Jump to content

Tribe article on declining religiosity among LDS


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thank you so much.  I suspected that Mike Quinn had something to say about that.  Lane Thuet was a bit too facile in his claims, however.  For example, he ignored the fact that Orson Pratt's seniority did not allow him to become Church President (Brigham punished him for his views on race and slavery by removing his seniority).  Such things are far more malleable than we often imagine.  As to genealogical relationships, I already made the point that nearly everybody in Utah has such relationships.  We need more than mere suggestions of widespread nepotism.  There are obvious instances, but I just don't see them as pervasive and controlling.

Well this point of view says two things. 1. Church leadership comes almost exclusively from Utah. 2.  The millions who have joined the Church since pioneer days are incapable of leading the Church.  Do you think both of those statements are true?  Because the facts look like it is pervasive and controlling.

Link to comment
On 11/30/2021 at 12:47 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

It is utterly silly to suppose that one must be a member of the LDS Church in order to be saved.  Ridiculous.

It depends on how you define “member of the … Church.” Certainly, one must be baptized by one having authority and receive the other saving ordinances, whether in person while in mortality or by proxy after he or she has died. And one must be true to the associated covenants. Do these things not constitute membership in Christ’s Church, at least for the living? 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It depends on how you define “member of the … Church.” Certainly, one must be baptized by one having authority and receive the other savings ordinances, whether in person while in mortality or by proxy after he or she has died. And one must be true to the associated covenants. Do these things not constitute membership in Christ’s Church, at least for the living? 

Can Christ’s “church” only be found inside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? If so, that means only 0.0025% of God’s  children are living a life here on earth that could be considered “worthy” enough so one day they could return to our heavenly parents. I’ve gotta believe God’s plan is more inclusive than a 1/4 of 1%. No?

Edited by Mike Drop
Link to comment
On 12/1/2021 at 12:22 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Thank you so much.  I suspected that Mike Quinn had something to say about that.  Lane Thuet was a bit too facile in his claims, however.  For example, he ignored the fact that Orson Pratt's seniority did not allow him to become Church President (Brigham punished him for his views on race and slavery by removing his seniority).  Such things are far more malleable than we often imagine.  As to genealogical relationships, I already made the point that nearly everybody in Utah has such relationships.  We need more than mere suggestions of widespread nepotism.  There are obvious instances, but I just don't see them as pervasive and controlling.

I kind of laughed as I read through it.  I was not born in Utah.  My dad is a second generation member.  My mom is second generation on one side and not much further on the other side.  We moved to Utah when I was 6 and my family only knew 2 other families there before we went and they were not related to us.  My husband is pioneer stock.  So we laugh that I am closer related to some of the general authorities than he is.  All that just makes me surprised that Elder Scott from Idaho didn't have blood relations! 

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
On 11/30/2021 at 7:06 AM, Teancum said:

Isn't it great how that works.  Whent he Church grow's it is fulfillment of prophesy-the stone cut out of the mountain without hands to fill the entire earth.  When it doesn't that is prophesy too. WIN WIN!

Yours is an uninformed and ignorant assessment because the scriptures amply testify that both states of affairs  can be simultaneously true. As the prophet Nephi saw in his great vision, the. Church will indeed become a large worldwide organization, although it will be a relatively small one when compared to the vast numbers of souls found in the church of the Whore of Babylon. And we’re also told that as time goes on there will be a significant number of apostates in the Church who will masquerade as faithful members when they are actually wolves in sheep’s clothing. The scriptures testify that these will have the wrath God poured out upon them in most severe judgement at the time when the prophesied great tribulation period of the last days is about to begin in earnest. In other words, prior to the Second Coming the Church will be as it was in the days of the prophet Joseph Smith, populated with both faithful members and disloyal wicked members, some of the darkest hue. The scriptures frequently attest that this state of affairs — the wheat and tares growing together — which you mock as being preposterous, is commonplace and nothing new under the sun. 

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

Can Christ’s “church” only be found inside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? If so, that means only 0.0025% of God’s  children are living a life here on earth that could be considered “worthy” enough so one day they could return to our heavenly parents. I’ve gotta believe God’s plan is more inclusive than a 1/4 of 1%. No?

