think, people leaving the Church or fewer missionaries is not a sign the Church is out of step.  It is just a fulfillment of prophecy.

IT'll be interesting when in some years down the road the Church changes and adapts as it always does and we start to preach the opposite again--that the Church was a bit out of step in this decade or two and thus we got a little off track, but we're going strong again.  I look forward to the day of adjustment at this point.  We're in a pretty sad place.

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

Elder Oaks said, yesterday, that they are trying to be transparent.  Hopefully that will continue with even more information on membership figures as well as financial transparency. 

Or perhaps it was just lip service. 

I think it's a genuine statement.  It'll probably be years before we feel it genuine just because there's so much to be open about and so much is just plain heavily ingrained.  But it'll come. 

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

i don't get this.  Haven't they always released church membership data?  If so, how is it just the beginning?

Being open and honest isn't about reporting church membership data.  It's a step in the right direction every time a leader claims we are trying to be more open.  I don't see how anyone can't see that as a good step.  Claiming they are trying to be suggests they haven't been or need to fix something.  That's a great step, no? 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

If one decides, a priori, that a data set is telling them exactly what they expected... it is unlikely that they are making an unbiased, technical analysis of that data.

I'm certainly not suggesting we ignore the scriptures.  I'm cautioning against "proof texting" the data (so to speak).

 

Isn't that what happens when one sees a slowing growth rate and jumps to the conclusion that it disproves Mormonism?

As has been repeatedly pointed out here, a thoughtful consideration of what the scriptures and prophecy actually say nullifies such a conclusion. (And that's not deciding "a priori that the data set is telling them exactly what is expected." That is a very insulting assertion.)

You are behaving as though this disappoints you.

I compare this to the DNA issue. Many still resent the fact that the DNA arguments against the Book of Mormon have been neutralized by a careful consideration and analysis of what the Book of Mormon actually does and does not say about itself.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

Elder Oaks said, yesterday, that they are trying to be transparent.  Hopefully that will continue with even more information on membership figures as well as financial transparency. 

Or perhaps it was just lip service. 

Elder Oaks said that by way of making the point that the Church could be as transparent as possible and there would still be questions that are unanswerable with the information currently available and that can only be resolved through faith.

Hence, individuals will always be able to find an excuse for falling away or for rejecting the restored gospel, non-definitive though their reasons might be.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder Oaks said that by way of making the point that the Church could be as transparent as possible and there would still be questions that are unanswerable with the information currently available and that can only be resolved through faith.

Hence, individuals will always be able to find an excuse for falling away or for rejecting the restored gospel, non-definitive though their reasons might be.

I completely agree with his statement.

And I think we can both agree that the Church has not yet finished the job of being as transparent as possible.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Isn't that what happens when one sees a slowing growth rate and jumps to the conclusion that it disproves Mormonism?

As has been repeatedly pointed out here, a thoughtful consideration of what the scriptures and prophecy actually say nullifies such a conclusion. (And that's not deciding "a priori that the data set is telling them exactly what is expected." That is a very insulting assertion.)

You are behaving as though this disappoints you.

I compare this to the DNA issue. Many still resent the fact that the DNA arguments against the Book of Mormon have been neutralized by a careful consideration and analysis of what the Book of Mormon actually does and does not say about itself.

I don't see anyone here saying that the slowing growth rate disproves Mormonism.  I certainly don't feel that way.  So I am not disappointed.

It's amusing that you think DNA arguments against the Book of Mormon have been neutralized.  If only it were that simple.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I completely agree with his statement.

And I think we can both agree that the Church has not yet finished the job of being as transparent as possible.

I think we might disagree markedly on what the Church needs to do in the pursuit of transparency.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't see anyone here saying that the slowing growth rate disproves Mormonism.  I certainly don't feel that way.  So I am not disappointed.

It's amusing that you think DNA arguments against the Book of Mormon have been neutralized.  If only it were that simple.

Bottom line is that DNA arguments don't disprove anything about the Book of Mormon, though they might do violence to ill-considered and ill-informed assumptions about the Book of Mormon.

It's the same with fluctuating growth rates in the Church: They are irrelevant as pertaining to the truthfulness of Mormonism and the validity of prophecies pertaining thereto. I think pointing that out frustrates some critics. They resent having their criticisms blunted and so we get allegations like Church members and defenders are "deciding a priori that the data set is telling them exactly what is expected."

Edited April 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think we might disagree markedly on what the Church needs to do in the pursuit of transparency.

 

Definitely.  Also, not what I said.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think we might disagree markedly on what the Church needs to do in the pursuit of transparency.

 

 

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Definitely.  Also, not what I said.

Or on what the Church could reasonably be expected to do in pursuit of transparency.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Bottom line is that DNA arguments don't disprove anything about the Book of Mormon, though they might do violence to ill-considered and ill-informed assumptions about the Book of Mormon.

That's opinion and not self-evident.  Topic for another thread (or previous threads).

