RevTestament Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 5 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Did every Old Testament story literally happen in the past? What do you fellow posters think? Does it effect our faith if some of the Old Testament stories were just that, stories? Is the message more important than being historically accurate? To me the only Bible story that has to be true for me to be satisfied is Jesus Christ's atonement and the resurrection. I view it like this. The characters are literal, but the "story" may be allegorical or have allegorical components. Jesus revealed the OT. In other words the Jews didn't and couldn't really comprehend it until He came. He made it manifest, so that the people got a glimpse through to the other side of the ripped veil. Take for example this scripture in Isaiah 22: 20 ¶And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: 21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house. So is this something that happened in Isaiah's day or while "Eliakim" was still alive? If not, then it is allegorical for some future event. Like this, other scriptures teach that the tree of life in the Garden of Eden is not a literal tree plant species, but is symbolic of something else. So too, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The story is presented in a very plain way, but its true meaning is revealed later. In other words it is a symbolic parable of sorts. So they aren't "just that, stories." They are actually quite significant and important to understand in order to grasp the totality of the gospel.
waveslider Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 22 minutes ago, RevTestament said: other scriptures teach that the tree of life in the Garden of Eden is not a literal tree plant species, but is symbolic of something else. So too, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What other scriptures? I haven't ever noticed them before and I would like to study them.
RevTestament Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 10 minutes ago, waveslider said: What other scriptures? I haven't ever noticed them before and I would like to study them. Ezekiel 31:8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty. Revelation 2:7 7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. Revelation 22:2 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Revelation 22:14 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. John 15:5 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. Alma 5:34 34 Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely;
Bernard Gui Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Tacenda said: And when reading wiki it has some information that seems to make one question. Such as this quote: "One letter says that Harris thought that a candle sputtering was the work of the devil[30] and that he had met Jesus in the shape of a deer and walked and talked with him for two or three miles.[31] The local Presbyterian minister called him "a visionary fanatic."[32] A friend, who praised Harris as "universally esteemed as an honest man" but disagreed with his religious affiliation, declared that Harris's mind "was overbalanced by 'marvellousness'" and that his belief in earthly visitations of angels and ghosts gave him the local reputation of being crazy.[33]Another friend said, "Martin was a good citizen. Martin was a man that would do just as he agreed with you. But, he was a great man for seeing spooks."[34]" And the other two witnesses were related to Joseph. Joseph should have had 3 people that were off the street vs. people who are related to him and could be in on something, and the man with the money, Harris, not having all his marbles doesn't suffice to me. Was this Harris's reputation before or after his actual experiences with angels to which he testified until his death? [EDIT] Before and after, according to the article cited. http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/dialogue/id/16433 See pages 31-34 for a discussion of his "visionary" nature. I have a hard time with recollections that are 40-70 years after the fact and are couched in terms like "reported" "believed to be" "perhaps" "suggested" etc. Here's the quote from footnote 33 in the source you cited: Quote He was a prosperous, independent farmer, strictly upright in his business dealings, and, although evidencing good qualifications in the affairs of his industrial calling, yet he was the slave of the peculiar religious fanaticism controlling his mental organization. "Marvellousness" being his predominating phrenological de- velopment, he was noted for the betrayal of vague superstitions - a belief in dreams, ghosts, hobgoblins, "special providences," terrestrial visits of angels, the interposition of "devils" to afflict sinful men, etc. Phrenology isn't a reliable way to determine "marvelousness." I wonder who noted his mental defects? Except for ghosts and hobgoblins those other things are standard Christian/Mormon beliefs. Edited October 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui
waveslider Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: Ezekiel 31:8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty. Revelation 2:7 7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. Revelation 22:2 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Revelation 22:14 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. John 15:5 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. Alma 5:34 34 Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely; None of these scriptures teach definitively that the tree of life, nor the tree of knowledge, are not literal tree plant species. 3 hours ago, RevTestament said: ....other scriptures teach that the tree of life in the Garden of Eden is not a literal tree plant species, but is symbolic of something else. So too, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I personally have never found any scripture that states such.
