Slowest Church Growth Rate Since the Great Depression

[omni]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Ummm...just look at the example of Lucifer.

Lucifer and the fallen one third host were in a premortal world.  How often are we described as being perfected after we die?  

Any time a SSM thread comes up, someone argues the individual will become straight if they remain worthy of the CK.  

How many times have you heard someone defend polygamy in the eternities by stating we won't have the petty jealousies that affect us here on earth.  

These are just a few examples, however even if you do allow for sin in the afterlife, it would be inconceivable to me to believe that someone wouldn't be less likely to fall away in heaven.

[omni]

56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

God is a finite being working with very fallible humans.  Who told you that the system had to be perfect?  Moreover, there is no greater risk of "falling away" as you put it.  This has always been a problem.  Moses encountered it when he came down from the Mount, and Israel was regularly disobedient throughout its history, while many of Joseph's closest companions apostatized, many of them only to return shamefaced later.  This is the way real life proceeds and the way in which religion has always been conducted.  There is nothing new under the sun, omni.  Why are you making up a false doctrine scenario instead?

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you state I'm "making up false doctrine", but I'd like to see you effectively argue in favor of the missionary program knowing its poor retention rate.  

Now if we believed, as some fundamentalist Christian churches do, in a "once saved, always saved" or a "you're-going-to-burn-in-Hell-if-you're-not-saved" theology, then yes, a baptize-as-many-as-you- can approach would be beneficial.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, omni said:

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you state I'm "making up false doctrine", but I'd like to see you effectively argue in favor of the missionary program knowing its poor retention rate.

You said

Quote

this is one of the fundamental flaws in Mormon theology.  Why does the Church put such an emphasis on missionary work, when the majority eventually fall away?  

Wouldn't it be more prudent to allow these souls to accept the gospel in the next life and eliminate the risk of falling away?   From an eternal perspective, the risk far outweighs any reward - I simply cannot imagine a perfect being creating such a system.  

That is known as making up false doctrine.  You completely lack a sense of reality and of historical perspective.

Now if we believed, as some fundamentalist Christian churches do, in a "once saved, always saved" or a "you're-going-to-burn-in-Hell-if-you're-not-saved" theology, then yes, a baptize-as-many-as-you- can approach would be beneficial.

More false doctrine.  Don't you see that you have done the same thing with Mormonism?  Only in reverse.

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, omni said:

Lucifer and the fallen one third host were in a premortal world.  How often are we described as being perfected after we die?  

Any time a SSM thread comes up, someone argues the individual will become straight if they remain worthy of the CK.  

How many times have you heard someone defend polygamy in the eternities by stating we won't have the petty jealousies that affect us here on earth.  

These are just a few examples, however even if you do allow for sin in the afterlife, it would be inconceivable to me to believe that someone wouldn't be less likely to fall away in heaven.

Moroni said if he chose to violate law even God would cease to be God.  Falling is always an option as long as agency remains.

[stemelbow]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 7:28 AM, JLHPROF said:

Straight is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find it. 

There will always be people who have no desire to search, no matter what the missionaries teach.  I don't know that making the message more resonating or attractive really does any favors, especially if people convert then leave when the gospel turns out not to be made in their image.

We could multiply our success by 10 and the term "few" could fit relative to the whole.  Feels like a cop out to me.  I tend to think many more non-LDS from this world will find exaltation than the number of LDS will.  But the numbers only work that way for me because I tend to think we aren't all we like to pretend to be. 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

We could multiply our success by 10 and the term "few" could fit relative to the whole.  Feels like a cop out to me.  I tend to think many more non-LDS from this world will find exaltation than the number of LDS will.  But the numbers only work that way for me because I tend to think we aren't all we like to pretend to be.

I can't say whether you are right or wrong concerning who will be worthy of exaltation.
But I will say for certain that the ordinances performed by the LDS Church are a requirement for it, whether in this life or the world to come.

Nobody gains exaltation without abiding the laws attached.

[omni]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Where's the false doctrine?  You'll have to be specific.

[UtahTexan]

I am simply not bothered by numbers.  What most of the people do or don't do does not affect me.

