Is "slowing growth" really a concern, as opposed to membership loss?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

The weird thing is that a year ago, we were told that there would be a massive ratcheting up of ward and stake division in North America to reach "optimal unit size" (300-350; 3000). We were specifically told that the Southwest Area (Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Nevada) were the primary targets because of demographics. As I've mentioned, by that definition, our stake and all wards in the stake are ready to split. But it appears that the divisions have nearly stopped. 

There are probably different rules for Utah given the density and activity levels of the Saints and the current growth of the state.  The no more buildings announcement was about a year ago, iirc.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Just as a follow up - http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2017/05/consolidation-of-church-units-some-reflections/

• Last month more than half of the Church units in Flanders were closed (Flanders is the Dutch-speaking, northern part of Belgium, with a population of 6.5 million). We shrank from 9 wards and branches to just 4. Historic cities like Bruges and Louvain lost their Mormon meeting place. It’s part of the major “contraction” of the Church in Europe, rumored to dismantle 800 of the some 1200 units.

 

No mention of a membership decline, but a clear statement of a reduction of wards.  One very interesting statement:

•  church growth comes less from converts in scattered places, but through “the multigenerational model” in Mormon bastions. Statements by Church leaders seem to confirm that shift. Retention is very low among converts. They lack the Mormon formative childhood and mission experience. Higher retention (or somewhat higher retention) is achieved among children who grew up in dedicated Mormon families and went on missions.

If this were the 1800s we'd probably be speculating about end times prophecies or a re-establishing of the more literal gathering.  No longer can a few members meet as a branch but must instead gather to a consolidated ward (stakes of Zion etc).   Are the missionaries going to be called home from Europe too?  Fewer wards may mean fewer missionaries assigned correct?

Several European friends have said how hard it is to keep their kids active in Church when they are the only active kids in their branch/ward.  Consolidation for that reason alone might be worth it.

[SteveO]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If this were the 1800s we'd probably be speculating about end times prophecies or a re-establishing of the more literal gathering.  No longer can a few members meet as a branch but must instead gather to a consolidated ward (stakes of Zion etc).   Are the missionaries going to be called home from Europe too?  Fewer wards may mean fewer missionaries assigned correct?

So a consolidation of church membership and resources...a sifting of the wheat if you will...everyone hates Israel...Trump plays the role of the fourth horseman...death, famine, pestilence...

Call to Zion in the near future?!

But seriously, are you suggesting you're seeing something that would indicate we're getting...there?

[Duncan]

20 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

As someone else mentioned, 2016 was a good year for units formed. I'm thinking it would be a matter of growth being somewhat cyclical where one sees a cycle of growth resulting in the building of stakes and eventually temples. Maybe we are seeing the fulfillment of certain growth cycles in various areas and have to wait a few years for more growth on a larger level to happen again. I think it's a bit shortsighted to think things are already declining when last year was a very successful year growth wise

We had a new unit, a branch, created in 2016 and we have a smaller satellite branches that given enough people living there could turn into a branch or ward. Funnily enough Elder Renlund of the Twelve came here last year and basically said our stake was all higgledy piggledy so he got the wheels greased and they created a district with some outlining branches and this new branch. He also said all the missionaries should have cars, even in outlining areas, I take it they didn't previously. Something i've learned for some people it isn't a problem until they have to deal with it themselves whereas other people see others' perspective and try to fix things if they are in a position to do so

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

You could very well be correct. Since the secular humanists are clearly already on the adversary's side (e.g. no God, no Christ, no such thing as prophets of God, no true Church, no inspired scripture, no Second Coming, no resurrection, no heaven and eternal life, no eternal families, no belief in the devil [one of the adversary's biggest goals]) why waste time with the secular humanists when the Evangelicals need to be conquered? But the most likely scenario is when the players and issues of the closing drama are out in the open and all things become perfectly clear, many Evangelicalz will become Latter-Day Saints. Stranger things have happened.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Many secular humanists advocate for Christ-like principles, which are more important than petty doctrinal disputes.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, Gray said:

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Many secular humanists advocate for Christ-like principles, which are more important than petty doctrinal disputes.

To a degree. However many of the elements you characterize as doctrinal disputes are important. Life isn't just about being good but developing a relationship with God. And ultimately the later is pretty important. 

I'd also say that secular humanism because of disputes on the petty doctrine can come up with very different conclusions regarding actions. Abortion is the obvious example. Of course one can be an atheist and be opposed to abortion. I know many who are. However secular humanists typically have been extremely pro-choice with that mentioned in most of their manifestos.

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

To a degree. However many of the elements you characterize as doctrinal disputes are important. Life isn't just about being good but developing a relationship with God. And ultimately the later is pretty important. 

