Utah Lighthouse Ministry shutting down

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe they liked home church so much they quit going to the ward house. ETA: Oops, I read the post my response was to, and noticed it said converts or investigators. I notice on my Faith Journey Facebook group, a lot said they quit going during COVID and never returned. 

From the very few incidents that I know of where people stopped going to church during covid, it wasn't because they liked home church better, it's because they liked not going to church.  Then when the covid restrictions lifted, they stopped having home church (or sometimes stopped way before that) but never went back either.  Their sunday just became another saturday.

[Derl Sanderson]

On 11/28/2022 at 2:49 PM, Teancum said:

Hardly. The Church cannot withstand intellectual and scholarly criticism.  And the most successful critics are not the Evangelical and other Christian critics. If is from the secular and disaffected member ranks. 

In what way has it been demonstrated that the faith claims of the Church cannot withstand scholarly criticism? Has it been shown that there is no intellectual defense of the Church's claims or that critics have had no answers from credentialed scholars who support and believe those faith claims?

And what constitutes a "successful critic" anyway? By what standard do we assess the critic's success or failure? Are there some examples of successful critics you could give us for context?

I am fairly conversant with the Tanners' works and the newsletters produced by Utah Lighthouse Ministry. In following their efforts for many years, I noted that early on, they took extreme pleasure in openly challenging Church leaders to answer their criticisms. When no answer was forthcoming, the Tanners took it as evidence that they could not be answered. It might have been that the ministry of Church leaders required their attention be given to more weighty issues, but that's the topic of a different discussion. For years the Tanners were quite self-satisfied in this apparent victory over the Deceived Deceivers in LDS leadership, but then a funny thing happened. In the 1980's, LDS scholars began to take notice of the Tanners' work and to seriously engage it, with results that were not quite so satisfying to the Lighthouse keepers. The tone of their newsletter turned from self-congratulatory gloating to one of whining about being attacked and persecuted. Works of the Tanners and their fellow travelers were quite often and very seriously engaged in the old FARMS Review where the unassailable criticisms turned out to be rather assailable after all. This is probably the "great opposition" they faced that you sympathetically referred to earlier.

[Teancum]

On 11/28/2022 at 7:42 PM, Derl Sanderson said:

I know how you fret so over the status of the Church.

Hardly.

[Teancum]

On 11/28/2022 at 8:23 PM, bluebell said:

I think it's more that the church struggles in a secular society, like all churches are struggling right now.  Secularism is the most successful critic of Christianity in general. 

I agree.  Inver worried about the EV CHristian critics. But the secular critics are the most successful and among then are disaffected members that are secular.

On 11/28/2022 at 8:23 PM, bluebell said:

 

 

The world is anti-faith, anti-authority, and anti-commandments.  

 

I like to think that it is a maturing process of the human species and I view it as a positive step.  Doing things and basing ones morals and ethics based on a religion that says "well this is just what God says so do it" seems like a poor way to ultimately live and make rules at least IMO.  For example as an active Latter day Saint I was against LBGTQ issues and even rights.  Once I put aside my faith I started examining that position from a more rational view point other than God says so.  The result was I found no reason to oppose this group having the same civil rights as everyone else.  I think that is a positive development.

[Teancum]

On 11/28/2022 at 8:29 PM, Pyreaux said:

Oh please, the drops in conversion numbers had more to do with Covid than it did critics. Growing pains for an evolution that was long overdue.

I think you are not correct at all in that conclusion. If you are interested in such things take a look at this:

The End of Growth? Fading Prospects for Latter-day Saint Expansion

https://jmssa.org/Stewart/

On 11/28/2022 at 8:29 PM, Pyreaux said:

We've been on the world stage, in academia ever since the Oxford Movement. We have many published and accredited Mormon scholars competent in their various fields. Not many are fit to tie Hugh Nibley's intellectual shoes. Whenever there was a new discovery in the last few decades, we had a master of ancient languages, Hugh Nibley, that could read and then write to us about the new discoveries long before the source was available in English. He was a beacon for other Mormon scholars and voracious readers with an uncanny knack of finding ignored or discarded elements of patristic, pseudepigraphal and intertestamental theology and practice. They elevated the prominence of Mormon scholarship, having more enthusiasm and interest in what these items had to say than anyone. We believe truth is buried out there and our faith has been rewarded. Dead Sea Scrolls confirms what we suspected about the Bible and what others feared.

Ok.  My experience with what I read from Nibley many years ago was he played pretty loosey goosey with his sources and footnotes and they did not really support what he wrote in some of his books. But I am not a Nobley expert by any stretch so maybe he was the wonder scholar many think he was.

