Popular Post webbles Posted January 2, 2025 Popular Post Posted January 2, 2025 7 minutes ago, Teancum said: My guess, since the church does not publish activity rate, is that it is about 5% world wide. I think it lower in non US nations and higher in the US. A close friend of mine serves as MP of one of the Santiago Chili missions a few years ago. They had wards with 1000 names on the records with 30 members attending. He had his missionaries spend significant time in seeking out many of those with reactivation efforts. The activity rate is much higher than 5%. Back in 2011, https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2011/07/countries-of-world-by-estimated-member.html estimated the global rate at 30% and the non-US/Canada rate at 22.5%. He uses surveys, congregation sizes, and other statistics to calculate it. I can't find a more recent estimate from that blog, but in 2019, he also worked on calculating retention numbers - https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2019/10/sneak-peak-at-presentation-for-sssr.html. He estimates that about 50% of all converts stay in the church after 1 year. He does mention that retention during the 1-4 years is difficult but doesn't have any numbers for it. That blog is really useful to discuss church growth. He's found some pretty decent ways to track the growth or lack of it. Each time the statistics report is released in April, he will talk about it and how it compares historically. https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2024/04/2023-statisical-report.html is the latest one. One example is that 2023 had the largest number of converts since 2015. Another is that 2023 had the lowest number of people remove their names (or be excommunicated, not baptized by age 9, etc) since 2019 and one of the lowest numbers in the last decade. 5
Calm Posted January 2, 2025 Posted January 2, 2025 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Teancum said: This isi skewed since tithing is a requirement to be in good standing and attend the temple. It would be interesting to see how much LDS persons give to other charitable organizations. Pretty sure there is research showing LDS give larger amounts outside of tithing. If Robert or webbles doesn’t have it at their finger tips, I will find it in a bit. (The research may be just Utah, which isn’t a perfect correspondence; after all maybe former members in the state are in the habit of giving and now give what they paid in tithing to worthy causes and perhaps nonLDS in Utah are very generous, but I am pretty sure nonchurch charity has been separated out for LDS). Edited January 2, 2025 by Calm
Popular Post Analytics Posted January 2, 2025 Popular Post Posted January 2, 2025 13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I merely pointed out a fact: "Most Latter-day Saints are not biblical scholars and have no training whatsoever in that field. So too with the Brethren -- none has ever gone to divinity school to study biblical languages or theology." I could expand the list to include Jesus and his apostles, or Moses and his priestly tribe of Levi. My grandfather and his eldest son were both divinity school graduates and ordained Methodist ministers. A requirement for Methodist clergy. Yet the United Methodist Church is now in a death spiral, as are all the mainstream Protestant churches. But not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Howso? Could it be that dependence upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is actually of more importance than attendance at a theological seminary? Is relying on inspiration better than attending theological seminary? I suppose the answer depends upon how you measure success. In terms of growth and vitality, the Church might be doing okay compared to many traditional protestant sects, but many evangelical "non denominational" churches, charismatic churches, Pentecostal churches, and mega churches are doing better than the Mormons, to say nothing of the rise of the nones. Regardless, is that the point? It turns out that my most formative years coincided with the years when the apostles and prophets were most dogmatic about young-earth creationism. I was taught that the purpose of prophets and apostles was to tell us the truth about important things. According to Ezra Taft Benson: Quote The Lord Himself has stated that the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation. The Book of Mormon offers so much that broadens our understandings of the doctrines of salvation. Without it, much of what is taught in other scriptures would not be nearly so plain and precious. As far as preaching the gospel is concerned, the Book of Mormon contains the clearest, most concise, and complete explanation. There is no other record to compare with it. In what record do you get such a complete understanding of the nature of the Fall, the nature of physical and spiritual death, the doctrine of the Atonement, the doctrine of justice and mercy as it relates to the Atonement, and the principles and ordinances of the gospel? The Book of Mormon contains the most comprehensive account of these fundamental doctrines.... If we really do our homework and approach the Book of Mormon doctrinally, we can expose the errors and find the truths to combat many of the current false theories and philosophies of men. If one takes President Benson's approach, it becomes crystal clear that there was no death, neither physical nor spiritual, before the Fall. If the Book of Mormon is right on this point, then organic evolution by natural selection is relegated to the bin of "current false theories and philosophies of men." Do you think people like Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and Ezra Taft Benson were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when they taught their interpretation of the Three Pillars of Eternity and the importance of accepting their interpretation as true doctrine? Do you think they were right when they classified such things as "doctrines required for our salvation"? Does it matter? 6
