President Nelson: Goal is not to increase the number of Church members

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

Cinepro,

If I was the most brilliant, most inspired, most informed, ... social scientist and I presented two plans to the quorum of the twelve.

At the completion of my presentation, the leaders would agree with me that what I presented in plan 1 would result in what I claimed and what I present in plan 2 would result in what I claimed.  Those claims are:

Plan 1:

a. 10% growth for the church over the next 20 years (decreasing the percentage of humans who are LDS).

b. 50% increase across the world (in and out of the church) in love for God over the next 20 years.

c. 50% increase across the world (in and out of the church) in love for others with an emphasis upon families over the next 20 years.

d. 50% increase across the world (in and out of the church) in generic morality (as the church defines morality) over the next 20 years.

e. 50% increase across the world in true happiness (as opposed to some increase in the availability of pleasure) over the next 20 years.

Plan 2:

a. 100% growth for the church over the next 20 years with a doubling of tithing and other revenue.

b. A continued decrease in b-e for society in general offsetting the improvements for NEW church members such that net-net plan 2 didn't improve the world only the church.  In fact, while tithing and membership increases, righteousness among the Saints is fairly static due to us being in the world and too much of the world (just like today).

 

Lets further assume that the cost of both plans is identical and the proscriptions of both plans are so antithetical that only one can be chosen.

Which would they choose?

 

I think the leaders would choose Plan #1 (though like us all, I expect they would want both).

Charity, TOm

They'd be dingdongs to go with plan 2.

But the way the quote in the OP said it, it's not just to bring joy into the world.  The assumption is the way to bring joy is to baptize people:

"Their goal is not to increase the number of Church members. Rather, our missionaries teach and baptize to bring joy to the people of the world. "

They don't just teach to bring joy, but they teach and then baptize to bring joy.  Do missionaries bring joy into the world without baptizing?  Has anyone remarked that they have been filled with joy thanks to the missionaries preaching, but have decided not to be baptized?  I don't know that I have seen it.

I do recall a staunch Christian couple whom I tried to teach.  As far as I recall the teachings went over a couple of months.  We were all friendly and in my mind had great discussions.  But they would not move from their stance regarding the Church.  The gentleman told me as our visits concluded, "I wish we didn't do this.  I was better off not talking to you guys".  Oddly enough I felt the exact opposite--while we ended up in different places, I think we gained understanding of each other.  Anyway, just an example of one who suggested it'd been better if we didn't try and teach him.  And he wasn't baptized. 

[TOmNossor]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They'd be dingdongs to go with plan 2.

But the way the quote in the OP said it, it's not just to bring joy into the world.  The assumption is the way to bring joy is to baptize people:

"Their goal is not to increase the number of Church members. Rather, our missionaries teach and baptize to bring joy to the people of the world. "

They don't just teach to bring joy, but they teach and then baptize to bring joy.  Do missionaries bring joy into the world without baptizing?  Has anyone remarked that they have been filled with joy thanks to the missionaries preaching, but have decided not to be baptized?  I don't know that I have seen it.

I do recall a staunch Christian couple whom I tried to teach.  As far as I recall the teachings went over a couple of months.  We were all friendly and in my mind had great discussions.  But they would not move from their stance regarding the Church.  The gentleman told me as our visits concluded, "I wish we didn't do this.  I was better off not talking to you guys".  Oddly enough I felt the exact opposite--while we ended up in different places, I think we gained understanding of each other.  Anyway, just an example of one who suggested it'd been better if we didn't try and teach him.  And he wasn't baptized. 

I think the church leaders believe (and mostly rightly so) that baptism and the life changes that HOPEFULLY go along with it are the best ways to improve the world.  I am guessing that you believe this to be a belief of church leaders too.

I think joy is spread outside the church by actions performed by the church.  I think the missionaries are a force for good.  I think you probably blessed the lives of the couple you taught, but had they been non-believers I think it would have been more clear to you and them how much they were uplifted.

My interactions with non-believers and Christians IRL is mostly about lifting them up.  The Catholic priest I got a ride from last week was maybe lifted up by me, but I KNOW I was lifted up by him (in ways that had NOTHING to do with the ride).

To be the "leaven" is not solely to convert and is especially not just to convert to a specific religion.

 

All that being said, I am exploring the view that some seem to have that the church leaders are all about enriching the lives of the church leaders.  I think it unlikely Cinepro embraces such, but some folks do.

Charity, TOm

 

 

 

 

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I think falling back on the "long-promised" teaching ignores what that promise actually said.