On 11/28/2022 at 8:29 PM, Pyreaux said:

The CES Letter was my example of modern day "scholarly" criticism we contend with now-a-days. These new pop atheists are hack researchers and philosophers at best. They prey on the weak minded or rather those looking for any usable excuse to justify their behavior. Not the sort we need. It's not like this isn't a pattern we've all seen, one day the brat child leaves home, goes inactive, learns life the hard way, eventually they grow up, realize the wisdom of their parent, this classic Prodigal Son phase happens all the time. Only now they Socialized online in support groups to help affirm their choices that were born from teen angst or a midlife crisis least they start to doubt. Any flimsy excuse will do, so they don't need scholars.

I never was a fan of the CES letter and found it rather lightweight.  I am surprised at how many disaffected members over LDS truth claims and founding myths seem to like it.  As for your points I bolded above all I can say is meh.  It is an arrogant attitude born of the exclusive idea that you somehow have God's one truth for the world.  It is a fantasy.  But as I have noted the defenders like to say things like this while Rome burns.  Carry on.

[Teancum]

On 11/28/2022 at 9:34 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

You can tell him that when you see him, as well.

P.S.: "Nibley is way overrated" is simply an excuse to dismiss what he said.  In no way does it deal with what, as I quoted earlier in the thread, he said.  "Nibley is way overrated" says nothing about why, allegedly [that is, according to you] he is wrong in this instance.  Got substance?

You want me to pick apart Nibley based on your comment that anti Mormons' keep him and other defenders sharp?  I find his quip a but silly. That is all. And I do think he is overrated.  If you want to discuss Nibley feel free to start a thread on it.

[Teancum]

On 11/29/2022 at 8:21 AM, JLHPROF said:

Whenever you make these statements you seem to be under the impression that it means the problem is with the Church. 

Well I think the problem you have is it is highly likely and probably the LDS Church simply is not what it claims to be and more and more previously devote members are finding this out and voting with their feet.  Clearly you disagree but yes this is a problem with the church and for it. To put it bluntly It is not true. And the defenses are not all that great at least IMO.

On 11/29/2022 at 8:21 AM, JLHPROF said:

 

 

Scripture and prophecy would lead to the idea the problem is with the people and society.

Just because truth is rejected or abandoned has no bearing on its truthfulness.

And just because you think it is true does not make it so.

[Teancum]

On 11/29/2022 at 8:54 AM, gopher said:

Maybe so.  It's probably a bigger issue for those who base their belief in the Church solely on intellectual and scholarly grounds.  I don't understand why a member who claims personal revelation from God that this is Christ's church would care what a unbelieving critic thinks.

Maybe they don't care.

On 11/29/2022 at 8:54 AM, gopher said:

Do you feel you are a successful critic as a disaffected member?  You seem kinda gruff and irritable which could turn off some people.  I do enjoy reading your posts though.  I think the most persuasive critics are the ones that manage to hide their disgust towards the Church and its members.

I don't spend much time being a critic of the Church.  This is pretty much the only place I discuss such things. I am pretty quiet about it otherwise. I have a lot of friends who are active and we rarely discuss LDS things. Only if they ask me about my thoughts on such things will I talk about it to them.  Most don't ask me why I am not participating anymore.  I am gruff and irritable? Well I do not try to be but I guess I can be blunt at times. Just like many others here.  Thanks!

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said:

In what way has it been demonstrated that the faith claims of the Church cannot withstand scholarly criticism? Has it been shown that there is no intellectual defense of the Church's claims or that critics have had no answers from credentialed scholars who support and believe those faith claims?

Perhaps it is better said the arguments are not compelling.  IMO at least.  And no non LDS scholars likely take the LDS Scholars apologetics seriously.  If you have non LDS scholars support that would be helpful again in IMO.

11 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said:

And what constitutes a "successful critic" anyway? By what standard do we assess the critic's success or failure? Are there some examples of successful critics you could give us for context?

I think Simon Southerton and Thomas Murphy would fall into that category.  I also think a number of your faithful scholars who defend have become so nuanced that they have created a Mormonism which certainly is not recognizable to me and I doubt the top leadership would endorse it.  Patrick Mason and the Givens come to my mind.  TO defend that have to do this and likely to maintain their own belief as well. I have some active friends like this as well. I tried to do this for quite some time but it did not work for me.