Popular Post Benjamin McGuire Posted January 2, 2025 Popular Post Posted January 2, 2025 15 hours ago, Stargazer said: As for me, one problem that seems to have gone not only unanswered, but also unmentioned (unless someone has raised it and I didn't hear of it) is that of gravitation in the Big Bang. If the entire universe started out as this dimensionless point and just started expanding, how could expand if gravitation existed? Aside from Hawking Radiation, we expect that nothing can escape from black holes, for example, because gravity prevents it. Well, why didn't gravity hold the primordial singularity together? How could it expand? Was gravity non-existent at the time? Was the value of G 0.0? Or some negative number? Or? Maybe that's been answered, and I'm just not aware of it. And I would say that this is where your ignorance is showing. I'll provide a very, very elementary sort of explanation for you. In the big bang theory, it isn't simply a dimensionless point. While this is one way to describe it, it misses the underlying idea that in that point, everything exists everywhere - all at once. In other words, even if there is some kind of gravity - that gravity doesn't have a center - there isn't a greater force that exists in part of that dimensionless point than in some other part. And the universe is the singularity. That is, there isn't this sort of huge amount of vacuum in which the singularity exists - and which is filled as the universe expands. The universe is the singularity - and as it starts to expand, that expansion is smooth (uniform). So there is no pull to the center - because there is no center of gravity. But gravity is dependent on mass. And so at the same time as the big bang begins, at least according to our current understanding, there isn't a Higgs field. And without a Higgs field, there is no mass (and so no gravity). The Higgs field begins forming as the big bang moves away from its first moments, and as the universe begins its cooling process. So after the beginning, we start to see mass (mass is just energy bound into subatomic particles in a Higgs field). As the Higgs field comes into existence that mass then allows gravity to come into existence. Because of the temperatures of the early universe, this mass and the gravity isn't fully functional until we have consistent formation of subatomic particles. So, by the time that we see gravity and that gravity is working - as the weakest of the natural forces it isn't capable of reestablishing a singularity. What it does do is to change the uniform nature of the expansion to create collections of mass that become groups, galaxies, stars, and so on. That's an oversimplification but it should begin to answer your questions. In the singularity that precedes the big bang, there is no mass and so no gravity as we understand it. As mass comes into existence, the distribution of that mass is so uniform that gravity plays only a very small role. Only when the universe has expanded (and cooled) to a certain point does gravity begin to play a significant role - and by then, the singularity is long gone. I wanted to point something out about the video that you linked - this is an argument that is quite familiar to those of us with postmodernist leanings. Postmodernism isn't a rejection of the scientific method, it simply wants to point out that there is always bias in the application of the scientific method. The video suggests that much of the expansion of ideas in theoretical physics are caused because people are trying to find ways to expand theoretical physics - and that scientists have many reasons to engage in such expansions apart from the pure search for knowledge. The embedded youtube video loses some context. She put some notes in for viewers who look at the video as she published it: Quote You all know that I am critical of some developments in physics and tech. I believe it is for this reason that I get a lot of comments of the sort "I am so disappointed in you that you fell for the climate hoax, I thought you are a sceptic". In this video, I want to explain how my experience in physics had me lose trust in scientists, and that indeed I was highly sceptical of climate change a decade ago. I looked at the science -- and scientists -- very closely. Unfortunately it turned out that climate change is not a hoax. The loss of trust isn't about the results or discoveries of science, it is a loss of trust in the motivations of scientists. One of the most fundamental discoveries in terms of physics in my lifetime has been the discovery of the Higgs Boson in 2012. Discovery is such a bad word for this (even though its thrown around) because it was predicted mathematically back in 1964 as part of the theory of the Higgs field - the mechanism by which high energy particles developed mass (central to this discussion about gravity). It was an untestable theory in 1964 - and over time, technology developed to the point where experiments could be conceived to test the existence of the particle and then eventually they could be carried out - and the prediction proven to have some basis in reality. It isn't the fact that scientists produce theory to help answer fundamental questions - it is the motivations behind the endless production of theories that I think is challenging for Sabine Hossenfelder, and not the process of science itself. Her 2018 book Lost in Math, read to me as more of a philosophical discussion than anything else. Each chapter ends with a set of issues that were illustrated in the chapter. Chapter 8 ends with these: Quote • Problems of consistency are powerful guides toward new laws of nature. They are not questions of aesthetics. • But even consistency problems can’t be resolved purely by math and without experimental guidance, because formulating the problem itself depends on the assumptions that were accepted as true. • Theoretical physicists are guilty of sweeping difficult questions under the rug and instead focusing on questions that are more likely to produce publishable results in a short period of time. • The reason for the current lack of progress may be that we focus on the wrong questions. For those familiar enough with these kinds of discussions you can see a bit of a dialogue here with Thomas Kuhn. I think that in the larger scheme of things, there are many who would be uncomfortable with Hossenfelder's belief that the universe is not beautiful, that there is no unifying theory or symmetry - and just as importantly, that there is no design to it. 5