RevTestament Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 6 minutes ago, waveslider said: None of these scriptures teach definitively that the tree of life, nor the tree of knowledge, are not literal tree plant species. I personally have never found any scripture that states such. You're kidding me right? C'mon Alma 5:34 34 Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely; I see it clearly. If you don't I can't help that.
Rain Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, RevTestament said: You're kidding me right? C'mon Alma 5:34 34 Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely; I see it clearly. If you don't I can't help that. This doesn't teach that it is not literal. It does show where it is used symbolically. I'm inclined to believe it is always symbolic, but I can see where it could be both.
waveslider Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: You're kidding me right? C'mon Alma 5:34 34 Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely; I see it clearly. If you don't I can't help that. Are you sure that isn't talking about being able to actually partake in literal fruit, during the Millennium, in the New Jerusalem, after the morning of the first resurrection has already commenced?
JLHPROF Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 5 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Did every Old Testament story literally happen in the past? Yes and no. I believe every event actually happened. I do think as Brigham said that there are some symbolic elements to the record.
Gray Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 On 10/14/2016 at 11:01 PM, Robert F. Smith said: The shoe is actually on the other foot, Bill. In addition to James White being a rabid anti-Mormon, both White and Spong are well-known members of moribund christianity. The only thing we can really learn from either one is how not to be an authentic Christian. They are both well-intentioned, but their churches are collapsing and disappearing. If we adopt their beliefs, we will likewise fail and disappear. On the other hand, they might well learn something from the LDS tradition about what successful Christianity looks like. They probably won't. I'm not sure the Episcopalians have adopted anything close to Spong's approach. He is convinced that literalism is killing Christianity. I don't know if that's true. Maybe it's what is fueling the exodus from organized religion, but I don't know if there is a way to get those people back . In any case, if growth is a sign of authenticity, then we must look to the Muslims. As a church we are treading water. The only reason we're not experiencing a net loss is our massive missionary effort, which historically has given us a lot of names on the roles but few bums in the seats. As a percentage of Christianity we're still barely a blip on the radar. Are we really that successful? We're not failing but we may be foundering in the water.
Bernard Gui Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Gray said: As a church we are treading water. The only reason we're not experiencing a net loss is our massive missionary effort, which historically has given us a lot of names on the roles but few bums in the seats. As a percentage of Christianity we're still barely a blip on the radar. Are we really that successful? We're not failing but we may be foundering in the water. Or are we simply fulfilling Nephi's prophecy to the letter... Quote 12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw. Why should we expect it to be any different than this? Edited October 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui 2
mfbukowski Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 On 10/13/2016 at 10:29 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Of course you find it absurd, Bill, simply because you have bought into the yokelized versions of it perpetuated by fundamentalist evangelicals and their fellow travelers, along with the young Earth, etc., none of which is required by the biblical text. Since you can't read the text, and are not familiar with worldwide flood myths, naturally you can't make head or tail of the problem. Great scholars, such as the late William F. Albright, have theorized that the myth comes as a result of the massive Pluvial rains which came down at the end fo the last Ice Age -- causing catastrophic, but local/regional floods. During the Ice Age, for example, coastlines were 300 feet below where they are today. Imagine the ocean surge as all coastal villages were washed away. Just the great collapse of Lake Bonneville alone must have been horrendous for those nearby: http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/hydr/lkbflood/lbf.htm ; similarly for the Mediterranean flowing suddenly into the Black Sea: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/?no-ist . Mesopotamian versions of the Great Deluge are much earlier than