I'd also say that secular humanism because of disputes on the petty doctrine can come up with very different conclusions regarding actions. Abortion is the obvious example. Of course one can be an atheist and be opposed to abortion. I know many who are. However secular humanists typically have been extremely pro-choice with that mentioned in most of their manifestos.

Pro choice doesn't necessarily mean pro abortion.  Some people just feel that while they personally may disagree with abortions, they feel that they should have no say in the decisions others might make on the issue.

[clarkgoble]

56 minutes ago, california boy said:

Pro choice doesn't necessarily mean pro abortion.  Some people just feel that while they personally may disagree with abortions, they feel that they should have no say in the decisions others might make on the issue.

Well of late it's become more than merely pro-choice. But pro-choice is still a huge difference from pro-life and it ends up being tied to doctrinal or philosophical disputes. i.e. your beliefs regarding the make up of the universe actually do have ethical implications.

Edited May 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well of late it's become more than merely pro-choice. But pro-choice is still a huge difference from pro-life and it ends up being tied to doctrinal or philosophical disputes. i.e. your beliefs regarding the make up of the universe actually do have ethical implications.

Of course there is a big difference.  Some people think it is their right to impose their beliefs on others.  That is a huge difference. I am more of a teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves kind of guy.

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

Of course there is a big difference.  Some people think it is their right to impose their beliefs on others.  That is a huge difference. I am more of a teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves kind of guy.

Nearly everyone thinks they have a right to impose beliefs on others. That's why we have laws. The only people who disagree are anarchists. What we disagree about primarily is which laws we should have. And that's entirely determined by our beliefs.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 Some people think it is their right to impose their beliefs on others.  That is a huge difference.

That would be practically everyone.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Nearly everyone thinks they have a right to impose beliefs on others. That's why we have laws. The only people who disagree are anarchists. What we disagree about primarily is which laws we should have. And that's entirely determined by our beliefs.

I so disagree with this.  We do not have laws so that others can impose their beliefs on others.  Quite the opposite.  We have laws to defend the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States from those that wish to take away those rights because of their own personal beliefs.  

I, like the founders of this country believe that those rights are self evident and are endowed by our creator.  

Edited May 19, 2017 by california boy

[clarkgoble]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

I so disagree with this.  We do not have laws so that others can impose their beliefs on others.  Quite the opposite.  We have laws to defend the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States from those that wish to take away those rights because of their own personal beliefs.  

I, like the founders of this country believe that those rights are self evident and are endowed by our creator.  

So the speed limit is guaranteeing my rights? 

Perhaps you think that laws should only be about guaranteeing rights but most people don't think that. In any case even with your position it merely puts the question of beliefs back a level since it still depends upon beliefs about rights. And not everyone agrees upon what the rights should be. Thus the imposition of beliefs on others such as over the 2cd amendment. So you might think them self-evident but I think that highly questionable. I think self-evident simply means "agreed upon by my friends."

Edited May 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/17/2017 at 1:03 PM, JLHPROF said:

This article (http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2017/05/lds-congregational-growth-significantly.html) says that the creation of new congregations (wards etc) is down.
I'm going to assume that this is accurate.  My question is, does this really have any significance or mean anything important?
 

This deals with growth in the US.  If the Church is growing in other places, then it does not matter as much.  I believe that we should expect a slow growth or even a reduction in membership as we get closer to when Christ returns.  With all the things going on in the world and how things are progressing, this is actually exciting times to be a member.  Better to be a member now than 50 years ago.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

So the speed limit is guaranteeing my rights? 

Perhaps you think that laws should only be about guaranteeing rights but most people don't think that. In any case even with your position it merely puts the question of beliefs back a level since it still depends upon beliefs about rights. And not everyone agrees upon what the rights should be. Thus the imposition of beliefs on others such as over the 2cd amendment. So you might think them self-evident but I think that highly questionable. I think self-evident simply means "agreed upon by my friends."

Speeding laws? Really? You really think public safety is the same as imposing personal beliefs?  

The constitution guarantees basic rights so that religions and other groups can not infringe on others rights. And guess what.  It worked. A third branch of government is specifically designed to prevent people like you from imposing your personal beliefs on others. 

Those same laws protect you to be able to practice your beliefs from people who hold different values. 

[probablyHagoth7]

On 5/18/2017 at 10:26 AM, JLHPROF said:

Is slowing growth a concern as much as an actual declination of membership would be?

No.

Unabated rapid growth can create more problems than it solves. Previously-thriving businesses have toppled from focusing on growth at the expense of fiscal strength.

Jacob 5 has a similar message.

[carbon dioxide]

8 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

No.