Teancum Posted January 2, 2025 Posted January 2, 2025 59 minutes ago, webbles said: The activity rate is much higher than 5%. Back in 2011, https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2011/07/countries-of-world-by-estimated-member.html estimated the global rate at 30% and the non-US/Canada rate at 22.5%. He uses surveys, congregation sizes, and other statistics to calculate it. I can't find a more recent estimate from that blog, but in 2019, he also worked on calculating retention numbers - https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2019/10/sneak-peak-at-presentation-for-sssr.html. He estimates that about 50% of all converts stay in the church after 1 year. He does mention that retention during the 1-4 years is difficult but doesn't have any numbers for it. That blog is really useful to discuss church growth. He's found some pretty decent ways to track the growth or lack of it. Each time the statistics report is released in April, he will talk about it and how it compares historically. https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2024/04/2023-statisical-report.html is the latest one. One example is that 2023 had the largest number of converts since 2015. Another is that 2023 had the lowest number of people remove their names (or be excommunicated, not baptized by age 9, etc) since 2019 and one of the lowest numbers in the last decade. Sorry that was a typo. I meant 35%. 2
Teancum Posted January 2, 2025 Posted January 2, 2025 57 minutes ago, Calm said: Pretty sure there is research showing LDS give larger amounts outside of tithing. If Robert or webbles doesn’t have it at their finger tips, I will find it in a bit. (The research may be just Utah, which isn’t a perfect correspondence; after all maybe former members in the state are in the habit of giving and now give what they paid in tithing to worthy causes and perhaps nonLDS in Utah are very generous, but I am pretty sure nonchurch charity has been separated out for LDS). I would love to see it. Giving 10%, Fast Offering and maybe $ to other options seems to stretch most LDS budgets. I know when I was fully active my giving to other charities was much less than it is now and it was not excessive. I did not do much more than what I gave to the church. 1
Calm Posted January 2, 2025 Posted January 2, 2025 49 minutes ago, Teancum said: I would love to see it. Giving 10%, Fast Offering and maybe $ to other options seems to stretch most LDS budgets. I know when I was fully active my giving to other charities was much less than it is now and it was not excessive. I did not do much more than what I gave to the church. Remind me please if I forget. I don’t have the mental space to research at the moment. I need to remember more essential things for a few hours rather than the fun stuff. 1
marineland Posted January 2, 2025 Posted January 2, 2025 On 12/31/2024 at 2:19 AM, Robert F. Smith said: Some leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have read Holy Writ with great care and have realized the vastly different ways in which it can be interpreted. How do you believe Adam was created? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2025 Posted January 2, 2025 2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: I think that this is all problematic in different ways. It isn't an either/or situation. Catholicism, for example, has developed a reasonably healthy relationship with its academics. And it works reasonably well. But what you are describing here isn't exactly a good comparison. Part of this is built into the nature of a degree in theology - which doesn't meet some sort of standard across the board (across faiths). I specifically said mainstream churches, all of which are foundering. My grandpa was a graduate of both Ohio Wesleyan and Boston Univ School of Theology, my uncle from Yale Divinity School. After WW II, RLDS young men went to St Paul School of Theology (Kansas City) on the GI Bill, and then slowly took over their Church and turned it into the Community of Christ. I knew some of them, and they are great people, but the CoC will not survive. 2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: There is a huge difference between highly conservative seminaries and progressive ones. This - in and of itself - really has nothing to do with the idea that some religions are failing. Of course it does: It is practically axiomatic now that the more progressive a religion becomes, the quicker it falls apart. To borrow a Marxist phrase, they contain the seeds of their own destruction, i.e., the Enlightenment demands logical examination, which normative Judeo-Christian tradition cannot bear. In Latter-day Saint tradition, on the other hand, it is precisely the better educated who are most faithful. Why? Internal and external consistency along with orthopraxy. Not orthodoxy. 