11 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said:

I am fairly conversant with the Tanners' works and the newsletters produced by Utah Lighthouse Ministry. In following their efforts for many years, I noted that early on, they took extreme pleasure in openly challenging Church leaders to answer their criticisms. When no answer was forthcoming, the Tanners took it as evidence that they could not be answered. It might have been that the ministry of Church leaders required their attention be given to more weighty issues, but that's the topic of a different discussion. For years the Tanners were quite self-satisfied in this apparent victory over the Deceived Deceivers in LDS leadership, but then a funny thing happened. In the 1980's, LDS scholars began to take notice of the Tanners' work and to seriously engage it, with results that were not quite so satisfying to the Lighthouse keepers. The tone of their newsletter turned from self-congratulatory gloating to one of whining about being attacked and persecuted. Works of the Tanners and their fellow travelers were quite often and very seriously engaged in the old FARMS Review where the unassailable criticisms turned out to be rather assailable after all. This is probably the "great opposition" they faced that you sympathetically referred to earlier.

I was a FARMS fan but I often found their defenses more a personal attack on many of the critics.  Again I never really worried about the Tanners much.  I know Sandra is idolized among many ex Mormons these days and I don't feel the same about her.

[california boy]

On 11/28/2022 at 5:23 PM, bluebell said:

I think it's more that the church struggles in a secular society, like all churches are struggling right now.  Secularism is the most successful critic of Christianity in general.  The world is anti-faith, anti-authority, and anti-commandments.  

 

People are leaving religion because they find it more a detriment in their lives than a positive.  There are countless reason why people have lost their faith, don't trust those running the churches and find some commandments to be rules that don't always make them a better person and no longer believe all those commandments actually came from God.  It is easy for members to see other commandments from other religions that didn't come from God (no blood transfusions for example) but find the commandments their own church imposes to be the "right" ones because it is their leaders that are telling them this time.  

The polls still show 81% of the population believes in God.  That is only down by 17% since it's highest level in the 1950's.  Maybe all these people who are leaving organized religion which tells them what and how they should believe who God is are finding out that they can have a very personal relationship with God directly and He can actually guide them in their own personal journey back to Him.  They are taking that power away from organized religion and giving it back to God himself.

Is all I am saying is that you can't blame everything on simply a more secular society. There is another piece to this puzzle that organized religion plays a part in.

[Teancum]

On 11/29/2022 at 8:51 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

P.S.: And I'm still waiting to hear how "growing slower than ever" = "losing more members than ever."  It's a neat trick to be pulling off both of those things at the same time: I'd like to hear how it is done.

The End of Growth? Fading Prospects for Latter-day Saint Expansion

https://jmssa.org/Stewart/

 

 

[theplains]

On 11/28/2022 at 4:47 PM, Teancum said:

Yet the church grows slower than even and is losing more and more members than ever before.

There's a lot more competition in the last few decades from Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day 
Adventists.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

There's a lot more competition in the last few decades from Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day 
Adventists.

Yes.  See this:

The End of Growth? Fading Prospects for Latter-day Saint Expansion

https://jmssa.org/Stewart/

This article does reference both groups who had had far more growth than the LDS Church has over the past number of decades and continue to grow more.

 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

The End of Growth? Fading Prospects for Latter-day Saint Expansion

https://jmssa.org/Stewart/

 

 

Thanks for the link.  Based on the title alone, however, the contention the author of whatever materials may be found at that link is different than your original contention.  The author's contention, apparently, is that, shortly, growth will "end."  It will end, but it hasn't yet.  By contrast, your original contention was that the Church of Jesus Christ is growing, still, albeit slowly, yet on the other hand, you would have us believe that, at the same time it is growing slowly,  it is "losing more members than ever."  Those two things cannot be happening at the same time: They are mutually exclusive.  I don't deny that growth in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has slowed considerably in recent years, and I don't deny that some (even many, in relative terms: "The worth of a soul [even of one soul] is great in the sight of God") have left.  But if the Church of Jesus Christ is "losing more members than ever," which was your original contention, then it is not growing.  And, just having glanced at the abstract, that is not your author's contention ... at least, not yet.  He says growth will stop ... but it hasn't yet.

Edited November 30, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[teddyaware]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes.  See this:

The End of Growth? Fading Prospects for Latter-day Saint Expansion

https://jmssa.org/Stewart/

This article does reference both groups who had had far more growth than the LDS Church has over the past number of decades and continue to grow more.

 

3 And all the nations that fight against Zion, and that distress her, shall be as a dream of a night vision; yea, it shall be unto them, even as unto a hungry man which dreameth, and behold he eateth but he awaketh and his soul is empty; or like unto a thirsty man which dreameth, and behold he drinketh but he awaketh and behold he is faint, and his soul hath appetite; yea, even so shall the multitude of all the nations be that fight against Mount Zion. (2 Nephi 27) 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I like to think that it is a maturing process of the human species and I view it as a positive step.  Doing things and basing ones morals and ethics based on a religion that says "well this is just what God says so do it" seems like a poor way to ultimately live and make rules at least IMO.  For example as an active Latter day Saint I was against LBGTQ issues and even rights.  Once I put aside my faith I started examining that position from a more rational view point other than God says so.  The result was I found no reason to oppose this group having the same civil rights as everyone else.  I think that is a positive development.