Unabated rapid growth can create more problems than it solves. Previously-thriving businesses have toppled from focusing on growth at the expense of fiscal strength.

Jacob 5 has a similar message.

What good if 10 million people joined the Church next year if the Church could not handle the influx of so many people.  Most of those millions would probably fall away because the current membership would have a hard time dealing with so many members.  We get too caught up in numbers.  Whether the church grows at 0.3% or 5% a year really does not matter.  We will continue to be a small church in relation to the total population of the earth. 

Edited May 20, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[california boy]

On 5/20/2017 at 0:36 AM, clarkgoble said:

So the speed limit is guaranteeing my rights? 

Perhaps you think that laws should only be about guaranteeing rights but most people don't think that. In any case even with your position it merely puts the question of beliefs back a level since it still depends upon beliefs about rights. And not everyone agrees upon what the rights should be. Thus the imposition of beliefs on others such as over the 2cd amendment. So you might think them self-evident but I think that highly questionable. I think self-evident simply means "agreed upon by my friends."

Some laws are for public safety.  I really thought that was not necessary to explain. I never said that ALL laws are about guaranteeing rights.  And that was not the context that I was responding to.  We are not talking about all laws. We are talking about laws that impose Your personal beliefs on others. Can you really not admit that there are limitations put into the constitution that prevent you or the Mormon church or other groups from passing laws that impose your personal beliefs on others?  If we can't even agree on that then I am going to have to walk away from this discussion. It becomes pointless

 

[Kenngo1969]

By no means am I suggesting that anyone, or that any organization to which s/he might belong, compromise on what are considered core beliefs or doctrines, nor am I suggesting (as difficult as it is for me, as a person of faith, to conceptualize a workable system of ethics without some sort of higher power at its center) that atheists and agnostics are, ipso facto, immoral.  Whatever your religious (or irreligious) leanings, if you believe in doing good to and for your fellow human beings, in making life as good as you can make it for you and for others within your sphere of influence for as long as you can before (from your perspective) succumbing to the void, in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and so on, more power to you.  

However, one good thing I see coming out of the continuing secularist assault on religion is that faiths and their adherents will have to decide really quickly what genuinely matters: Doctrinal differences notwithstanding, if the secularist assault on religion threatens the way of life of all believers, of whatever religious stripe, perhaps people of faith will finally start coming together (or at least, doing so more than we hitherto have done) over what we have in common with one another rather than continuing to allow ourselves to be divided over relatively insignificant differences.

[Kenngo1969]

20 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

What good if 10 million people joined the Church next year if the Church could not handle the influx of so many people.  Most of those millions would probably fall away because the current membership would have a hard time dealing with so many members.  We get too caught up in numbers.  Whether the church grows at 0.3% or 5% a year really does not matter.  We will continue to be a small church in relation to the total population of the earth. 

I agree with your implication that people matter more than mere numbers, but what do you mean when you posit that the Church of Jesus Christ "could not handle" such an influx?  Specifically, what negative effects do you envision?  I agree about the potential applicability of Jacob 5 in such a context, but I also think the infrastructure of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is better prepared to handle such an influx today than it was, say, 50 years ago.  As much as some believe that anyone who dares to suggest that there have been any COUGH-COUGH-benefits-COUGH-COUGH to the Church of Jesus Christ through COUGH-COUGH-correlation-COUGH-COUGH ought to be strung up, I think the ability to adapt more effectively to increasing numbers in a shorter timespan is one of them.

Now, that having been said, I am more concerned with the quality of conversions than I am with their number, and I think various initiatives undertaken recently by the Church of Jesus Christ, such as Preach My Gospel, also are both a reflection and a recognition of that.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Some laws are for public safety.  I really thought that was not necessary to explain. I never said that ALL laws are about guaranteeing rights.  And that was not the context that I was responding to.  We are not talking about all laws. We are talking about laws that impose Your personal beliefs on others. Can you really not admit that there are limitations put into the constitution that prevent you or the Mormon church or other groups from passing laws that impose your personal beliefs on others?  If we can't even agree on that then I am going to have to walk away from this discussion. It becomes pointless

My point wasn't about rights but about beliefs. Rights are examples of beliefs but not the only ones. Public safety laws are also tied to people's beliefs about what's dangerous and what justifiable tradeoffs are. To make a law is to impose by force beliefs onto others. The constitution are a set of beliefs that people held so strongly that they made it difficult (but not impossible) to change.

To interpret the rights protected by the constitution as limiting imposing beliefs makes no sense. First as I said every law by definition imposes beliefs (it's contents). The constitution does limit what other laws can do but that isn't beliefs vs. non-beliefs but beliefs strongly held versus those more loosely held.