Read and digest Doctrine and Covenants 138 and you’ll discover that what we now call the ‘restored gospel’ will eventually be taught in great power and glory to every single soul who ever has lived and will yet live. You can’t get more inclusive than that.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Mike Drop said:

Can Christ’s “church” only be found inside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? If so, that means only 0.0025% of God’s  children are living a life here on earth that could be considered “worthy” enough so one day they could return to our heavenly parents. I’ve gotta believe God’s plan is more inclusive than a 1/4 of 1%. No?

The day will come when “every knee will bow and every tongue confess” that Jesus is Lord. Concomitant with that will be an acceptance of the ordinances and covenants He gave, which are today administered by the Church He founded, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 
 

I’m not expecting that prior to the Second Coming of Christ, the Church membership will be dominant in the world. I’m convinced in my mind that such global conversion will transpire during the Millennium, when Christ reigns personally on the earth and Satan will be bound such that he can no longer close the minds and blind the eyes of the earth’s inhabitants. 
 

For now, the role of the Church is to prepare for the Second Coming of the Savior. It does this by proclaiming the restored gospel to the people in the nations of the earth, by establishing stakes of Zion globally and by offering the saving ordinances and covenants to all who will accept them, living or dead. With the Zion infrastructure, so to speak, in place, Christ will then come and the marvelous events of the Millennium will take place. 
 

So, you see, I don’t fret over present-day numbers and statistics such as you cite above. I see no need to do so. My perspective is broader than that. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It depends on how you define “member of the … Church.” Certainly, one must be baptized by one having authority and receive the other savings ordinances, whether in person while in mortality or by proxy after he or she has died. And one must be true to the associated covenants. Do these things not constitute membership in Christ’s Church, at least for the living? 

Yes.  Good point, and one which is not well understood by those who think only of the here and now, instead of the long game.  God's Plan does not entail some brief moment in time in which an American denomination is in charge of the whole show.  Instead it entails thousands of years on this planet, and eons back in time.  It involves an always active Divine Council, myriads of angels, and ancient as well as modern prophets.  Closely examining the phenomena long term can sometimes suggest a chaotic and strange sequence of events, and a cacophony of covenants, but an ending in which it is all brought together in a masterful thunderclap of salvation and joy for both living and dead.

Perhaps we can all get serious during the Millennium.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, california boy said:

Well this point of view says two things. 1. Church leadership comes almost exclusively from Utah. 2.  The millions who have joined the Church since pioneer days are incapable of leading the Church.  Do you think both of those statements are true?  Because the facts look like it is pervasive and controlling.

A human staff will always function in this way, regardless of our high-minded expectations.  People study that in college under the heading "organizational behavior."  The general membership isn't comfortable examining dissonance, and the Brethren don't like it either -- especially since they require unanimity to move forward with decisions.  The learning curve is a steep one, the spiritual demands tremendous.  We tend to measure their performance by demanding that they have no flaws.  Silly us.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

............ The scriptures testify that these will have the wrath God poured out upon them in most severe judgement at the time when the prophesied great tribulation period of the last days is about to begin in earnest. ...........

So the evangelicals are correct about the Great Tribulation?

Link to comment

RE: Nepotism, there were at least 3 sets of brothers in the original Twelve Apostles; among the Nephite twelve two sets of brothers and a father-son pair. Is this really nepotism, the practice of favoring relatives or friends by giving them jobs, typically on a quid pro quo basis?

Link to comment
On 11/30/2021 at 8:53 AM, rongo said:

It's not just "heaven and hell," though, so what do you mean by "condemn?" 

"The Vision" --- with the implications and ramifications of the three degrees of glory --- gives a lot of room for those who do good things but do not receive the ordinances (who would or could have, with sufficient opportunity).

The trickier question for Mormons (and one that is uncomfortable to think about) is "What about those who **have** had sufficient knowledge and experience, who don't choose it?" It can't be that literally 100% of everyone doesn't meet this standard. 

So, no, I don't think the Salvation Army stands "condemned" for the good that it does. I think there are many who will fall into the category of "honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men . . . who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness . . . who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father."

It's not going to be a "participation trophy" model in the hereafter, either. 

Every knee shall bow....

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A human staff will always function in this way, regardless of our high-minded expectations.  People study that in college under the heading "organizational behavior."  The general membership isn't comfortable examining dissonance, and the Brethren don't like it either -- especially since they require unanimity to move forward with decisions.  The learning curve is a steep one, the spiritual demands tremendous.  We tend to measure their performance by demanding that they have no flaws.  Silly us.