When I was in college, I was not LDS.  I have never knowingly drank alcohol.  Ever.  Yet, in college, almost everyone did.  Did that make me wrong and them right?  In the Army..I was usually the only person in the unit who did not drink.....should I have looked and said, "numbers of non-drinkers are dwindling....I need to rethink this..."

If I am right....and I believe I am right....then I do not care if I am the only person in the world who believes that way...I am sticking to it.

It seems too many people use numbers to try to disprove the Church....seems there is thread after thread like this one.

Frankly.....the fact numbers are dwindling make me proud.....I see what the rest of the world is like....I am glad I am not like them.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/5/2016 at 10:41 AM, 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.

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."

 

On 4/10/2016 at 1:18 PM, Teancum said:

Scott you keep saying this but provide nothing other than a reference to the LDS Church essays on this.  There are many experts of DNA issues that disagree with your conclusion.

Until you make some effort to engage the content of the "Gospel Topics" essay, I will not feel obliged to genuflect to your nebulous "many experts of DNA," whom you apparently lack the gumption to identify by name or cite by work. For all I know, they may be just what I have described above: jousting at straw men as they labor under ill-considered and ill-informed assumptions about the Book of Mormon and thus having had their attacks on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon refuted long ago.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/5/2016 at 0:50 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

The Kingdom of God will eventually consume other kingdoms and fill the whole earth -- sometime after the Second Coming of Christ. Meanwhile, it will be just as Nephi foresaw in vision: the church of the Lamb of God would be over the face of  all the earth but its numbers would be few.

 

On 4/10/2016 at 1:44 PM, Teancum said:

A great post that shows how Mormons want it both ways.

Great church growth?   It is proof that the stone without hands is filling the earth.

Slow Church growth?   Nephi said the Church would cover all the earth but its numbers would be few.

See.... either can be used to prove a point. 

How nice,

I just finished an argument with rockpond on this contention. I have no interest in going back and forth on it with you just because you won't keep up to speed on the discussion and because you refuse to see what is eminently clear:  that there is no problem here if one is willing to engage the prophecies and endeavor to understand them properly without trying to force them into a preconceived mindset.

Nothing in the prophecies of the scriptures forces the conclusion that the Kingdom of God will consume all other kingdoms at any time before Christ comes to reign personally on the earth. Nothing in holy writ or divine revelation forces the conclusion that the Church of Jesus Christ must achieve numerical dominance prior to the Second Coming

On the contrary, Nephi's vision clearly foresees a time when the Church would have global reach but be relatively few in numbers. It would be hard to conceive of a prophecy that fits latter-day conditions more precisely.

By the way, there is another CFR on the table. You invented something and claimed I said it. Again. You seem to have a habit of doing that.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Until you make some effort to engage the content of the "Gospel Topics" essay, I will not feel obliged to genuflect to your nebulous "many experts of DNA," whom you apparently lack the gumption to identify by name or cite by work. For all I know, they may be just what I have described above: jousting at straw men as they labor under ill-considered and ill-informed assumptions about the Book of Mormon and thus having had their attacks on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon refuted long ago.

Until you make some effort to engage the content numerous scholars and experts on the subject will not feel obliged to genuflect to your nebulous "the church essays have debunked all other arguments" in that you apparently have the gumption refer only to these and nothing else.

I asked you for  CFR for something that actually debunks the DNA issues and your lame response was to look at the LDS Church essays.  You took my CFR and essentially ignored it and then spun it back on me.

Typical.

 

Check out Simon Southerton for a start.

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/

 

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Teancum

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I just finished an argument with rockpond on this contention. I have no interest in going back and forth on it with you just because you won't keep up to speed on the discussion and because you refuse to see what is eminently clear:  that there is no problem here if one is willing to engage the prophecies and endeavor to understand them properly without trying to force them into a preconceived mindset.

Nothing in the prophecies of the scriptures forces the conclusion that the Kingdom of God will consume all other kingdoms at any time before Christ comes to reign personally on the earth. Nothing in holy writ or divine revelation forces the conclusion that the Church of Jesus Christ must achieve numerical dominance prior to the Second Coming

On the contrary, Nephi's vision clearly foresees a time when the Church would have global reach but be relatively few in numbers. It would be hard to conceive of a prophecy that fits latter-day conditions more precisely.