the Bible. And yet, temple towers (ziggurats) were built for thousands of years in Mesopotamia. Why would that seem odd to you? There is even a much earlier Mesopotamian version of the confusion of tongues myth. I know of no scholar who believes that Isaiah was written by one author. Yokels, yes, but not scholars -- who generally posit an Isaianic School. The only debate is about the specific dating of which sections of Isaiah. I suppose so. Especially if you don't personally understand the issues. Then you get victimized by the loudest critic. See my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham . A pretty generic statement. Does that mean that you side with the minimalists and reject the existence of King David and his dynasty, etc. Or are you harking back to Moses, Joseph, Abraham, and Noah? Do you do the same with Homeric Epic? And does that mean that there was no Greek golden age, and that there were no Myceneans? Do you reject both archeology and myth as one and the same? Do you even understand what that would mean? Can you define "prophet, prophecy" adequately so that it comports with actual ancient Near Eastern studies? I have done so several times on this board. Playing fast and loose wtih the subject accomplishes nothing -- except giving you a predetermined conclusion. Your convenient circular claim here is ridiculous. Mormon theology posits multiple roads to truth, and Joseph always maintained that he would accept truth from whatever source. Your definition and assumptions made here are narrow and deeply flawed. Not only do they not comport with Mormonism, but they are designed for maximum failure. See Alma 32, James 1:5, and recognize that no testimony is transferrable. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and Scripture is self-authenticating. No one can tell you that you are wrong, Bill. You are your own judge. Please allow others the same privilege. You like to name-drop, Bill, but your claims here lack substance. In fact, the named persons here do not share your views. If you disagree, then back your claims with actual quotes and cited sources. That is what I do. If you cannot do so, then stand on your own claims, instead of bringing in surrogates who do not in fact hold the same views you do. You need to stand on your own hind legs, Bill. Stop claiming nameless others share your views. I recommend that you speak for yourself rather than purveying nonsense about which you know nothing. By all means keep interviewing people and reading a variety of sources, but not just taking the most baleful attitude. There are other ways of looking at this whole issue. Whatever your analysis, please make it fact-based. Mormonism has no problem with science, despite what you seem to believe. Wonderful post, right on the money! 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 10 hours ago, Tacenda said: Well, I've read that the wine could have been spiked with Datura, which will enable people to have visions. Another, that they had fasted and drank a lot of wine that night in the Kirtland temple. And when reading wiki it has some information that seems to make one question. Such as this quote: "One letter says that Harris thought that a candle sputtering was the work of the devil[30] and that he had met Jesus in the shape of a deer and walked and talked with him for two or three miles.[31] The local Presbyterian minister called him "a visionary fanatic."[32] A friend, who praised Harris as "universally esteemed as an honest man" but disagreed with his religious affiliation, declared that Harris's mind "was overbalanced by 'marvellousness'" and that his belief in earthly visitations of angels and ghosts gave him the local reputation of being crazy.[33]Another friend said, "Martin was a good citizen. Martin was a man that would do just as he agreed with you. But, he was a great man for seeing spooks."[34]" And the other two witnesses were related to Joseph. Joseph should have had 3 people that were off the street vs. people who are related to him and could be in on something, and the man with the money, Harris, not having all his marbles doesn't suffice to me. Which scholarly sources say that about Datura (Jimson Weed), and was it being used in northeastern America then? Which scholarly sources back up the observations on Harris? A good scholarly source (can be written by a non-Mormon) would include a full account of Harris' life, not simply anti-Mormon rumors about him. For example, Harris took the copy of hieroglyphs with him to various clergy and scholars in the East. Have you read what they have to say? Do you think that a balanced appraisal is called for in such controversial circumstances? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: I'm not sure the Episcopalians have adopted anything close to Spong's approach. He is convinced that literalism is killing Christianity. I don't know if that's true. Maybe it's what is fueling the exodus from organized religion, but I don't know if there is a way to get those people back . Spong is merely one of the best known figures in modern christianity to adopt the views he expressed during that debate, e.g., that the God of the OT is an ogre, and that we need to stand for peace and love. Wonderful intention, but a very diffuse and unfocused purpose. And it is not an exodus from organized religion, but from namby pambly versions of religion. Spong offers "no direction home," to quote a recent Nobel Prize winner. 1 hour ago, Gray said: In any case, if growth is a sign of authenticity, then we must look to the Muslims. The Muslims are successful for the same reason that any other religion (or belief system) is successful: They stand for something, and do so with fidelity and energy. Indeed, perhaps too much energy, since they spend so much time killing each other (especially Sunnis and Shiites). Any good sociological analysis of successful religious groups will tell you how to make your own group successful. It is no mystery. However, you failure to differentiate between growth and authenticity shows that you don't get the point at all: Any group can adopt successful growth techniques -- which was what I was advising the evangelicals and mainstream churches, who are losing members. At one time, they were far more successful. Too bad for them that they have adopted a moribund approach to faith. 1 hour ago, Gray said: As a church we are treading water. The only reason we're not experiencing a net loss is our massive missionary effort, which historically has given us a lot of names on the roles but few bums in the seats. As a percentage of Christianity we're still barely a blip on the radar. Are we really that successful? We're not failing but we may be foundering in the water. Your claims here are basically false, and do not accord with actual statistics (which we have discussed many times on this board over the years). Mormons have seen rapid growth since 1830, and continue to grow. Some complain that the growth rate has slowed, but it has always been oscillatory. We are not floundering in the water, even though we are indeed "a blip on the radar" of churches like the Catholic Church which has had centuries of growth for us to catch up with. But that is a completely unfair comparison, and only highlights your non-serious response to me. There are about 12 million Methodists worldwide, 7 million of them in the USA. Here in the USA they have been losing about the equivalent of a 318-member congregation every day of the year for several years now. This is true across the board for mainstream Protestant churches. Why? One source said: Quote . . . mainline churches are on a path toward extinction. The mainline churches are finding that as they move further away from Biblical Christianity, the closer they get to their inevitable demise. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-are-all-christian-denominations-in-decline This has not been as true for more "conservative" churches, even though (after a temporary respite) they are also now faltering. 2
Tacenda Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 In my Utah ward, it doesn't seem to have a problem with attendance. How is it in the other parts of the world? if anyone cares to answer.
boblloyd91 Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 35 minutes ago, Tacenda said: In my Utah ward, it doesn't seem to have a problem with attendance. How is it in the other parts of the world? if anyone cares to answer. Well I lived in Idaho for a bit (Boise area, not part of the "Mormon Corridor) and there were about 1,000 convert baptisms a year in that mission. Having said that, one ward I was in was consolidated with another. When I was in Iowa I served in both branches and wards. As can be expected, there were wards and stakes in the city and branches in the small towns. To my knowledge none of them have been shut down since I last checked. There are a fair amount of less actives there too. So there you have it: my observations of the exotic locales of Idaho and Iowa!
Tacenda Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 22 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said: Well I lived in Idaho for a bit (Boise area, not part of the "Mormon Corridor) and there were about 1,000 convert baptisms a year in that mission. Having said that, one ward I was in was consolidated with another. When I was in Iowa I served in both branches and wards. As can be expected, there were wards and stakes in the city and branches in the small towns. To my knowledge none of them have been shut down since I last checked. There are a fair amount of less actives there too. So there you have it: my observations of the exotic locales of Idaho and Iowa! My son and daughter in law live in Boise, Idaho! But are inactive now. My DIL's mother ward hops, her husband is inactive as well.
