Linear growth in church membership

[Okrahomer]

On 2/22/2019 at 4:33 PM, Navidad said:

I appreciate all the time and effort you all have put into this thread. I don't think the tapering off of the growth should be viewed as an indictment. It seems an inevitable trend. The only other question I have for you data brainiacs is that it seems that if there are 109,000 or so new children of record every year who are included in the membership numbers as reported, then at any point there are at least 800,000 children of record included in the membership numbers. There must be 8 cumulative years-worth at any point in time (from birth to eight years of age). A group drops off and a new birth/ blessing group are added in. Is this correct or am I missing something? My only reason for bringing this up is for reliability purposes in making comparisons with other Christian groups who do not baptize babies into membership, nor count the equivalents to COR's in their membership records. For comparison purposes, doesn't including the 800,000 or so children prior to their baptism skew the number of members data? Thanks.  

Edit:  Sorry!  I see I was just confirming what you already acknowledged with your question.  I should read more carefully.  I should have said that you make a good point.

Edited February 24, 2019 by Okrahomer

[Stargazer]

On 2/21/2019 at 6:35 AM, ALarson said:

A testimony can be extremely strong and faithful until one learns that what they had believed in is not the truth.  Then they struggle, pull back and re-evaluate.

You might have a very strong testimony that a car you own is the best built in the world.  Then you read about issues the manufacturers had but didn't reveal to the public.  Then your car starts struggling to run as well as it once did.  Will your testimony still be as strong regarding your original belief after that?

That may not be the best analogy....but I hope you get my point.  Testimonies can evolve and change when new facts come out.  That does not mean one did not originally have a strong testimony.

I understand your analogy. It's not inapt. But not entirely applicable.

I look at it from a different perspective.

Our understanding of the laws of nature has changed over the centuries. The nature of the Universe has never changed, however. As our understanding has improved the Universe has unfolded itself to us more and more. There have been fits and starts, missteps and misunderstandings, but the trend has been generally upwards. So too has been our understanding of God.

As you imply, if a person relies upon a false fact, then its being revealed as false will cause a reevaluation.  I think upon those who rely upon such "facts" as Joseph Smith's supposed uninvolvement in practicing plural marriage as being in the same bucket as those relied upon the sun and the planets orbiting the earth. Base your faith upon such false facts and your "testimony" will be based upon sand. Some people simply cannot abide the thought of Jesus Christ possibly having been married, for example. On the day a genuine document appears that says he was married with children, does such a person lose his testimony? Yes, perhaps, if it is not based on the testimony of the Holy Ghost. No, if it is. 

I have heard the voice of the Spirit testifying to me of things I should not have known of myself, and have felt it filling my body and soul with joy and breathlessness when I needed confirmation of a course of action. I've also felt the stupor of thought discouraging me from an incorrect path. These things are my testimony, not my possibly incorrect understanding of doctrine. That is the testimony of which I write. If my bishop misuses his office, my stake president acts like a jerk, or a general authority goes off the reservation, it doesn't matter. 

 

[Stargazer]

On 2/21/2019 at 7:48 AM, Exiled said:

Also, one has to look at how others seem to believe in crazy nonsensical things and then evaluate one's own beliefs asking whether or not theirs is crazy and nonsensical like those other people's beliefs seem to be.

Yes and this reminded me of something Bill Burr once said in a comedy routine.

[Stargazer]

On 3/5/2019 at 10:18 PM, Stargazer said:

I understand your analogy. It's not inapt. But not entirely applicable.

I look at it from a different perspective.

Our understanding of the laws of nature has changed over the centuries. The nature of the Universe has never changed, however. As our understanding has improved the Universe has unfolded itself to us more and more. There have been fits and starts, missteps and misunderstandings, but the trend has been generally upwards. So too has been our understanding of God.

As you imply, if a person relies upon a false fact, then its being revealed as false will cause a reevaluation.  I think upon those who rely upon such "facts" as Joseph Smith's supposed uninvolvement in practicing plural marriage as being in the same bucket as those relied upon the sun and the planets orbiting the earth. Base your faith upon such false facts and your "testimony" will be based upon sand. Some people simply cannot abide the thought of Jesus Christ possibly having been married, for example. On the day a genuine document appears that says he was married with children, does such a person lose his testimony? Yes, perhaps, if it is not based on the testimony of the Holy Ghost. No, if it is. 

I have heard the voice of the Spirit testifying to me of things I should not have known of myself, and have felt it filling my body and soul with joy and breathlessness when I needed confirmation of a course of action. I've also felt the stupor of thought discouraging me from an incorrect path. These things are my testimony, not my possibly incorrect understanding of doctrine. That is the testimony of which I write. If my bishop misuses his office, my stake president acts like a jerk, or a general authority goes off the reservation, it doesn't matter. 

 

Yeah, I'm quoting myself!  

For @ALarson.

Going off on an alternate path, I wonder what it would take to undermine my testimony?  I hesitate to put anything out there, as I do believe in the Adversary, and giving him a clue as to how he could lead me astray seems unwise.  Much like revealing one's social security number puts one at risk from identity thieves.  But I guess I'll risk it.

• Should a new revelation come forth proclaiming same-sex marriage as valid, and enabling SSM in the temple, would that do it?  I think it would be a tough row to hoe for many, and probably the vast majority of Latter-day Saints.  Would it be for me?  It would put me in a quandary, and would require that I pray very fervently for a personal confirmation.  Because it would go quite contrary to all previous gospel doctrine.  And would fly in the face of the purpose of marriage.  I'm not asking for a discussion of SSM, by the way, just saying what might cause me and probably others to have a problem. But it wouldn't automatically torpedo my testimony.  I think this is the most unlikely of any scenario.
• How about a restoration of plural marriage?  I know there are some on this very board for whom this would be the breaking point.  Not for me -- both my late and current wives and I agreed that if this occurred we would sustain it.
• Endorsement of a presidential candidate by the Church?  I think some would have a problem with that.  Not me -- even if the endorsee were a Democrat!  LOL.  I think I'd assume that the Lord had a good reason for the endorsement. 
  • What if the endorsee got elected and messed up the country in some dramatic way?  Perhaps it was necessary to mess up the country -- how would I know?
• Women being ordained to the priesthood?  I'd probably want to pray about it, but it wouldn't be that big a deal.
• What if the wife and I put in mission papers and we got sent to someplace where there was a significant danger of being killed or badly injured?  Not a problem -- send me.  

I can't think of any other potential testimony killers at the moment.