By the way, there is another CFR on the table. You invented something and claimed I said it. Again. You seem to have a habit of doing that.

I gave you your CFR and pasted your own posts into the comments.

If you have a reading challenge I can't help you.  I invented nothing.  Be honest.

I agree with your comment above. Nothing in scripture says the Kingdom of God will consume all other kingdoms before Jesus comes.   On the other hand the idea that the Kingdom of God will be small does not mean so infinitesimally small as the active members of the LDS Church are today that they really have little influence on the world stage.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Teancum

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I gave you your CFR and pasted your own posts into the comments.

If you have a reading challenge I can't help you.  I invented nothing.  Be honest.

I agree with your comment above. Nothing says the in scripture says the Kingdom of God will consume all other kingdoms. On the other hand the idea that the Kingdom of God will be small does not mean so infinitesimally small as the active members of the LDS Church are today that they really have little influence on the world stage.

Scott cited the discussion that he and I had earlier in the thread.  It followed the same pattern as yours.  He setup a strawman that had nothing to do with my point, and then argued against it. 

What he's done is help support your point that whichever way the numbers go, they can be used as evidence of prophecy fulfilled. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Quote

 

Omni said:

Where's the false doctrine?  You'll have to be specific.

 

 I quoted you in detail, omni.  You might try reading what you write -- and whether it comports with any Church teachings, which your rantings call into question.  Can you find any justification in Mormon theology for any of your intemperate statements and assumptions?  I cannot.

Quote

 

23 hours ago, omni said:

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you state I'm "making up false doctrine", but I'd like to see you effectively argue in favor of the missionary program knowing its poor retention rate.

You said

Quote

this is one of the fundamental flaws in Mormon theology.  Why does the Church put such an emphasis on missionary work, when the majority eventually fall away?  

Wouldn't it be more prudent to allow these souls to accept the gospel in the next life and eliminate the risk of falling away?   From an eternal perspective, the risk far outweighs any reward - I simply cannot imagine a perfect being creating such a system.  

That is known as making up false doctrine.  You completely lack a sense of reality and of historical perspective.

Now if we believed, as some fundamentalist Christian churches do, in a "once saved, always saved" or a "you're-going-to-burn-in-Hell-if-you're-not-saved" theology, then yes, a baptize-as-many-as-you- can approach would be beneficial.

More false doctrine.  Don't you see that you have done the same thing with Mormonism?  Only in reverse.

 

 

[omni]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 I quoted you in detail, omni.  You might try reading what you write -- and whether it comports with any Church teachings, which your rantings call into question.  Can you find any justification in Mormon theology for any of your intemperate statements and assumptions?  I cannot.

 

Great, I'll take your response as an admonition that you cannot show how my statements were false doctrine.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, omni said:

Great, I'll take your response as an admonition that you cannot show how my statements were false doctrine.

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

Until you make some effort to engage the content numerous scholars and experts on the subject will not feel obliged to genuflect to your nebulous "the church essays have debunked all other arguments" in that you apparently have the gumption refer only to these and nothing else.

I asked you for  CFR for something that actually debunks the DNA issues and your lame response was to look at the LDS Church essays.  You took my CFR and essentially ignored it and then spun it back on me.

Typical.

 

Check out Simon Southerton for a start.

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/

 

 

 

 

Simon Southerton's blathering is precisely the sort of thing that the "Gospel Topics" essay neutralizes. The essay, after all, is a compendium of scholarly rebuttals that have come about since Southerton had his 15 minutes of fame, not before. If you are still pointing to Southerton as the definitive expert on DNA and the Book of Mormon, it only shows you haven't kept up with the issue over the years.

[Scott Lloyd]

Teancum, you mean this?

 

On 4/10/2016 at 1:56 PM, Teancum said:

My CFR is your own posts on this thread where you claim people are looking for an excuse to not believe:

 

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 didn't say people are looking for an excuse to not believe. I said that if they do, they will always be able to find it, because some things can only be resolved through faith.

In saying that, I agreed with Elder Oaks.

You distorted my words.