I am not sure what you are actually saying here.  Are you saying that the brethren don't think they can get unanimity on decisions if they start picking people out of Utah that don't have pioneer heritage?  Isn't it the Spirit that create unanimity?  And couldn't that spirit come to anyone no matter where they are from or whether they have pioneer heritage?  Correct me if I am not understanding fully what you are saying here.  

Maybe the lack of diversity is part of the reason that some claim church leaders are living in a bubble and may not fully understand diverse needs of its members. 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, california boy said:
Quote

Thank you so much.  I suspected that Mike Quinn had something to say about that.  Lane Thuet was a bit too facile in his claims, however.  For example, he ignored the fact that Orson Pratt's seniority did not allow him to become Church President (Brigham punished him for his views on race and slavery by removing his seniority).  Such things are far more malleable than we often imagine.  As to genealogical relationships, I already made the point that nearly everybody in Utah has such relationships.  We need more than mere suggestions of widespread nepotism.  There are obvious instances, but I just don't see them as pervasive and controlling.

Well this point of view says two things. 1. Church leadership comes almost exclusively from Utah.

"Almost exclusively?"

In the immortal words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

First Presidency:

  • Russell M. Nelson: Born and raised in Utah.
  • Dallin H. Oaks: Born in Utah, grew up in Idaho.
  • Henry B. Eyring: Born and raised in New Jersey.

Quorum of the Twelve:

  • M. Russell Ballard: Born and raised in Utah.
  • Jeffrey R. Holland: Born and raised in Utah.
  • Dieter F. Uchtdorft: Born in Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (now Ostrava, Czech Republic) and raised in Germany.
  • David A. Bendar: Born and raised in California.
  • Quentin L. Cook: Born and raised in Utah.
  • D. Todd Christofferson: Born in Utah and raised in Utah and New Jersey.
  • Neil L. Andersen: Born in Utah and raised in Idaho.
  • Ronald A. Rasband: Born and raised in Utah.
  • Gary E. Stevenson: Born and raised in Utah.
  • Dale G. Renlund: Born and raised in Utah.
  • Gerrit W. Gong: Born and raised in California.
  • Ulisses Soares: Born and raised in Brasil.

 First Quorum of Seventy:

  • Marcos A. Aidukaitis: Brasil.
  • Rubén V. Alliaud: Argentina.
  • Jose L. Alonso: Mexico.
  • Jorge M. Alvarado: Puerto Rico.
  • Ian S. Ardern: New Zealand.
  • Steven R. Bangerter: Utah/Arizona.
  • W. Mark Bassett: California.
  • David S. Baxter: Scotland.
  • Jorge T. Becerra: Utah.
  • Randall K. Bennett: Canada.
  • Hans T. Boom: Netherlands.
  • Shayne M. Bowen: Idaho.
  • Mark A. Bragg: California.
  • Matthew L. Carpenter: Utah.
  • Yoon Hwan Choi: Korea.
  • Craig C. Christensen: Utah.
  • Weatherford T. Clayton: California.
  • Valeri V. Cordón: Guatemala.
  • Joaquin E. Costa: Argentina.
  • LeGrand R. Curtis Jr.: Utah.
  • Dean M. Davies: Utah.
  • Massimo De Feo: Italy.
  • Benjamín De Hoyos: Mexico.
  • Sean Douglas: Utah.
  • Edward Dube: Zimbabwe.
  • Kevin R. Duncan: Utah.
  • Michael A. Dunn: Arizona.
  • Mathias Held: Utah.
  • David F. Evans: Utah.
  • Randy D. Funk: Utah.
  • Eduardo Gavarret: Uruguay.
  • Jack N. Gerard: Idaho.
  • Clark G. Gilbert: California.
  • Ricardo P. Giménez: Chile.
  • Patricio M. Giuffra: Chile.
  • Taylor G. Godoy: Peru.
  • Christoffel Golden: South Africa.
  • Walter F. González: Uruguay.
  • Brook P. Hales: Utah.
  • Kevin S. Hamilton: Washington.
  • Allen D. Haynie: Utah.
  • Matthew S. Holland: Utah.
  • David P. Homer: Utah.
  • William K. Jackson: Washington, D.C.
  • Jeremy R. Jaggi: Utah.
  • Kelly R. Johnson: Utah.
  • Peter M. Johnson: New York.
  • Larry S. Kacher: Minnesota.
  • Jörg Klebingat: Germany.
  • Joni L. Koch: Brasil.
  • Erich W. Kopischke: Germany.
  • Alfred Kyungu: Democratic Republic of the Congo.
  • Hugo E. Martinez: Puerto Rico.
  • James B. Martino: Texas.
  • John A. McCune: California.
  • Kyle S. McKay: Illinois.
  • Alvin F. Meredith III: Tennessee.
  • Peter F. Meurs: California.
  • Hugo Montoya: California.
  • Thierry K. Mutombo: Democratic Republic of the Congo.
  • Marcus B. Nash: Washington.
  • K. Brett Nattress: Idaho.
  • S. Gifford Nielsen: Utah.
  • Adrián Ochoa: California.
  • Adeyinka A. Ojediran: Nigeria.
  • Adilson de Paula Parrella: Utah.
  • Kevin W. Pearson: Colorado.
  • Anthony D. Perkins: Colorado.
  • Paul B. Pieper: Idaho.
  • John C. Pingree Jr.: Utah.
  • Rafael E. Pino: Venezuela.
  • James R. Rasband: Washington.
  • Carlos G. Revillo Jr.: Philippines.
  • Michael T. Ringwood: Utah.
  • Lynn G. Robbins: Utah.
  • Gary B. Sabin: Utah.
  • Ciro Schmeil: Brasil.
  • Evan A. Schmutz: Utah.
  • Vaiangina Sikahema: Tonga.
  • Joseph W. Sitati: Kenya.
  • Vern P. Stanfill: Montana.
  • Benjamin M. Z. Tai: Hong Kong.
  • Brian K. Taylor: Utah.
  • Michael John U. Teh: Philippines.
  • Juan A. Uceda: Peru.
  • Arnulfo Valenzuela: Mexico.
  • Moisés Villanueva: Mexico.
  • Takashi Wada: Japan.
  • Taniela B. Wakolo: Fiji.
  • Alan R. Walker: Argentina.
  • Scott D. Whiting: Utah.
  • Chi Hong (Sam) Wong: Hong Kong.
  • Kazuhiko Yamashita: Japan.
  • Jorge F. Zeballos: Chile.
13 hours ago, california boy said:

2.  The millions who have joined the Church since pioneer days are incapable of leading the Church.  

How do you figure?

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you think both of those statements are true?  

No.

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Because the facts look like it is pervasive and controlling.

What "facts" are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Almost exclusively?"

In the immortal words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

First Presidency:

  • Russell M. Nelson: Born and raised in Utah.
  • Dallin H. Oaks: Born in Utah, grew up in Idaho.
  • Henry B. Eyring: Born and raised in New Jersey.

Quorum of the Twelve:

  • M. Russell Ballard: Born and raised in Utah.
  • Jeffrey R. Holland: Born and raised in Utah.
  • Dieter F. Uchtdorft: Born in Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (now Ostrava, Czech Republic) and raised in Germany.
  • David A. Bendar: Born and raised in California.
  • Quentin L. Cook: Born and raised in Utah.
  • D. Todd Christofferson: Born in Utah and raised in Utah and New Jersey.
  • Neil L. Andersen: Born in Utah and raised in Idaho.
  • Ronald A. Rasband: Born and raised in Utah.
  • Gary E. Stevenson: Born and raised in Utah.
  • Dale G. Renlund: Born and raised in Utah.
  • Gerrit W. Gong: Born and raised in California.
  • Ulisses Soares: Born and raised in Brasil.

 First Quorum of Seventy:

  • Marcos A. Aidukaitis: Brasil.
  • Rubén V. Alliaud: Argentina.
  • Jose L. Alonso: Mexico.
  • Jorge M. Alvarado: Puerto Rico.
  • Ian S. Ardern: New Zealand.
  • Steven R. Bangerter: Utah/Arizona.
  • W. Mark Bassett: California.
  • David S. Baxter: Scotland.
  • Jorge T. Becerra: Utah.
  • Randall K. Bennett: Canada.
  • Hans T. Boom: Netherlands.
  • Shayne M. Bowen: Idaho.
  • Mark A. Bragg: California.
  • Matthew L. Carpenter: Utah.
  • Yoon Hwan Choi: Korea.
  • Craig C. Christensen: Utah.
  • Weatherford T. Clayton: California.
  • Valeri V. Cordón: Guatemala.
  • Joaquin E. Costa: Argentina.
  • LeGrand R. Curtis Jr.: Utah.
  • Dean M. Davies: Utah.
  • Massimo De Feo: Italy.
  • Benjamín De Hoyos: Mexico.
  • Sean Douglas: Utah.
  • Edward Dube: Zimbabwe.
  • Kevin R. Duncan: Utah.
  • Michael A. Dunn: Arizona.
  • Mathias Held: Utah.
  • David F. Evans: Utah.
  • Randy D. Funk: Utah.
  • Eduardo Gavarret: Uruguay.
  • Jack N. Gerard: Idaho.
  • Clark G. Gilbert: California.
  • Ricardo P. Giménez: Chile.
  • Patricio M. Giuffra: Chile.
  • Taylor G. Godoy: Peru.
  • Christoffel Golden: South Africa.
  • Walter F. González: Uruguay.
  • Brook P. Hales: Utah.
  • Kevin S. Hamilton: Washington.
  • Allen D. Haynie: Utah.
  • Matthew S. Holland: Utah.
  • David P. Homer: Utah.
  • William K. Jackson: Washington, D.C.
  • Jeremy R. Jaggi: Utah.
  • Kelly R. Johnson: Utah.
  • Peter M. Johnson: New York.
  • Larry S. Kacher: Minnesota.
  • Jörg Klebingat: Germany.
  • Joni L. Koch: Brasil.
  • Erich W. Kopischke: Germany.
  • Alfred Kyungu: Democratic Republic of the Congo.
  • Hugo E. Martinez: Puerto Rico.
  • James B. Martino: Texas.
  • John A. McCune: California.
  • Kyle S. McKay: Illinois.
  • Alvin F. Meredith III: Tennessee.
  • Peter F. Meurs: California.
  • Hugo Montoya: California.
  • Thierry K. Mutombo: Democratic Republic of the Congo.
  • Marcus B. Nash: Washington.
  • K. Brett Nattress: Idaho.
  • S. Gifford Nielsen: Utah.
  • Adrián Ochoa: California.
  • Adeyinka A. Ojediran: Nigeria.
  • Adilson de Paula Parrella: Utah.
  • Kevin W. Pearson: Colorado.
  • Anthony D. Perkins: Colorado.
  • Paul B. Pieper: Idaho.
  • John C. Pingree Jr.: Utah.
  • Rafael E. Pino: Venezuela.
  • James R. Rasband: Washington.
  • Carlos G. Revillo Jr.: Philippines.
  • Michael T. Ringwood: Utah.
  • Lynn G. Robbins: Utah.
  • Gary B. Sabin: Utah.
  • Ciro Schmeil: Brasil.
  • Evan A. Schmutz: Utah.
  • Vaiangina Sikahema: Tonga.
  • Joseph W. Sitati: Kenya.
  • Vern P. Stanfill: Montana.
  • Benjamin M. Z. Tai: Hong Kong.
  • Brian K. Taylor: Utah.
  • Michael John U. Teh: Philippines.
  • Juan A. Uceda: Peru.
  • Arnulfo Valenzuela: Mexico.
  • Moisés Villanueva: Mexico.
  • Takashi Wada: Japan.
  • Taniela B. Wakolo: Fiji.
  • Alan R. Walker: Argentina.
  • Scott D. Whiting: Utah.
  • Chi Hong (Sam) Wong: Hong Kong.
  • Kazuhiko Yamashita: Japan.
  • Jorge F. Zeballos: Chile.

How do you figure?

No.

What "facts" are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

STOP SLICING AND DICING WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.  This is the quote Rober was responding to when he said  As to genealogical relationships, I already made the point that nearly everybody in Utah has such relationships.  We need more than mere suggestions of widespread nepotism.  There are obvious instances, but I just don't see them as pervasive and controlling.

Maybe you should read over what was actually being discussed before you jump in and accuse me of claiming the 15 all come from Utah.  And where did you get that I was talking about the 70???

 

Quote

 

How does the current Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles measure up? 100% of them are related in some way to current or former general authorities of the LDS Church. In the top 2 leading quorums – consisting of 15 men (The First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles), five of these men are directly related to each other. Four are related to each other by marriage. Four are directly related to former LDS Presidents. Five are directly related to former apostles. Two are married to wives who are direct descendants of former presidents. Five are married to wives who are directly related to former apostles. Seven are married to wives who are relatives of current general authorities or of their wives. The only apostle who has no blood ties to any other general authority is Apostle Richard G. Scott. But, true to form, his wife is related to several current general authorities and even descends from a former LDS apostle.