boblloyd91 Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 39 minutes ago, Tacenda said: My son and daughter in law live in Boise, Idaho! But are inactive now. My DIL's mother ward hops, her husband is inactive as well. Boise is a very nice area, I enjoyed myself there for the little while I was there (I went to Boise State for graduate school). 1
mfbukowski Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 On 10/13/2016 at 1:31 PM, DBMormon said: Let me set this up. I completely get that mileage will vary in terms of how people weigh evidence on any side of any issue. I grant that. I also am not speaking of true or untrue as something can be implausible to someone and still true and something can. Rather I want to see why you choose to weigh certain evidence differently then other evidence. In setting this up I will share my personal perspective and see how you differ. For me when I look at some of the difficult issues here is where I come down - Informed to whatever extent I am on biblical scholarship - I find a global flood absurd and beyond just a miracle and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. reasons described here . Local Flood also is problematic and for Occam's razor compels me to believe it is a fictional myth altogether. - I find the tower of Babel story as told to be absurd and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. - I find the scholarship on 2nd and 3rd Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah) to be more convincing than a single author. - I find all the plausible reconciliations for the Book of Abraham to be problematic and the critics to hold the upper hand - I personally side with the biblical scholarship that the old testament figures and stories surrounding them are likely fictional myth and at best highly embellished. - I personally don't see modern day prophets acting and doing things that match how the church itself has defined prophets. And they certainly in my mind are nothing like Moses, Noah, and Abraham. - Based on a survey done and its results, using spiritual experiences seems an ineffective way to tell which church is true. Also in line with this I find the Holy Ghost to be an ineffective way to discern "T" Truth. perhaps beauty, goodness or even lower case "t" truth. Let me finish by saying there are dozens more. I think this is what many of the scholars are pointing to when they speak of Mormonism having to redefine itself, or redefine key parts of its theology, or that the dominant narrative is not true. Mason, Hardy, the Givens, the Bushmans, Miller, Thomas McConkie and others seem to one degree or another be telling us the current narrative as held doesn't hold up. Yet many members of the church including many here hold firmly that these things either mean nothing or they simply don't buy into them. On the other hand there are many Latter-day Saints who want to hold onto Mormonism but logically are arriving at the same conclusions I have. Here are my questions - Do you not find such contradictory evidence to your conclusion compelling? - Does your spiritual experience with Mormonism trump any contradictory evidence no matter how weighty? - Why in-spite of almost all faiths having members who "know" their faith is the true one, why are you confident your religion actually is.? - People argue against Deutero Isaiah, global flood, Tower of Babel, etc... that the Church is true and hence we work backwards from that and figure out how to force the answer to fit. For those who do that why is the Church the dog and and arguments around it the tail. (The dog wags the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog.) Reason would seem to indicate the other way around that if the evidence is compelling that the church is not what it claims that one would have to change their beliefs about the Church. Lastly for those who want to be Mormon but who feel their reason and logic compel them to drop literal belief, what are they to do? Other thoughts or questions? Again this is not about the Church being true but rather the motivation we each feel to make it work or fit or the motivation to find new ways to reconcile what simply cant fit for us. I went back over the thread so far- 5 pages - and haven't found a post yet which agrees with your assertion that: Quote Yet many members of the church including many here hold firmly that these things either mean nothing or they simply don't buy into them. in relation to literalism. No literalists yet. I find that interesting.
Bob Crockett Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 On 10/15/2016 at 8:39 AM, DBMormon said: The dog wags the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog. Part of your problem in communication is that you resort frequently to jargon. Perhaps it could be said instead that a belief in the Divinity of Jesus and in a resurrection requires faith that can't be learned from excommunicants with podcasts. Whereas I respect what they have to say, in the end, it comes down to a metaphysical relationship with the Holy Spirit. 3
Gray Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 On 10/15/2016 at 11:27 PM, Bernard Gui said: Or are we simply fulfilling Nephi's prophecy to the letter... Why should we expect it to be any different than this? I don't think I'll ever get used to this. When I was a missionary we were always talking about the "stone cut without hands" to refer to exponential growth of the church.