The “long-promised day …when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood” is the day Adam called for when he “predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation,” having promised that the seed of Seth (through Noah) “should be preserved unto the end of the earth.” Preserved means to be kept or brought into the covenant, and this covenant became associated with Abraham, was in turn restored by Joseph Smith and more fully implemented in June 1978. So here we have the sons of Adam of every race and color, being brought into the blessings in the last days, just as the dead were brought in, and as the time of the Jews will further allow as the Restoration rolls on. It is really the same promise of the stone cut from the mountain rolling forth to fill the earth, and it clearly began with Adam. Brigham Young's statements fall nicely into that larger framework, even if they didn't play out exactly as described in the record.

Edited October 11, 2016 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The “long-promised day …when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood” is the day Adam called for when he “predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation,” having promised that the seed of Seth (through Noah) “should be preserved unto the end of the earth.” Preserved means to be kept or brought into the covenant, and this covenant became associated with Abraham, was in turn restored by Joseph Smith and more fully implemented in June 1978. So here we have the sons of Adam of every race and color, being brought into the blessings in the last days, just as the dead were brought in, and as the time of the Jews will further allow as the Restoration rolls on. It is really the same promise of the stone cut from the mountain rolling forth to fill the earth, and it clearly began with Adam. Brigham Young's statements fall nicely into that larger framework, even if they didn't play out exactly as described in the record.

And the sons of Abel?

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And the sons of Abel?

The last of the posterity of Abel would have the priesthood sometime before the flood (the "baptism" or redemption of the earth) – Abel had no posterity after that (unless they reside in the translated City of Enoch); all the peoples of the earth, notably Abraham, are the descendants of Seth.

Edited October 11, 2016 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

To understand the distinction President Nelson is drawing here, consider the following contrast.

Convincing people, by whatever means of persuasion is available to be baptized and thereby increasing the membership of the Church vs. helping people to become truly converted so that, as part of their spiritual renewal, they will desire of their own accord to enter into the covenants that are signified with baptism by one having authority.

The former pursues the goal of increasing the membership of the Church; the latter pursues the goal of bringing joy to people.

Edited to add:

And if I may say so, advocating that the Church knuckle under to social pressure and follow worldly trends regarding marriage and other things in order to make the Church more appealing to the outside public is an example of trying to increase the membership of the Church by means other than bringing true joy into people's lives.

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[UtahTexan]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, you should apologize for your false accusation.  You won't.   But you should. 

I will never apologize for being right.

[cinepro]

21 hours ago, UtahTexan said:

Thank you for admitting your definitive statement was nothing more than another of your opinions.

I appreciate that.

You're welcome.

Especially since you were the one saying it wasn't an opinion, not me.  I'm glad we finally got here, even if you took the long way around.

Edited October 11, 2016 by cinepro

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

You're welcome.

Especially since you were the one saying it wasn't an opinion, not me.  I'm glad we finally got here, even if you took the long way around.

You made the definitive statement...you never said, "I believe" or anything like it.  I am glad I got you to backtrack and admit you had no evidence so that it was, yet again, another of your opinions.  Thanks

 

[Jeanne]

21 hours ago, rockpond said:

Okay.  So you admit that you accused me of abusing the definition of the word for my own agenda but you won't bother to support the accusation.  Got it.  

I understand quite well.  I'll give you one warning but next time you act with such a lack of integrity, I'll just block you. 

I have said this to you before Rockpond..Welcome to my world.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Jeanne

[UtahTexan]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I have said this to you before Rockpond..Welcome to my world.

ah....Jeanne!  The one who blocks me and then posts to or about me knowing she can't see my response.....then bashes me and others on the other board!

That about says it all about you

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by UtahTexan

[rockpond]

54 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I have said this to you before Rockpond..Welcome to my world.

I don't remember having any previous discussions with UtahTexan before but I'm seeing how he interacts with me and others on this thread and I'm not impressed. 

Edited October 11, 2016 by rockpond

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I don't remember having any previous discussions with UtahTexan before but I'm seeing how he interacts with me and others on this thread and I'm not impressed. 

I am not here to impress you.  I am here to speak the truth.  The fact you incorrectly used slander AND murmur showed me where I need to help you.  

You are welcome.

[cinepro]

53 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

You made the definitive statement...you never said, "I believe" or anything like it.  I am glad I got you to backtrack and admit you had no evidence so that it was, yet again, another of your opinions.  Thanks

 

I never said "this is a definitive statement" or anything like it either, and it's impossible for a probability-based likelihood to be a "definitive statement" anyhow, so what was it in my original post that made you think it could ever be meant to be considered as such? 