2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: Mormonism (which may eventually arrive at the place where Catholicism is) has some issues - particularly when we start discussing creationism and Evolution. The problem we have when we try to favor inspiration is that inspiration can be hard to track down. We know that the creationism taught by LDS leader Joseph Fielding Smith was heavily influenced by George McCready Price (the Seventh-Day Adventist who was one of the fathers of modern creationism). Price's views appeared heavily in Smith's material - and this didn't become a real problem until Smith became the President of the LDS Church and his adoption of Price became correlated. Because the LDS Church doesn't recognize the influence that sources like Price have had on these discussions - and instead attribute most of it to inspiration, we run into problems with unsustainable (and contradictory) belief. One of my favorite gems to come out of Smith's young earth creationism was his arguments about the nature of the flood (as a universal flood): Quote Now a word as to the reason for the Flood. It was the baptism of the earth, and that had to be by immersion. If the water did not cover the entire earth, then it was not baptized, for the baptism of the Lord is not pouring or sprinkling. This baptism wasn't viewed as merely symbolic, it has been claimed to be a necessary requirement. It also ignores the baptism of the Israelites as they walked dryshod through the Reed Sea -- no immersion (1 Cor 10:2, but see Ps 77:16-20 for mere sprinkling). What I consider truly comical is that the anti-Mormons responded to you with a long screed attempting to show how heterodox your Mormonism is, and how wrong you are about Joseph Fielding Smith (https://www.mrm.org/temple-mcguire). Reminiscent of apostate Sterling McMurrin defending BYU from Hugh Nibley's harsh critique. 2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: ................... On the more fundamentalist side of Mormon thought Be careful of that word . . . polygamist ears might perk up. 2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: ... the idea that only the leaders of the Church can receive inspiration that is relevant in anything more than a personal context. And this is the challenge. When does an LDS leader's opinions become the basis for theology? As soon as they move far enough upward through the hierarchy that they become correlated. At any rate, as long as we privilege these opinions over reasonable scholarship, we will continue to have problems - and we see that in discussions like this where there is the largest conflicts between literalist and fundamentalist readings of the text, and the evidence that contradicts those readings. .................................. What do you mean "we" Ben? The LDS Church cannot hold together without the authentic inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If it doesn't have it, it deserves to fail. If it doesn't focus on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it will fail. As to scholarship, I see no diminution of its importance: Quote "I believe much of the vindication that will come to the Prophet and to this work of the Restoration will come by scholars who are committed to the Kingdom, who are unequivocally devoted to it." Neal A. Maxwell, Interpreter, 7 (2013):xiii. 2
webbles Posted January 2, 2025 Posted January 2, 2025 (edited) 1 hour ago, Teancum said: I would love to see it. Giving 10%, Fast Offering and maybe $ to other options seems to stretch most LDS budgets. I know when I was fully active my giving to other charities was much less than it is now and it was not excessive. I did not do much more than what I gave to the church. 1 hour ago, Calm said: Remind me please if I forget. I don’t have the mental space to research at the moment. I need to remember more essential things for a few hours rather than the fun stuff. I'm not sure if this is what Calm was talking about but I found https://sp2.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/cnaan_lds_giving.pdf. It was done in 2012 (here's the press release - https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/penn-research-shows-mormons-are-generous-and-active-helping-others) and looks at the number of volunteering hours and donations for active members. They did include a few full-time missionaries but gave numbers with and without the missionaries. For volunteering hours, they created 4 categories (see page 9): Category, Annual Mean Hours, Without Missionaries Non-Church Affiliated, 34.0, 34.5 Church affiliated, social needs in community, 55.7, 38.4 Church affiliated, social needs in congregation, 96.2, 97.4 Religious volunteering, 242.0, 194.7 They mention that if only the "Non-Church Affiliated" is used, it would equal the national average for all Americans (page 11). For donations, they created 4 categories (see page 15) but didn't give any numbers for the tithing category: Category, Annual Mean, Without Missionaries Secular giving, $1171, $1201 Welfare giving through the LDS Church, $650, $664 Non-Tithing, Church Related, $203 $206 They didn't mention any comparison so I looked for a place that would had nationwide 2012 charitable contributions. I found https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/77676/2000609-Profiles-of-Individual-Charitable-Contributions-by-State-2012.pdf. It says that in the 2012, per income tax return, the average is $1372. So, excluding tithing and fast offerings, members are below the average but pretty close. If you include fast offerings, then it is higher. Edited January 2, 2025 by webbles 3