Gray Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 (edited) On 10/16/2016 at 0:46 AM, Robert F. Smith said: Spong is merely one of the best known figures in modern christianity to adopt the views he expressed during that debate, e.g., that the God of the OT is an ogre, and that we need to stand for peace and love. Wonderful intention, but a very diffuse and unfocused purpose. And it is not an exodus from organized religion, but from namby pambly versions of religion. Spong offers "no direction home," to quote a recent Nobel Prize winner. Almost all religions are feeling the bite, but probably mainline protestant branches the most of all. What is a namby pamby religion? A religion that does not have strong social controls in place? Quote The Muslims are successful for the same reason that any other religion (or belief system) is successful: They stand for something, and do so with fidelity and energy. Indeed, perhaps too much energy, since they spend so much time killing each other (especially Sunnis and Shiites). Any good sociological analysis of successful religious groups will tell you how to make your own group successful. It is no mystery. However, you failure to differentiate between growth and authenticity shows that you don't get the point at all: Any group can adopt successful growth techniques -- which was what I was advising the evangelicals and mainstream churches, who are losing members. At one time, they were far more successful. Too bad for them that they have adopted a moribund approach to faith. Well Robert, you were talking about growth as if it were an indicator of authenticity - or at least that's how it sounded to me. Obviously popularity has nothing to do with rightness. I think at the end of the day we both know that. Quote Your claims here are basically false, and do not accord with actual statistics (which we have discussed many times on this board over the years). Mormons have seen rapid growth since 1830, and continue to grow. Some complain that the growth rate has slowed, but it has always been oscillatory. We are not floundering in the water, even though we are indeed "a blip on the radar" of churches like the Catholic Church which has had centuries of growth for us to catch up with. But that is a completely unfair comparison, and only highlights your non-serious response to me. When I'm non-serious, you'll know it. I'll start to adopt Nehorisms. Let's take the Evangelical movement. They've barely been around more than a century, and they have something like 300 million members. That doesn't sound "moribund" to me. The Mormon movement has grown much slower, and its growth continues to slow. This is despite our enormous missionary outreach and our higher than average birthrate. Without those two factors we'd be wilting on the vine just as fast as the mainline Protestants. I would posit that the Evangelical movement has been so successful because it plays on people's insecurities, and gives people a simple black and white view of the world. Religions like that are always popular, but often devoid of authentic spirituality. By the way, I did not mean to say "floundering." I meant "foundering", as in, to founder. Quote There are about 12 million Methodists worldwide, 7 million of them in the USA. Here in the USA they have been losing about the equivalent of a 318-member congregation every day of the year for several years now. This is true across the board for mainstream Protestant churches. Why? One source said: This has not been as true for more "conservative" churches, even though (after a temporary respite) they are also now faltering. Yes, all true. Edited October 17, 2016 by Gray
DBMormon Posted October 17, 2016 Author Posted October 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: I don't think I'll ever get used to this. When I was a missionary we were always talking about the "stone cut without hands" to refer to exponential growth of the church. This plays out a lot like how FairMormon handles the Adam God issue and how the church hanles the BOA issue in the essay. You give out more than one possibility in spite of all possibilities having flaws. Whenever someone rasiies a question about 'A' you simply point them to 'B' as a solution. When 'B' fails you point them to 'C' then 'D' and then eventually back to 'A'. the trouble is when the Church is growing like crazy we pull out the Stone cut without hands and the "It is only a little handfull of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America—it will fill the world.’" When it is not growing or shrinking we speak as if we never should have expected as much and use scriptures to show it. I should say that I can see how both sets of scripture can be true at the same time. The trouble is the way they have been used. They are used to compel belief in the prophetic as if we were supposed to be the "fastest growing church" or "A Church of so very few". The Church can always play whichever card it wants and it can be a win win. 1
JLHPROF Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 2 hours ago, Gray said: I don't think I'll ever get used to this. When I was a missionary we were always talking about the "stone cut without hands" to refer to exponential growth of the church. The missionary prophecies are that the gospel will be taken to all the earth and every nation, rolling forth to all the earth. There is no prophecy I am aware of that states that any more than a small percent of the world will accept the gospel. And there are several that I am aware of that states it will be an even smaller percent of those who become members who will actually follow God and stick with the gospel after joining.
Gray Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The missionary prophecies are that the gospel will be taken to all the earth and every nation, rolling forth to all the earth. There is no prophecy I am aware of that states that any more than a small percent of the world will accept the gospel. And there are several that I am aware of that states it will be an even smaller percent of those who become members who will actually follow God and stick with the gospel after joining. The stone is often compared to the Kingdom of God, which is often equated with the church. I was looking for a video we used to show, and couldn't find it. Part if it included a world map that would light up with each new stake that was established. It was all about how the growth of the church fulfilled Daniel's prophesy. There was a section on the early missionary work in England, as I recall. Edited October 17, 2016 by Gray
Recommended Posts