You seem to have read it and thought "Cinepro is making a definitive statement; I must prove to him that he isn't!" without questioning the premise of your assumption (i.e. "Is it reasonable to construe Cinepro's comment as a definitive statement when it is framed as a hypothetical probability of an event that hasn't happened?")

I'm mystified by your efforts on this line of discussion, when I would have expected you to actually discuss the point of my post if you felt it so noteworthy, and to just ignore it if you didn't feel it was noteworthy (or if you agreed with it).

[UtahTexan]

12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I never said "this is a definitive statement" or anything like it either, and it's impossible for a probability-based likelihood to be a "definitive statement" anyhow, so what was it in my original post that made you think it could ever be meant to be considered as such? 

You seem to have read it and thought "Cinepro is making a definitive statement; I must prove to him that he isn't!" without questioning the premise of your assumption (i.e. "Is it reasonable to construe Cinepro's comment as a definitive statement when it is framed as a hypothetical probability of an event that hasn't happened?")

I'm mystified by your efforts on this line of discussion, when I would have expected you to actually discuss the point of my post if you felt it so noteworthy, and to just ignore it if you didn't feel it was noteworthy (or if you agreed with it).

Whatever makes you feel better.  I called you on your statement, I got what was needed.  Thanks'

 

You stated, " Odds of President Monson standing in Conference and admitting that one of the reasons the missionary age was lowered was to stem the massive tide of under-20s leaving the Church: Approximately 0.0"

Now...if you said ANYWHERE that you were giving opinion and not alleged fact, please show mw.

Edited October 12, 2016 by UtahTexan

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

I am not here to impress you.  I am here to speak the truth.  The fact you incorrectly used slander AND murmur showed me where I need to help you.  

You are welcome.

Well you haven't spoken the truth either.  You have repeatedly lied about me.  And you've lowered the quality of discourse on the thread. 

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well you haven't spoken the truth either.  You have repeatedly lied about me.  And you've lowered the quality of discourse on the thread. 

I absolutely spoke the truth.  Nor have I lied.  If anyone did, you did when you said I "slandered".  I will assume, however, that you simply did not know what "slander" meant.  Which also explains your issues with "murmuring"

Now....There is nothing more to add.  If you know the right definition now, there is not need to proceed.  If you still don;t, no further discussion will help.  

Good luck!

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

I absolutely spoke the truth.  Nor have I lied.  If anyone did, you did when you said I "slandered".  I will assume, however, that you simply did not know what "slander" meant.  Which also explains your issues with "murmuring"

Now....There is nothing more to add.  If you know the right definition now, there is not need to proceed.  If you still don;t, no further discussion will help.  

Good luck!

I used the correct definitions of both slander and murmur.  You continue to lie about me and have offered no support for your baseless accusations. 

 

[UtahTexan]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I used the correct definitions of both slander and murmur.  You continue to lie about me and have offered no support for your baseless accusations. 

 

sigh.....lol....no..I had to correct you....we both know it....but....since you need the last word....take it...we all know the truth

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

sigh.....lol....no..I had to correct you....we both know it....but....since you need the last word....take it...we all know the truth

Ha.  You thought you corrected me but I had used the word per the definition you provided.  That's been my point all along.  You failed to understand me, pretended to correct me, and then continued to lie about me and make accusations which you refuse to backup.  Oh well, I've learned a lot about you.  And I've noticed that this kind of behavior from you extends to others as well.  It's disappointing to me as it tends to inhibit the good, productive conversations because the trollish behavior sends people away from the thread.

FYI:  Telling me that you were right and I was wrong (as you did above) is not letting me have the "last word".  But it did give me a good chuckle.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, UtahTexan said:

Whatever makes you feel better.  I called you on your statement, I got what was needed.  Thanks'

 

You stated, " Odds of President Monson standing in Conference and admitting that one of the reasons the missionary age was lowered was to stem the massive tide of under-20s leaving the Church: Approximately 0.0"

Now...if you said ANYWHERE that you were giving opinion and not alleged fact, please show mw.

How can someone give a "definitive statement" about the likelihood of an event that hasn't happened? 

If I had said "I think the odds of President Monson standing in Conference..." it wouldn't have changed the meaning of the statement at all, because it's obvious from the nature of the statement that it is a conjecture.  I think everyone understood that except you.  Normally, when people read something on the internet, it's understood that it's an opinion, and if it is something for which there should obviously be support, people will ask for references.

But if you think that it is likely that President Monson will (or would) do such a thing, that's fine too.  You're allowed to think that without me demanding evidence (since I couldn't imagine what kind of evidence I'd be demanding.)