  Quote

Addendum: On 2 October 2004, President Gordon B. Hinckley presented Dieter F. Uchtdorf and David A. Bednar to the LDS Church as new apostles following the deaths of David Haight and Neil Maxwell earlier in the year. I have been unable to ascertain any extended family ties to current or past LDS General Authorities for either of these men or their wives. On 6 October 2007, Quentin L. Cook was presented as a new apostle after the death of James Faust. Elder Cook and his wife both have multiple ties to current and past General Authorities, including former President Spencer W. Kimball, former Apostle Heber C. Kimball, and former Presiding Bishop Edward Hunter.

 

Now if you want to talk about intermarrying and nepotism in the 15 apostles, than go right ahead.  Dispute what I ACTUALLY quoted.  Robert is the one who said " As to genealogical relationships, I already made the point that nearly everybody in Utah has such relationships. "  I was the one asking if that was true. 

Sorry this formatting is all messed up.  I don't know how to fix it.

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, california boy said:

STOP SLICING AND DICING WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.  

First, when you mischaracterize us, I'm going to rebut those mischaracterizations.

Second, you were quoting an undated MRM article, which itself cribs almost entirely from D. Michael Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power.  A quarter century out of date.

Third, the Church in my lifetime has grown from 3.3 million to 16.6.  

Fourth, the Church has, in my lifetime, grown from mostly-in-the-western-United-States to something quite different.

Fifth, the Church seems to be making significant strides in diversifying its leadership portfolio, a point you and your outdated article fail to address.

Sixth, what you said was facially inaccurate.  I'm fine with differences of opinion, but not outright mischaracterizations of fact.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Now if you want to talk about intermarrying and nepotism in the 15 apostles, than go right ahead.  Dispute what I ACTUALLY quoted.

I dispute what you actually said, which was that "Church leadership comes almost exclusively from Utah."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, when you mischaracterize us, I'm going to rebut those mischaracterizations.

Second, you were quoting an undated MRM article, which itself cribs almost entirely from D. Michael Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power.  A quarter century out of date.

Third, the Church in my lifetime has grown from 3.3 million to 16.6.  

Fourth, the Church has, in my lifetime, grown from mostly-in-the-western-United-States to something quite different.

Fifth, the Church seems to be making significant strides in diversifying its leadership portfolio, a point you and your outdated article fail to address.

Sixth, what you said was facially inaccurate.  I'm fine with differences of opinion, but not outright mischaracterizations of fact.

I dispute what you actually said, which was that "Church leadership comes almost exclusively from Utah."

Thanks,

-Smac

You are so full of it.  Seriously.  You need to read what the conversation was about.  It is Robert who made this statement

Quote

 

Thank you so much.  I suspected that Mike Quinn had something to say about that.  Lane Thuet was a bit too facile in his claims, however.  For example, he ignored the fact that Orson Pratt's seniority did not allow him to become Church President (Brigham punished him for his views on race and slavery by removing his seniority).  Such things are far more malleable than we often imagine.  As to genealogical relationships, I already made the point that nearly everybody in Utah has such relationships.  We need more than mere suggestions of widespread nepotism.  There are obvious instances, but I just don't see them as pervasive and controlling.

 

I said

 

Quote

Well this point of view says two things. 1. Church leadership comes almost exclusively from Utah. 2.  The millions who have joined the Church since pioneer days are incapable of leading the Church.  Do you think both of those statements are true?  Because the facts look like it is pervasive and controlling.

 

I was asking HIM if he thought that was true.  I wasn't saying that I thought it was true.  

Are you saying that what I quoted is not true? Were the family relations in what I actually quoted not true?  And what does ANYTHING that you listed have to do with what I actually wrote.

Maybe you should quit slicing and dicing what I wrote so you actually get some context into what is being discussed.  Something that you repeatedly do right before you accuse me of lying.  Yeah we hear that a lot from you after you twist what I actually wrote.  

You are accusing me falsely for something I didn't say, but rather I was asking Robert if he believe that to be true.  

Get a grip.