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2025 Posted January 2, 2025 3 hours ago, Teancum said: I think the best metrics are annual growth via convert and child of record baptisms, % activity rate and how many people resign on their own each year. Of course the latter is not indictive of departures as many, like myself and my wife, do not participate but still are members of record. All of these metrics are fairly dismal. My guess, since the church does not publish activity rate, is that it is about 35% world wide. I think it lower in non US nations and higher in the US. A close friend of mine serves as MP of one of the Santiago Chili missions a few years ago. They had wards with 1000 names on the records with 30 members attending. He had his missionaries spend significant time in seeking out many of those with reactivation efforts. Good metrics, but only if applied fairly over lengthy periods, and honestly accounting for events like COVID. When large numbers of members abandon an area (leaving California in droves), wards must be combined, giving the false surface impression of tremendous apostasy.. Some regions have very high activity levels (in Utah Valley for example), and growth is astonishing in some regions (Africa). 3 hours ago, Teancum said: This isi skewed since tithing is a requirement to be in good standing and attend the temple. It would be interesting to see how much LDS persons give to other charitable organizations. Latter-day Saints tend to contribute a lot more than tithing (fast offerings, humanitarian aid, etc.), along with volunteer time and effort moving people, working at DI or a bishop's storehouse, and working in someone's yard. Members participate in non-LDS food drives, Red Cross blood drives, and contribute to many non-LDS charities. The IRS has always placed Latter-day Saints way ahead of any other group in such contributions -- which are entirely voluntary, with no passing of the plate or basket, and no audit any time. Just a member's word that he is a full tithe-payer in order to get a temple recommend. One never has to pay any tithing to be a member "in good standing." It is simply false to say otherwise. 3 hours ago, Teancum said: The substantial wealth I refer to is used for, well nothing. The EPA fund just keeps growing and growing. I do not accuse the leaders of lining their own pockets at all. I simply noted the church has been successful in accumulating substantial wealth. Whether that is good or bad has been debated to death on this board. .................... Of course it keeps growing and growing. That is the whole pointe of the Parable of the Talents. What the Master wants done with it is His business -- unless of course you assume there is no Master, and that those horrible Mormon leaders are taking their flock for a ride to erewhon. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2025 Posted January 2, 2025 8 minutes ago, webbles said: I'm not sure if this is what Calm was talking about but I found https://sp2.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/cnaan_lds_giving.pdf. It was done in 2012 and looks at the number of volunteering hours and donations for active members. They did include a few full-time missionaries but gave numbers with and without the missionaries. For volunteering hours, they created 4 categories (see page 9): Category, Annual Mean Hours, Without Missionaries Non-Church Affiliated, 34.0, 34.5 Church affiliated, social needs in community, 55.7, 38.4 Church affiliated, social needs in congregation, 96.2, 97.4 Religious volunteering, 242.0, 194.7 They mention that if only the "Non-Church Affiliated" is used, it would equal the national average for all Americans (page 11). For donations, they created 4 categories (see page 15) but didn't give any numbers for the tithing category: Category, Annual Mean, Without Missionaries Secular giving, $1171, $1201 Welfare giving through the LDS Church, $650, $664 Non-Tithing, Church Related, $203 $206 They didn't mention any comparison so I looked for a place that would had nationwide 2012 charitable contributions. I found https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/77676/2000609-Profiles-of-Individual-Charitable-Contributions-by-State-2012.pdf. It says that in the 2012, per income tax return, the average is $1372. So, excluding tithing and fast offerings, members are below the average but pretty close. If you include fast offerings, then it is higher. Nonsense. See the graph in the 2012 New York Times, https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/01/29/sunday-review/29giving-gfx.html , Latter-day Saints give nearly twice as much as the denomination in the number two spot. Here's the breakdown of the average percentage of religious giving per capita of each denomination: Mormon: 5.6% Assemblies of God: 2.9% Nondenominational Evangelical: 2.6% Baptist: 2% Lutheran: 1.5% Jewish: 1.4% Eastern Orthodox: 1.3% Methodist: 1.2 % Episcopalian: 1.2% Presbyterian: 1.2% Catholic: .7% Muslim: .6% Buddhist: .6% 1
webbles Posted January 2, 2025 Posted January 2, 2025 18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Nonsense. See the graph in the 2012 New York Times, https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/01/29/sunday-review/29giving-gfx.html , Latter-day Saints give nearly twice as much as the denomination in the number two spot. Here's the breakdown of the average percentage of religious giving per capita of each denomination: Mormon: 5.6% Assemblies of God: 2.9% Nondenominational Evangelical: 2.6% Baptist: 2% Lutheran: 1.5% Jewish: 1.4% Eastern Orthodox: 1.3% Methodist: 1.2 % Episcopalian: 1.2% Presbyterian: 1.2% Catholic: .7% Muslim: .6% Buddhist: .6% That includes tithing, since it is looking at the charitable income tax deduction. Teancum wanted to see numbers without tithing included. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2025 Posted January 2, 2025 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Is relying on inspiration better than attending theological seminary? I suppose the answer depends upon how you measure success. Although I had some religion and philosophy classes at BYU earlier, I began my first serious classes in religion at the Hebrew Univ of Jerusalem in 1966 -- which made me realize how little I actually knew. I spent the next six decades trying to make up for that deficit, and am still at it. Why? Because biblical languages, archeology, and theology are important. We need to know where we came from, and the ancient world holds some keys to that understanding. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: In terms of growth and vitality, the Church might be doing okay compared to many traditional protestant sects, but many evangelical "non denominational" churches, charismatic churches, Pentecostal churches, and mega churches are doing better than the Mormons, to say nothing of the rise of the nones. Yes, secularism is a fact of our day and age, and it has already had a powerful effect on LDS activity levels and conversions in Western Europe and England. However, I see no metrics which presage the death of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Regardless, is that the point? It turns out that my most formative years coincided with the years when the apostles and prophets were most dogmatic about young-earth creationism. I was taught that the purpose of prophets and apostles was to tell us the truth about important things. According to Ezra Taft Benson: If one takes President Benson's approach, it becomes crystal clear that there was no death, neither physical nor spiritual, before the Fall. If the Book of Mormon is right on this point, then organic evolution by natural selection is relegated to the bin of "current false theories and philosophies of men." Do you think people like Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and Ezra Taft Benson were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when they taught their interpretation of the Three Pillars of Eternity and the importance of accepting their interpretation as true doctrine? Do you think they were right when they classified such things as "doctrines required for our salvation"? Does it matter? A great many do wrestle with those questions, no doubt, and you won't be the last to place them on this board. However, as Ben McGuire has just said, why would we privilege the comments of one of the Brethren over the others? Of course that requires an actual awareness about how much the Brethren disagree with one another. Moreover, why would we privilege comments of the Brethren over and instead of canonical Scripture? As Brother Brigham frequently insisted, the only way to know whether the words of the Brethren are true is by the power of the Holy Spirit. As President Dieter F. Uchtdorf has said: Quote Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past. We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church History, along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events, there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question. Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience. When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction. Sometimes there’s a difference of opinion as to what the facts really mean. A question that creates doubt in some, can, after careful investigation, build faith in others. And to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect and his doctrine is pure. But he works through us, his imperfect children. And imperfect people make mistakes. Uchtdorf, October 5, 2013, LDS General Conference, Ensign, 43/11 (Nov 2013):22, online at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2013/11/saturday-morning-session/come-join-with-us.html?lang=eng#title1 . We humans are flawed, and we do the best we can. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2025 Posted January 2, 2025 1 hour ago, marineland said: How do you believe Adam was created? All humans, including me, have been created the same way, every time, by mammalian reproduction -- unless you want to include in vitro fertilization as a modern variant. We haven't yet reached the Brave New World of Huxley. Anyhow, that is the explicit notion of several Presidents of the Church which I recently quoted on this board. 2
Calm Posted January 2, 2025 Posted January 2, 2025 2 hours ago, webbles said: I'm not sure if this is what Calm was talking about but I found https://sp2.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/cnaan_lds_giving.pdf. It was done in 2012 (here's the press release - https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/penn-research-shows-mormons-are-generous-and-active-helping-others) and looks at the number of volunteering hours and donations for active members. They did include a few full-time missionaries but gave numbers with and without the missionaries. For volunteering hours, they created 4 categories (see page 9): Category, Annual Mean Hours, Without Missionaries Non-Church Affiliated, 34.0, 34.5 Church affiliated, social needs in community, 55.7, 38.4 Church affiliated, social needs in congregation, 96.2, 97.4 Religious volunteering, 242.0, 194.7 They mention that if only the "Non-Church Affiliated" is used, it would equal the national average for all Americans (page 11). For donations, they created 4 categories (see page 15) but didn't give any numbers for the tithing category: Category, Annual Mean, Without Missionaries Secular giving, $1171, $1201 Welfare giving through the LDS Church, $650, $664 Non-Tithing, Church Related, $203 $206 They didn't mention any comparison so I looked for a place that would had nationwide 2012 charitable contributions. I found https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/77676/2000609-Profiles-of-Individual-Charitable-Contributions-by-State-2012.pdf. It says that in the 2012, per income tax return, the average is $1372. So, excluding tithing and fast offerings, members are below the average but pretty close. If you include fast offerings, then it is higher. That is the one, thank you. I included fast offerings and other humanitarian donations given through the Church in my head, not sure I was clear on that in my response. 1