 

 

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

Please see:

Posted 20 hours ago

Posted 18 hours ago

OD-2 is bigger than any teaching that explained or supported the withholding of priesthood to blacks, and the idea of a long-promised day for making known God’s will for blessing all His children was taught all along. OD-2 is a part of that and since it was put in place, the Church has “looked forward to the future” just as she has always done. That is the nature of faith and progress.

I don’t think OD-2 addressed the problem of racism per se. Neither did it eliminate racism, as that is an individual responsibility in becoming more Christlike, an obligation the Church promoted all along. For this reason, the disavowal and sifting out of “theories advanced in the past” is a reflection of OD-2 advancing the light we already had and the role of its expanded practices in eliminating inconsistent teachings.

I agree that OD 2 is a huge milestone along the path to organizational enlightenment.  But I cannot help think the church's progression toward becoming a more accepting, Christlike, and inclusive organization would be helped significantly if it would own up to past mistakes.  The ban was wrong.  It was worse than wrong.  It was racist, and it was put forward to the members, not as "theories advanced in the past" but as doctrine.  This can hardly be argued as many books put out by the general authorities, conference talks, official first presidency corraspondance  and other over the pulpit speeches from many prophets and apostles that affirmed and supported this ban for decades.  

As for the "long promised day" and looking toward the future goes, almost to a person, the leaders said that day would come in the far, far future.  I will let Brigham Young speak for himself on this Matter:

That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion” (Brigham Young, October 9, 1859, Journal of Discourses 7:290-291).

Edited October 12, 2016 by sunstoned

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, cinepro said:

How can someone give a "definitive statement" about the likelihood of an event that hasn't happened? 

If I had said "I think the odds of President Monson standing in Conference..." it wouldn't have changed the meaning of the statement at all, because it's obvious from the nature of the statement that it is a conjecture.  I think everyone understood that except you.  Normally, when people read something on the internet, it's understood that it's an opinion, and if it is something for which there should obviously be support, people will ask for references.

But if you think that it is likely that President Monson will (or would) do such a thing, that's fine too.  You're allowed to think that without me demanding evidence (since I couldn't imagine what kind of evidence I'd be demanding.)

 

 

Yes, Cinepro, I believe that all of the non-troll participants here understood that you were clearly not making a "definitive statement".  It was obvious from the context and wording to be an opinion of yours. 

[UtahTexan]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

How can someone give a "definitive statement" about the likelihood of an event that hasn't happened? 

If I had said "I think the odds of President Monson standing in Conference..." it wouldn't have changed the meaning of the statement at all, because it's obvious from the nature of the statement that it is a conjecture.  I think everyone understood that except you.  Normally, when people read something on the internet, it's understood that it's an opinion, and if it is something for which there should obviously be support, people will ask for references.

But if you think that it is likely that President Monson will (or would) do such a thing, that's fine too.  You're allowed to think that without me demanding evidence (since I couldn't imagine what kind of evidence I'd be demanding.)

 

 

I am appreciative that you had to back-peddle.  and appreciative that you stated it was just another of your opinions.  Thank you.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I agree that OD 2 is a huge milestone along the path to organizational enlightenment.  But I cannot help think the church's progression toward becoming a more accepting, Christlike, and inclusive organization would be helped significantly if it would own up to past mistakes.  The ban was wrong.  It was worse than wrong.  It was racist, and it was put forward to the members, not as "theories advanced in the past" but as doctrine.  This can hardly be argued as many books put out by the general authorities, conference talks, official first presidency corraspondance  and other over the pulpit speeches from many prophets and apostles that affirmed and supported this ban for decades.  

As for the "long promised day" and looking toward the future goes, almost to a person, the leaders said that day would come in the far, far future.  I will let Brigham Young speak for himself on this Matter:

That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion” (Brigham Young, October 9, 1859, Journal of Discourses 7:290-291).

As you pointed out earlier, historical records of disavowed teachings are available. But for those who look to the future, the disavowal and unequivocal condemnation of racism serve perfectly well and make the right points in a more constructive manner than you would suggest, sufficient for the elect from the four quarters of the earth (the elect meaning anyone who hears the Lord’s voice and hardens not their hearts). This has been the case since OD-2 came about in 1978. A supplementary organizational apology to anyone offended by and focused on the past will not make an elect person out of one who is not; it simply doesn’t work that way. Ruminating over past disavowed and condemned offenses until an apology is made is not what the elect do, and apologies don’t satisfy them anyway!