 

 

Edited by california boy
Link to comment

Is it even possible that many members leaving the Church are doing so because of unrighteous dominion of leaders and unrighteous behavior of many members or is the only possible reason is all those folks are in a state of rebellion and they have never felt any unrighteous actions from leaders or members?  They are either evil or lazy or easily insulted.  I am just asking because we all know that the experience as members of the Church is the most sweetest and peaceful life one could ask for.  It's why millions want to be members because the happiness and joy of members of the Church is just such an overwhelming influence.  Obviously a lot of sarcasm here but it amazes me how in discussions like this the idea that many people leave because of faults of Church leaders and members are never considered as even remotely being possible.  All the research I have seen on why people left indicates loss of trust and feelings not being welcomed or accepted as the leading reasons.  This includes Sister Reiss' research and David Ostler's.  The Church doesn't publish why people leave or even really try to find out very hard (although they could be but don't want it known).

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Is it even possible that many members leaving the Church are doing so because of unrighteous dominion of leaders and unrighteous behavior of many members or is the only possible reason is all those folks are in a state of rebellion and they have never felt any unrighteous actions from leaders or members? 

What "unrighteous dominion" do you have in mind?  I suspect it's something along the lines of "teaching the Law of Chastity and exhorting members to obey this and other commandments," but I want to be sure.

28 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

They are either evil or lazy or easily insulted. 

I think people leave the Church for all sorts of reasons.

28 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I am just asking because we all know that the experience as members of the Church is the most sweetest and peaceful life one could ask for. 

The Church doesn't teach that membership in the Church resolves all the problems and vicissitudes of this mortal probation.

You are straight up fabricating falsehoods, imputing them onto the Church, and then faulting the Church for them.

Weird.

28 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

It's why millions want to be members because the happiness and joy of members of the Church is just such an overwhelming influence.  Obviously a lot of sarcasm here but it amazes me how in discussions like this the idea that many people leave because of faults of Church leaders and members are never considered as even remotely being possible. 

Poppycock.

People leave the Church for all sorts of reasons, including - as you put it - "because of faults of Church leaders and members."  But there are plenty of other reasons as well.

28 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

All the research I have seen on why people left indicates loss of trust and feelings not being welcomed or accepted as the leading reasons.  This includes Sister Reiss' research and David Ostler's. 

I'm not particularly impressed with Jana Reiss.  See, e.g., here.

I repose more trust in David Ostler, whom I think genuinely loves the Church and its members.  Ostler posits, correctly, I think, that religious disaffection is a widespread malady, and not just limited to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, though he acknowledges some unique conditions amongst us:

Quote

Q: We hear numerous reports of religious disaffiliation in our modern age, particularly in Western society. How are these trends reflected in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

A: All churches and denominations are experiencing a drop in membership and participation. Younger Americans, particularly Millennials and Gen-Z, see little need to participate in organized religion. In fact, the fastest-growing group of religious identification is “spiritual, but non-religious.” As Latter-day Saints, we are experiencing these same trends. The underlying reasons include society’s broad acceptance of those who are non-religious, people being comfortable going it alone, less trust of institutions in general and of religions specifically, more opportunities to find friends and like-minded people through social media and other settings, and more. The reasons are many.

For the Church in the United States, data from social scientists show that disaffiliation for those born after 1970 is about 39% and, although the sample size is low, that 55% of millennials have disaffiliated. Most of those who disaffiliate remain on the rolls of the Church, but no longer think of themselves of Latter-day Saints. And they disaffiliate younger than previous generations. The average age of millennial disaffiliation is 18.4 years while for boomers it was 23.7 years.

Q: What are a few root causes for religious disaffiliation among Latter-day Saints?

A: Latter-day Saints experience all the same issues as other religions, but there are unique issues which we face. Some leave because they become aware of issues in our history which are controversial or seem inconsistent with our values. They may have concerns about particular Church policies, like our teachings about LGBTQ issues. They may disagree with the way in which women and men serve and experience the Church. Church culture and what they experience in their wards and classes may feel judgmental and perfectionistic. They may be different in some way, like being childless, or being single, experiencing mental illness, being politically liberal. Others just don’t feel the Church addresses the areas which are meaningful to them, including issues of social justice, poverty, racism, sexism or violence.

Q: What are a few typical responses among families and congregations towards those who disaffiliate or become disaffected with the Church’s teachings?