Popular Post MiserereNobis Posted January 3, 2025 Popular Post Posted January 3, 2025 19 hours ago, The Nehor said: Galileo didn’t get in trouble for his teachings about an astronomical model. He got in trouble because he defended his model with a dialogue with a caricature of the pope presented as a huge moron. The “ivory tower intellectuals” of the time were not strongly opposed to his model. He had many allies. At one point that included a pope. Galileo was punished for being a jackass. I don’t think it is a good thing that people were punished for mocking the pope but I am not going to pretend Galileo went down for fearlessly telling the truth. He didn’t. He went down for a being a pompous idiot. Thank you. The story of Galileo has been twisted around so much for anti-Catholic and anti-religion reasons. As you say, should he have been punished for being mean to the pope? No, but that has nothing to do with science and scientific ideas. His story is SO much more complicated than the caricature presented to reinforce this narrative. 5
MiserereNobis Posted January 3, 2025 Posted January 3, 2025 I just want to toss out there (and I think a few other posters would agree) that the experts on what science is and how it does what it does are not necessarily scientists, but philosophers of science. Philosophers of science study science. Science studies the natural world. So, if a scientist talks about what science is/does, they are engaging in the philosophy of science. Some are great at it! Others totally aren't. But just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean their views on how science works is somehow correct. 4
Calm Posted January 3, 2025 Posted January 3, 2025 (edited) On 12/26/2024 at 12:31 AM, Stargazer said: In connection with this topic, I offer this intriguing video... So he states there is evidence that crystals grow faster once one crystal takes shape and once one rat of a certain species learns a new trick, rats of the same species all over the world will learn the new trick faster. I want to see this evidence. As far as I can tell, the only research he shares on this was offspring learning tricks faster, not random rats in other places tested by other researchers. Edited January 3, 2025 by Calm
sunstoned Posted January 3, 2025 Posted January 3, 2025 1 hour ago, Calm said: So he states there is evidence that crystals grow faster once one crystal takes shape and once one rat of a certain species learns a new trick, rats of the same species all over the world will learn the new trick faster. I want to see this evidence. As far as I can tell, the only research he shares on this was offspring learning tricks faster, not random rats in other places tested by other researchers. This might be valid or it might not be. Without seeing valid research there is no way of knowing. Generally, I am always skeptical of claims or research that is not adequately resourced. Without references, it's just an opinion. 1
Teancum Posted January 3, 2025 Posted January 3, 2025 17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Good metrics, but only if applied fairly over lengthy periods, and honestly accounting for events like COVID. When large numbers of members abandon an area (leaving California in droves), wards must be combined, giving the false surface impression of tremendous apostasy.. Some regions have very high activity levels (in Utah Valley for example), and growth is astonishing in some regions (Africa). Since the Church does not share data on activity it is hard to pin point. So all we have really is observations, and from what I see activity rate is very low. Sure you have pockets that are high for activity and converts. But those seem isolated. If the church is growing well why are we seeing elimination of wards and stakes as well as an adjustment downward for what is required to organize a ward as far as active members and priesthood holders? 17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Latter-day Saints tend to contribute a lot more than tithing (fast offerings, humanitarian aid, etc.), along with volunteer time and effort moving people, working at DI or a bishop's storehouse, and working in someone's yard. Members participate in non-LDS food drives, Red Cross blood drives, and contribute to many non-LDS charities. I understand that. Yet again, the majority of service hours is for the church. Yes as @webblesnoted there is service outside the church as well But it is smaller. I recall when I was active how hard it was to find extra time for other groups. Some members I knew did better than others. But it is hard to find time if you are doing all the LDS things recommended within your family and if you hold a calling that takes significant time. When active my wife and I typically had time demanding callings. But yea I did not say the members do not contribute time and they do it outside the Church as well. 17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The IRS has always placed Latter-day Saints way ahead of any other group in such contributions Always? Do you have a source for this? I am not doing a CFR but I would be interested in seeing this. As a CPA that does work I would be interested in this. 17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: -- which are entirely voluntary, with no passing of the plate or basket, and no audit any time. Just a member's word that he is a full tithe-payer in order to get a temple recommend. One never has to pay any tithing to be a member "in good standing." It is simply false to say otherwise. Really? Can one go to the temple if not a full tither payer? Be called as a bishop or stake president? As I recall, converts are asked to commit to the law of tithing. What I think is false is your claim that one is in good standing while not paying tithing. Granted you won't be kicked out for not tithing but you will be limited in many things. Also, if this was not important what is the need for the annual tithing settlement interview? 17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Of course it keeps growing and growing. That is the whole pointe of the Parable of the Talents. What the Master wants done with it is His business -- unless of course you assume there is no Master, and that those horrible Mormon leaders are taking their flock for a ride to erewhon. I do not think Jesus, you know, the one that the church claims to be his, would not be pleased with the massive hoarding of wealth. EPA is well over $100 billion. But if it's the goal of the church to grow their assets then they are doing very well. At this rate some project the church will be worth over a trillion $ in 20 years or so. They are giving Elon Musk a run for his money. 1
