What's new

LDS general conference - Fall 2013

I was gone for a few days, had to help a few people move. Did I miss anything? Should I read what I missed? TIA

No just read post #247 and reply in 1000 words or more.

TIA
 
gotta love the oxymoron here!


your post made me think of those "awards" in grammar school, especially the lower elementary grades, when everyone in the class is the "Best" something....


Some questions: Are "points" tallied so to speak for holding leadership types of positions? Is it like some sort of community service requirement? Would that be part of the reasoning behind creating rather meaningless "leadership" titles? Or is it just up to each region (or ward or stake or whatever they're called) to set up what they think will work best for their demographic? As Log said, is it more of an illusion to make people feel involved and important?

everytime someone calls for me this way, I come running. babe the elder, sitting in my secluded mountain cave, appreciating the call to comment. . . .

In the Moron Culture there are several types. . . active, and inactive, with subsets of each. orthodox, and liberal. I'm an oxymoron, somewhat different and incomprehensible. . . .

Well, I like your humor. Nice to hear humor about Mormons, done nicely, by regular folks. Maybe we could become normal someday, instead of peculiar, if everyone could just laugh.

Well, and if we could laugh with them?????

(babe the oxymoron)
 
I totally get the not wanting a leadership position thing. I am always asked to be Ward Mission Leader or something similar due to management background, and sometimes I just want to get into a ward and be Brother Joe Schmo and not have a calling, and not have to manage when I don't have to be managing for work.

This brings up another question, why the compulsion to create callings just so everyone has one? We had an assistant 2nd Sunday Deacons Quorum teacher. 2 of them actually. Is that for real? They had a lot of younger families, so a glut of younger elders (20's and 30's) and so they had a 1st Sunday teacher, 2nd Sunday teacher, and so on, for a deacon's quorum of about 8 boys, same in teachers and priests, while the primary had close to the population of Rhode Island with well over 25 sunbeams and had a few tandem teachers and that was about it. Sometimes I felt like it was silly to put me in as assistant to the assistant facilities guy while we had 3 guys called as the facilities guy in the ward (true story), and did not feel one bit closer to anyone in the ward for it, not any more included than if I just went to my meetings and participated and was a nice guy.

Why won't they sometimes just let us be members and allow us the opportunity to actually volunteer for things (like scout camp helper, or unofficial "mover" or cook at ward picnics, etc. all of which I have volunteered for at one point or another and more) rather than being pushed into a meaningless "service" position just so they can say everyone has a calling?

Someone was asking for a thousand-word treatise on this subject. . . . I take it as a calling. . . . .

I know how you can get out of this mess. . . . . say "yes" to the wife team idea. . . . and let the ladies manage things.

talk about outta the frying pan and into the fire. . . . .

j/k
 
I was gone for a few days, had to help a few people move. Did I miss anything? Should I read what I missed? TIA

you might be missing a few neighbors. Those who showed up at Conference saw Jesus and were taken to Heaven. Seven Years of "bad luck" for those who missed the boat.

j/k
 
You can start at the chromosome level
Male Y chromosomes have 78-86 genes, which code for only 23 proteins. The X chromosome, on the other hand, has ~2000. 2 of the genes on the Y chromosomes are merely isoforms of X chromosome genes. Of the 21 others, most of (if not all) directly, or indirectly play a role in sperm development. That's it.




and move up from there. Estrogen v. Testosterone, relative strength and endurance, center of balance,

All of these are essentially rooted in estrogen v. testosterone.

emotional differences, thought pattern differences,

This has been largely overblown. Almost every scientific study that has appraised the male brain as larger, or the female limbic system as being prone to receiving more blood flow, has more or less inferred that the variation within a gender is much larger than between them.

the propensity of certain disabilities like colour-blindness.

Men having one X chromosome, thus making them more prone to X-linked diseases (in this case red-green colour-blindness specifically, because they don't have another potentially wild type X) doesn't make for a very compelling case as to why men and women are different. There are numerous men out there with two X chromosomes, and a Y. They don't suffer from the higher rates of X-linked diseases-- so does that mean they aren't men?

Seriously, this is not even debatable. . .

Depends what 'this' is. Are men and women different? Well no ****. But are the differences between the two genders absolutely overblown? From a genetic standpoint, ABSOLUTELY.
 
Probably around 50%.

A 2008 religious self identification survey in the US found that only 3.2 million people self-reported as Mormon, compared to 5.9 million on the LDS church membership rolls. Of these, 77% report attending church regularly, so that equals about 43% activity rate.

It's much, much worse outside of North America, however. Religious self-identification surveys in Chile, Mexico, and Brazil found that fewer than 25% of people on LDS membership rolls actually self-reported as being Mormon. So, if we assume that of these, again 77% are active (as in the US, probably a generous assumption), this translates roughly into 19% activity rates. My assumption is that it is roughly the same in other countries, particularly in the developing world where the LDS church finds a good share of its converts.

Plus, the oft heard statement that the LDS Church is one of fastest growing religions in the world (one of the things members say to convince themselves that this is indeed God's work--what we call a 'social proof') is not true either. Membership rates are stagnating, and the numbers leaving the church are approaching those joining the church. It's especially true among young men who are leaving the church at higher rates than young women, which begs the question, if temple marriage is still the ideal, just who are all these women going to marry?
 
Regardless of your personal stance on the LDS church and its theology it is interesting to see the growth of it.


Over 1 million members in UT. (01/2012 stats)

Over 500k in CA. (01/2012 stats)

Over 100k in NV, ID, WA, OR, AZ, CO, TX, FL. (01/2012 stats)

Over 10% of the population in UT, ID and WY. (01/2012 stats)

Over 5% of the population in NV and AZ. (01/2012 stats)

Over 1 million members (names on the membership roles) in Brazil, Mexico and the U.S. (2007 stats)

Over 1/2 a million in Chile, Peru and Phillipines. (2007 stats)

Over 100k in Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Canada, Columbia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, New Zealand, Nigeria, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuala. (2007 stats)

We are witnessing the birth of a global religion.

Maybe, but maybe not. See, for example, https://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/5611/mormon_numbers_not_adding_up/

It also depends on your definition of 'global religion.' The world population is currently around 7 billion. IF we assume 15 million Mormons (a big IF, given what we're seeing in religious self-identification surveys--the number is actually less than half of this, if we count activity at all), then we are looking at about .002, or 2/10 of 1% of the world's population. And remember, this is using assumptions very generous to the LDS church. Is that global?

One thing's for sure, it's not the stone cut from the mountain without hand rolling forth to fill the world.
 
Back
Top