A: As I interviewed members and read their comments and experiences in my surveys, I was frankly surprised by the disconnect between fully believing members and local leaders and those who doubt, question, or have left the Church. Many believing members feel the primary reasons why people leave is because they are offended, have sinned, or are lazy. They sometimes blame the disaffiliating member for having not studied scriptures, prayed, or attended the temple often enough. Those members who are struggling with their faith often have serious doctrinal, historical, or cultural concerns about the Church. When members or local leaders don’t have a true understanding of why these people leave or struggle to stay, their efforts are often ineffective, or worse, hurtful, and push members further away.

Sometimes it is because they don’t understand, but also, it causes fear when a family member learns their child, sibling, or spouse is struggling with belief. It threatens their hope for an eternal family as they worry about their spiritual welfare.

Without thinking about it, we make a snap judgment as to why they have left and assume that it is because they have been offended or because of secret sin. We may be afraid to ask them because we don’t want to offend them. We might keep them at arm’s length and be afraid that they will infect us with doubt. Some disaffiliated members feel that they are labeled as “anti-Mormon” or “apostates” and don’t feel that they are welcome. We may exclude them from our social life because we are uncomfortable with them or with having our children associate with them. Leaders may release them from their callings even though they are willing to serve.

Sometimes in our interactions with disaffiliated members, we seek to testify or explain away their concerns when they just want to keep their close relationship, friendship, or continue to worship even with their doubts.

Seems like your summary doesn't totally jibe with Ostler's actual remarks.

28 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

The Church doesn't publish why people leave or even really try to find out very hard (although they could be but don't want it known).

Are you sure?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I am not sure what you are actually saying here.  Are you saying that the brethren don't think they can get unanimity on decisions if they start picking people out of Utah that don't have pioneer heritage?  Isn't it the Spirit that create unanimity?  And couldn't that spirit come to anyone no matter where they are from or whether they have pioneer heritage?  Correct me if I am not understanding fully what you are saying here.  

Maybe the lack of diversity is part of the reason that some claim church leaders are living in a bubble and may not fully understand diverse needs of its members. 

Marvel comics is not a good source of information on the Brethren.  The principles of organizational behavior (OB) apply to all groups of animals - - including the human animal, who is after all a mammal with mammalian instincts.  Before we attribute special powers to a bunch of guys, we really need to first assess their normal tendencies, including nurture as well as nature.  The notion that they lack flaws is probably the most difficult hurdle for the non-historian or non-sociologist.  Professionals assume that at the outset.

Getting unanimity is tough, even in the best of circumstances.  Sometimes it can take years.  That is why Plato sought to cut through all that by authorizing a philosopher-king, and why Alexander simply took his sword to the Gordion Knot.  You may have noticed that Jack Dorsey had to resign from Twitter to make room for a guy with very different views on free speech.  And it isn't because the new guy is in favor of diversity.  Guys who are committed to playing by arcane rules may not have it that easy.  We ought to commiserate with them, not seek to find fault.  The notion that they are specially privileged is just not true.  I pity them the heavy responsibility.  I also pity my bishop.  I'm just glad that he has the faith and strength to do the job.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you sure?

Thanks,

Until you come up with an actual discussion of any topic on these boards I will not be replying to your responses.  I have never seen someone who thinks cutting the comments of others into little pieces, then giving one sentence comments as a reasonable way to have a discussion.  I will wait until you can put a couple of paragraphs together with an overall cohesive discussion.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

it amazes me how in discussions like this the idea that many people leave because of faults of Church leaders and members are never considered as even remotely being possible. 

Are you talking about the board, because if so I don’t believe I have ever read anyone posting this as their own position, only those claiming others believe such.

And I don’t think I have ever been a part of such a discussion where someone else besides me has not expressed their opinion that many people have left because of faults of leaders, which makes at least two in every discussion who consider that as more than possibility, but fact. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

Until you come up with an actual discussion of any topic on these boards I will not be replying to your responses.  I have never seen someone who thinks cutting the comments of others into little pieces, then giving one sentence comments as a reasonable way to have a discussion.  I will wait until you can put a couple of paragraphs together with an overall cohesive discussion.

I find Smac’s way of writing very easy to follow, prefer it for certain types of discussions. I think it makes it easier to pinpoint misunderstandings and helps me be less likely to misinterpret.  I also recognize that many don’t appreciate it like I do though. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I am just asking because we all know that the experience as members of the Church is the most sweetest and peaceful life one could ask for.

That has certainly been my experience. Sweet beyond expectation. Peaceful to the point of engendering envy.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...