If a religion actually teaches "well this is just what God says so do it" then I agree with you.  I appreciate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't espouse that but there are probably some out there that do.  

I also acknowledge that there are many active and believing members who's beliefs towards the lgbtq community match yours (so presumably have the same level of spiritual maturity), but who have not felt the need to put aside their faith to make that "positive development".  

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

People are leaving religion because they find it more a detriment in their lives than a positive.  There are countless reason why people have lost their faith, don't trust those running the churches and find some commandments to be rules that don't always make them a better person and no longer believe all those commandments actually came from God.  It is easy for members to see other commandments from other religions that didn't come from God (no blood transfusions for example) but find the commandments their own church imposes to be the "right" ones because it is their leaders that are telling them this time.  

The polls still show 81% of the population believes in God.  That is only down by 17% since it's highest level in the 1950's.  Maybe all these people who are leaving organized religion which tells them what and how they should believe who God is are finding out that they can have a very personal relationship with God directly and He can actually guide them in their own personal journey back to Him.  They are taking that power away from organized religion and giving it back to God himself.

Is all I am saying is that you can't blame everything on simply a more secular society. There is another piece to this puzzle that organized religion plays a part in.

There is a difference between believing that God exists and believing that you have to follow Him.  I know many people who believe that God exists but who don't ever seek His will on anything, give no thought to Him ever, have no relationship with Him, and who assume that whatever they want to do, God is fine with it.

I would consider those people to be living secular lives, regardless of their claim of belief.  

[Pyreaux]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think you are not correct at all in that conclusion. If you are interested in such things take a look at this:

The End of Growth? Fading Prospects for Latter-day Saint Expansion

https://jmssa.org/Stewart/

Ok.  My experience with what I read from Nibley many years ago was he played pretty loosey goosey with his sources and footnotes and they did not really support what he wrote in some of his books. But I am not a Nobley expert by any stretch so maybe he was the wonder scholar many think he was.

I never was a fan of the CES letter and found it rather lightweight.  I am surprised at how many disaffected members over LDS truth claims and founding myths seem to like it.  As for your points I bolded above all I can say is meh.  It is an arrogant attitude born of the exclusive idea that you somehow have God's one truth for the world.  It is a fantasy.  But as I have noted the defenders like to say things like this while Rome burns.  Carry on.

Since 2018, it’s impossible to project growth or judge if more members are becoming inactive until the Coronavirus is completely stopped worldwide. Many of us are attending church virtually via Zoom and YouTube now.

For the last decade, there’s also the fact that Christianity in general is losing members to growing secularism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was also affected but to a lesser extent. It was still growing until last year but at a rate near 1% or less a year. Some mainline Christian churches have been shrinking for some time.

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by Pyreaux

[Snodgrassian]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

3 And all the nations that fight against Zion, and that distress her, shall be as a dream of a night vision; yea, it shall be unto them, even as unto a hungry man which dreameth, and behold he eateth but he awaketh and his soul is empty; or like unto a thirsty man which dreameth, and behold he drinketh but he awaketh and behold he is faint, and his soul hath appetite; yea, even so shall the multitude of all the nations be that fight against Mount Zion. (2 Nephi 27) 

Are you implying that all the nations that do not show growth are fighting against Mount Zion?

[Derl Sanderson]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Perhaps it is better said the arguments are not compelling.  IMO at least.  And no non LDS scholars likely take the LDS Scholars apologetics seriously.  If you have non LDS scholars support that would be helpful again in IMO.

I think Simon Southerton and Thomas Murphy would fall into that category.  I also think a number of your faithful scholars who defend have become so nuanced that they have created a Mormonism which certainly is not recognizable to me and I doubt the top leadership would endorse it.  Patrick Mason and the Givens come to my mind.  TO defend that have to do this and likely to maintain their own belief as well. I have some active friends like this as well. I tried to do this for quite some time but it did not work for me.

I was a FARMS fan but I often found their defenses more a personal attack on many of the critics.  Again I never really worried about the Tanners much.  I know Sandra is idolized among many ex Mormons these days and I don't feel the same about her.