 

[cinepro]

I think the more interesting question that should be asked (and I assume, is being asked at higher levels) is what does the changing growth rate mean for missionaries in the Church?  What will need to change?  Does the focus remain on converts, with changes being made in an attempt to find more converts using new methods?  Or does the nature of missionary work change to focus on service, strengthening the members, finding less-actives etc. (a change that may already be in progress).

Will there be a time when youth look forward to their mission as a "Peace Corps" type experience where they are expecting to serve in more practical, temporal ways (with the understanding that they are also supposed to find converts, of course)?

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

Scott cited the discussion that he and I had earlier in the thread.  It followed the same pattern as yours.  He setup a strawman that had nothing to do with my point, and then argued against it. 

What he's done is help support your point that whichever way the numbers go, they can be used as evidence of prophecy fulfilled. 

[sigh]

What I did was to reason via the scriptures that the Church has grown (and will grow) to the extent that is necessary for it to have a global reach, but that the fulfillment of prophecy does not require it to be numerically dominant at any time prior to the Second Coming of Christ. The prophecy of the Kingdom of God rolling forth until it consumes all earthly kingdoms does not require that it be fulfilled prior to Christ's coming.

Thus, the detractors' gleefulness that the Church is still relatively few in numbers is misplaced and irrelevant.

You and Teancum seem frustrated by that fact. I can't say I fully understand why -- unless you sympathize with the detractors. I hate to think that's the case.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

[sigh]

What I did was to reason via the scriptures that the Church has grown (and will grow) to the extent that is necessary for it to have a global reach, but that the fulfillment of prophecy does not require it to be numerically dominant at any time prior to the Second Coming of Christ. The prophecy of the Kingdom of God rolling forth until ti consumes all earthly kingdoms does not require that it be fulfilled prior to Christ's coming.

Thus, the detractors' gleefulness that the Church is still relatively few in numbers is misplaced and irrelevant.

You and Teancum seem frustrated by that fact. I can't say I fully understand why -- unless you sympathize with the detractors. I hate to think that's the case.

Your first paragraph is a point that I have not disagreed with.   That's the strawman I referred to. 

I am neither gleeful nor frustrated.  That is you projecting emotions based on your misunderstanding or misperception of me. I simply have analyzed the data and discussed what I've learned. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Your first paragraph is a point that I have not disagreed with.   That's the strawman I referred to. 

 

Then you are at odds with teancum, who appears contemptuous of that point as an example of Mormons trying to have it both ways. He appears unable to entertain the thought that both the prophecy in Nephi's vision and the prophecy of Daniel about the stone cut out of the mountain without hands could be true.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then you are at odds with teancum, who appears contemptuous of that point as an example of Mormons trying to have it both ways. He appears unable to entertain the thought that both the prophecy in Nephi's vision and the prophecy of Daniel about the stone cut out of the mountain without hands could be true.

Ah... Well, whether numbers are up or down, I do think that Mormons (generally speaking) will consider it a fulfillment of prophecy.  We've seen that demonstrated here on this thread. 

And they may be right. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Teancum, you mean this?

 

I didn't say people are looking for an excuse to not believe. I said that if they do, they will always be able to find it, because some things can only be resolved through faith.

In saying that, I agreed with Elder Oaks.

You distorted my words.

 

Ok I will grant you that I misunderstood your point. 

 

Thank you for clarifying. 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, cinepro said:

I think the more interesting question that should be asked (and I assume, is being asked at higher levels) is what does the changing growth rate mean for missionaries in the Church?  What will need to change?  Does the focus remain on converts, with changes being made in an attempt to find more converts using new methods?  Or does the nature of missionary work change to focus on service, strengthening the members, finding less-actives etc. (a change that may already be in progress).

Will there be a time when youth look forward to their mission as a "Peace Corps" type experience where they are expecting to serve in more practical, temporal ways (with the understanding that they are also supposed to find converts, of course)?

If people today have been so "blinded by the craftiness of men" that they are generally less receptive than ever to the gospel message, that only means we must redouble our missionary efforts (and increase the size of our missionary force) to search out and teach those who are prepared to receive the message.

While any kind of wholesome service is good, redirecting the energies and efforts of proselyting missionaries into "a 'Peace Corps' type experience" would amount to an abdication of the primary responsibility to fulfill the commission of Christ to "go ... into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."