Calm Posted January 3, 2025 Posted January 3, 2025 (edited) 7 hours ago, Teancum said: Quote One never has to pay any tithing to be a member "in good standing." It is simply false to say otherwise. Really? Can one go to the temple if not a full tither payer? I never pay tithing and can honestly declare I am a full tithed payer. The two are not mutually exclusive. Added: Oops, this might have changed in the last year with money from SS. I need to check that. But the above was true for about 3/4 of my adult life. No income, no tithing. Edited January 3, 2025 by Calm
Teancum Posted January 3, 2025 Posted January 3, 2025 7 minutes ago, Calm said: I never pay tithing and can honestly declare I am a full tithed payer. The two are not mutually exclusive. Added: Oops, this might have changed in the last year with money from SS. I need to check that. But the above was true for about 3/4 of my adult life. No income, no tithing. 7 minutes ago, Calm said: I never pay tithing and can honestly declare I am a full tithed payer. The two are not mutually exclusive. Added: Oops, this might have changed in the last year with money from SS. I need to check that. But the above was true for about 3/4 of my adult life. No income, no tithing. By definition if you have 0 income 10% of 0 is 0. And I think you know this is not what I meant. So, if you have income, and you do not tithe you cannot attend the temple, you cannot hold certain callings and you cannot advance to another priesthood office.
Calm Posted January 4, 2025 Posted January 4, 2025 (edited) 1 hour ago, Teancum said: And I think you know this is not what I meant. I am pretty sure that is what Robert was referring to though. And it was your response that didn’t respond to what he meant which is why I added mine. We don’t accept or judge members in the Church on the basis of if they can pay tithing or not. How much tithing is paid in dollar amounts is not a standard of worthiness in our faith. Edited January 4, 2025 by Calm
Calm Posted January 4, 2025 Posted January 4, 2025 (edited) 19 hours ago, sunstoned said: This might be valid or it might not be. Without seeing valid research there is no way of knowing. Generally, I am always skeptical of claims or research that is not adequately resourced. Without references, it's just an opinion. I would love it if it was valid. What fun that would be, especially to research. I have major doubts about it being true though if only because rats are not currently ruling the world. If “morphic resonance” or inherent “collective memory” had such an effect as to significantly increase the rate of learning of an entire species even if just one member learns a new skill, why have species not developed much more given the time they have been around? The collective memory that has been shown to speed up technological, etc development…records keeping and transmitting, which is unfortunately something that occurs only with intention and external to ourselves. As far as I know, rats haven’t gotten there yet. There was this one experiment in 2013 that I haven’t seen follow-up on, so I wonder if it was a bust after all (not that much effort looking though). They wired up two mouse brains and the encoding mouse behaviour did increase some the receiving mouse’s brain as did rewarding the receiving mouse’s brain, but that isn’t evidence for morphic resonance until you can find something that could communicate brain signals long distance naturally (meaning without assistance). https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.12522 Quote The brains of two rats on different continents have been made to act in tandem. When the first, in Brazil, uses its whiskers to choose between two stimuli, an implant records its brain activity and signals to a similar device in the brain of a rat in the United States. The US rat then usually makes the same choice on the same task. Miguel Nicolelis, a neuroscientist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, says that this system allows one rat to use the senses of another, incorporating information from its far-away partner into its own representation of the world. “It’s not telepathy. It’s not the Borg,” he says. “But we created a new central nervous system made of two brains.” Nicolelis says that the work, published today in Scientific Reports1, is the first step towards constructing an organic computer that uses networks of linked animal brains to solve tasks. But other scientists who work on neural implants are sceptical. Lee Miller, a physiologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, says that Nicolelis’s team has made many important contributions to neural interfaces, but the current paper could be mistaken for a “poor Hollywood science-fiction script”. He adds, “It is not clear to what end the effort is really being made.” The second mouse made the correct choice without any external cues at 70% vs the 90% iirc of the first mouse who saw the light going on and off (the individual rates are not mentioned in the Nature paper, but elsewhere, going off of memory which please don’t trust if interested), so not exactly something you would want to bet your life on, but interesting if it can be duplicated and is not just a one off outlier result. The researcher specializes in prosthetics being controlled by the brain, so very useful work there. Edited January 4, 2025 by Calm 1
Recommended Posts