Edited May 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

My point wasn't about rights but about beliefs. Rights are examples of beliefs but not the only ones. Public safety laws are also tied to people's beliefs about what's dangerous and what justifiable tradeoffs are. To make a law is to impose by force beliefs onto others. The constitution are a set of beliefs that people held so strongly that they made it difficult (but not impossible) to change.

To interpret the rights protected by the constitution as limiting imposing beliefs makes no sense. First as I said every law by definition imposes beliefs (it's contents). The constitution does limit what other laws can do but that isn't beliefs vs. non-beliefs but beliefs strongly held versus those more loosely held.

Have you not heard of the concept of the tyrant of the masses over the rights of the minorities?  Of course laws are based on basic beliefs. But that is different than imposing religious beliefs on others such as gay marriage.  Even though Prop 8 was passed by a majority of voters, because it violated rights guaranteed by the constitution it was overturned. 

Deciding for others when a fetus becomes a person is another example.  Just because a group, even a majority has a belief, if that belief infringes on a guaranteed right of another doesn't mean that majority belief can be law   

When Ronald Regan was president,he was able to pack  the majority of Supreme Court justices with conservative justices  That majority may very well have been personally against abortion  Regan thought they would overturn Row vs wade  but they didn't.  Those justices still believed that they did not have the right to impose their personal beliefs on others at the expense of another's rights.  That was my point   So yes indeed, protected constitutional rights does indeed protect a persons rights from even strongly held religious beliefs of others  I have shown you two examples of that   

I don't think our opinion on this issue is that different   But I do think that I believe in the civil rights of individuals being more important than the church and many members   It was why I fought against Prop 8 even though I personally have no interest to marry my boyfriend  it is why I personally believe in the irights of others to decide for themselves when life begins even though I am against abortion   The fact that the church disregards other people's rights guaranteed them by the California constitution in order to impose their religious beliefs is a major source of contention for me and many others.  Some day perhaps the rights of Mormons may be brought into question  I hope your rights don't get put up for a vote  And if the majority votes to take away those rights, I hope the justice system will overturn that vote  The fact that church leaders don't recognize that saddens me.

 

 

 

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

By no means am I suggesting that anyone, or that any organization to which s/he might belong, compromise on what are considered core beliefs or doctrines, nor am I suggesting (as difficult as it is for me, as a person of faith, to conceptualize a workable system of ethics without some sort of higher power at its center) that atheists and agnostics are, ipso facto, immoral.  Whatever your religious (or irreligious) leanings, if you believe in doing good to and for your fellow human beings, in making life as good as you can make it for you and for others within your sphere of influence for as long as you can before (from your perspective) succumbing to the void, in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and so on, more power to you.  

However, one good thing I see coming out of the continuing secularist assault on religion is that faiths and their adherents will have to decide really quickly what genuinely matters: Doctrinal differences notwithstanding, if the secularist assault on religion threatens the way of life of all believers, of whatever religious stripe, perhaps people of faith will finally start coming together (or at least, doing so more than we hitherto have done) over what we have in common with one another rather than continuing to allow ourselves to be divided over relatively insignificant differences.

The secular assault you refer to is really religion coming to grips with the reality that they can no longer impose their religious beliefs on others. No rights that are guaranteed to religion in the constitution have been asaulted. The secular world is pretty tired of religion trying to impose its beliefs on them. They are increasingly pushing back. You call it a secular assault. Others call it asserting their civil rights. 

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

By no means am I suggesting that anyone, or that any organization to which s/he might belong, compromise on what are considered core beliefs or doctrines, nor am I suggesting (as difficult as it is for me, as a person of faith, to conceptualize a workable system of ethics without some sort of higher power at its center) that atheists and agnostics are, ipso facto, immoral.  Whatever your religious (or irreligious) leanings, if you believe in doing good to and for your fellow human beings, in making life as good as you can make it for you and for others within your sphere of influence for as long as you can before (from your perspective) succumbing to the void, in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and so on, more power to you.  

However, one good thing I see coming out of the continuing secularist assault on religion is that faiths and their adherents will have to decide really quickly what genuinely matters: Doctrinal differences notwithstanding, if the secularist assault on religion threatens the way of life of all believers, of whatever religious stripe, perhaps people of faith will finally start coming together (or at least, doing so more than we hitherto have done) over what we have in common with one another rather than continuing to allow ourselves to be divided over relatively insignificant differences.

I want my religion sectarian and my government secular.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 5/17/2017 at 2:24 PM, JLHPROF said:

I would agree with that.
But does it present a problem for the Church?  I really don't see one.

I don't see how you can't see the glaring apathy for supernatural. But your kids surely will see it.