I can appreciate that one might not find LDS scholars' arguments compelling. My issue is with the notion that none exist or that they cravenly masquerade as no more than ad hominem attacks. Those are such overused canards. Evangelical scholars Carl Mosser and Paul Owens certainly seem to have taken LDS apologetics seriously. And I don't know if "support" is exactly what one would call it, but non-LDS scholars like Margaret Barker (Methodist), Craig Blomberg (Evangelical), and Stephen H. Webb (Catholic) certainly consider our faith claims to be substantive and deserving respect.

The arguments of Southerton and Murphy are not without considerable thought and credentialed backing (plus they are darlings of John Dehlin, so they got that going for 'em 😁), but I find them less compelling than those offered by LDS geneticist/scholars Michael F. Whiting, John Butler, Ugo Perego, and David A. McClellan. The Maxwell Institute published an entire book of essays by LDS scholars addressing in a manner that is supportive of the BOM the very issues that Southerton and Murphy criticize. Then there is a detailed critique of Southerton's entire book Losing a Lost Tribe that I thought was quite good.

Of course the world of scholarship, to me anyway, seems more often than not like a war ground. You got your smart guys, I got my smart guys, and to each his own. So I am perfectly happy with the notion that in matters of faith, I decide not only on the basis of smart guys' arguments, but also as guided by the promise of the Holy Spirit. 

It is so annoying how the initial topics of discussion always wander down tangent road to entirely off-subject items. Not a thing I just said has anything to to with Utah Lighthouse Ministry or the Tanners, so I'm just contributing to my own annoyance, so I'm gonna shut up now. 😠

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

3 And all the nations that fight against Zion, and that distress her, shall be as a dream of a night vision; yea, it shall be unto them, even as unto a hungry man which dreameth, and behold he eateth but he awaketh and his soul is empty; or like unto a thirsty man which dreameth, and behold he drinketh but he awaketh and behold he is faint, and his soul hath appetite; yea, even so shall the multitude of all the nations be that fight against Mount Zion. (2 Nephi 27) 

Yaaawn....

[Teancum]

38 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Since 2018, it’s impossible to project growth or judge if more members are becoming inactive until the Coronavirus is completely stopped worldwide. Many of us are attending church virtually via Zoom and YouTube now.

For the last decade, there’s also the fact that Christianity in general is losing members to growing secularism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was also affected but to a lesser extent. It was still growing until last year but at a rate near 1% or less a year. Some mainline Christian churches have been shrinking for some time.

 

Did you read any of the paper?  Comparisons to Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah Witnesses are telling IMO.

[Pyreaux]

4 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Are you implying that all the nations that do not show growth are fighting against Mount Zion?

I don't know what he's saying, but the verse looks like nations or factions that fight us have similar issues to the Prodigal Son, the "crusts" and "husks" of the world simply do not satisfy like food (truth) in his father's house.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Did you read any of the paper?  Comparisons to Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah Witnesses are telling IMO.

Yes. His point that Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses outperform us in ways that suggest some serious problems in our approach. The problem with missionary work is member-missionaries spend far more time 'attending meetings, planning, and coordinating' than in personal interactions with non-members. As the church relies more heavily on same-continent missionaries, makes a substantial difference in why we do have growth and miracle conversions in Africa (members having dreams about the church before they find the church).

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Thanks for the link.  Based on the title alone, however, the contention the author of whatever materials may be found at that link is different than your original contention.  The author's contention, apparently, is that, shortly, growth will "end."  It will end, but it hasn't yet.  By contrast, your original contention was that the Church of Jesus Christ is growing, still, albeit slowly, yet on the other hand, you would have us believe that, at the same time it is growing slowly,  it is "losing more members than ever."  Those two things cannot be happening at the same time: They are mutually exclusive.  I don't deny that growth in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has slowed considerably in recent years, and I don't deny that some (even many, in relative terms: "The worth of a soul [even of one soul] is great in the sight of God") have left.  But if the Church of Jesus Christ is "losing more members than ever," which was your original contention, then it is not growing.  And, just having glanced at the abstract, that is not your author's contention ... at least, not yet.  He says growth will stop ... but it hasn't yet.

I am not sure I actually said what you think  I said. My point is the church growth is slowing.  And one of the impacts is it is losing members.  And the growth is slower.  And the retention is poor. And other competing organizations seem to have more success than the Church does.  Even in Africa where currently at least, the church is having its best growth.  That is it.  It is a lot of factors. Frankly I am surprised at the Jehovah Witnesses success.  I do not know much abut Seventh Day Adventists but the Jehovah Witnesses don't seem to have a leg to stand on as for truth claims.  Maybe they have success because it is expected that all member go out to seek converts and they don't rely on a young missionary force.  Who know.