 

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's the same with fluctuating growth rates in the Church: They are irrelevant as pertaining to the truthfulness of Mormonism. I think pointing that out frustrates some critics, and so we get allegations like Church members and defenders are "deciding a priori that the data set is telling them exactly what is expected."

You are the one who brought in this idea that growth rate has anything to do with the truthfulness of Mormonism.  I didn't notice anyone here making that point.  So basically you've created a strawman and shot it down.  Well done.

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Or on what the Church could reasonably be expected to do in pursuit of transparency.

I'm sure we disagree on that as well.

Fortunately, there are some simple standards for transparency.  When we get there we can debate the finer details.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's opinion and not self-evident.  Topic for another thread (or previous threads).

 

That you think the DNA argument still has legs does not speak well for you. Have you read the "Gospel Topics" essay on the subject?

Quote

You are the one who brought in this idea that growth rate has anything to do with the truthfulness of Mormonism.  I didn't notice anyone here making that point.  So basically you've created a strawman and shot it down.  Well done.

Who here among the believers is saying that numerical dominance globally is a necessary indication of the Church's truthfulness? I haven't seen anybody make that claim for quite a while. So if anyone here is jousting at a straw man, it is you.

In summation: The Church must grow and develop to the point that it has global influence enough to fulfill its mission to prepare the world for the Second Coming. We can rejoice when we see indications of that occurring.

But it is neither prophesied nor necessary that Church members be predominant among the peoples of the earth. So we need not despair if we see fluctuations in growth rate commensurate with the prophesied influence of the church of the devil.

I don't see what it is so unreasonable about that stance or what is so difficult to grasp about it that one should be making cynical jabs about "deciding a priori that the data set is telling them exactly what is expected."

 

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[readstoomuch]

The Joseph Smith Papers are about as transparent as you can get.  Even the efforts at the Maxwell Institute, whether you like them or not, are trying to be transparent.  I have been greatly impressed with The Mormon Studies Review (and BYU Studies for that matter) and the topics they have taken on.  

As far as financial transparency, I wish the US government would be as consistent with how they spend money as the Church is.  From what I have heard and seen about Mike Quinn's book about Mormon finances, it seems to have the message that the Church is very careful with the money placed in its trust.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That you think the DNA argument still has legs does not speak well for you. Have you read the "Gospel Topics" essay on the subject?

Yes, I've read it.  I'm not saying that DNA has disproved the Book of Mormon.  I'm just saying that it isn't a closed case.  If you think it is, than that doesn't speak well for you.

 

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who here among the believers is saying that numerical dominance globally is a necessary indication of the Church's truthfulness? I haven't seen anybody make that claim for quite a while.

I haven't heard anyone making that argument.  That's what I've said.  You brought it up and seemed to imply that someone was making that claim.

 

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So if anyone here is jousting at a straw man, it is you.

What strawman do you think I am jousting at?

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What strawman do you think I am jousting at?

That expressions of joy over indicators of growth and development such as the increase in the number of temples and the number of missionaries are somehow inconsistent with a recognition that the membership of the Church, consistent with prophecy, is likely to remain relatively small due to the influence of the devil globally.

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, I've read it.  I'm not saying that DNA has disproved the Book of Mormon.  I'm just saying that it isn't a closed case.  If you think it is, than that doesn't speak well for you.

So it's not definitive. It's not even a good argument, considering what the Book of Mormon actually says about itself and the limitations in what can be concluded from DNA evidence.

It has thus been neutralized as an argument against the Book of Mormon and against the Church of Jesus Christ.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

58 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

The Joseph Smith Papers are about as transparent as you can get.  Even the efforts at the Maxwell Institute, whether you like them or not, are trying to be transparent.  I have been greatly impressed with The Mormon Studies Review (and BYU Studies for that matter) and the topics they have taken on.  

As far as financial transparency, I wish the US government would be as consistent with how they spend money as the Church is.  From what I have heard and seen about Mike Quinn's book about Mormon finances, it seems to have the message that the Church is very careful with the money placed in its trust.

I agree... making leaps and bounds with respect to transparency.

Regarding your second point:  Being trustworthy with funds is not the same as being transparent.

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That expressions of joy over indicators of growth and development such as the increase in the number of temples and the number of missionaries are somehow inconsistent with a recognition that the membership of the Church, consistent with prophecy, is likely to remain relatively small due to the influence of the devil globally.

 

No.  Those things are definitely not inconsistent.

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it's not definitive. It's not even a good argument, considering what the Book of Mormon actually says about itself and the limitations in what can be concluded from DNA evidence.

It has thus been neutralized as an argument against the Book of Mormon and against the Church of Jesus Christ.

Neutralize:  render (something) ineffective or harmless by applying an opposite force or effect

Sorry, DNA arguments against Book of Mormon historicity have not been neutralized.  Perhaps you should read beyond just the Church's gospel topics essay.