LDS general conference - Fall 2013

[jimmy eat jazz]

Where's that info from? As I said earlier in the thread, as far as I know the number of stakes and wards/branches keeps increasing, as consequently does the number of church buildings. Since those have pretty much a set number of active members, the number of active members almost certainly has to be continually increasing. So even if the activity rate is decreasing, the number of active members is increasing, not stagnating. Or so it seems to me.

I should say net growth rates are stagnating. I'm not saying the church isn't growing, you seem to be confusing declining net growth rates with no net growth rates. Even with declining rates at the margin, the church would still creating new wards/branches/stakes and building chapels.

The low baptism retention rates means that for every 1 person who is baptized, anywhere from .5 to 0.8 or so members are leaving, just from the ranks of the recently converted. This does not take into account attrition rates among former faithful, which is undoubtedly non-trivial, and higher now than prior to the advent of internet/information. So, it seems plausible to conclude that net growth rates are approaching 0, if still above. (I'm guessing that the number's of former faithful leaving the church across the world is easily in the 10s of thousands per year.) You can disagree, but from where I sit, this strikes me as far more plausible outcome than continued high rates of net growth.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

A display commemorating the 200th anniversary of Smith's birth qualifies as a nativity scene? How is that in any way, shape, or form equivalent to how we celebrate the Savior's birth?

You didn't find this even a little strange at all as a Christmas display? Really?

But my point was not how YOU would view this, but how a reasonable outsider might view it. And yes, I do think that a reasonable outsider might interpret this as something akin to the worship of JS or at the very least a questionable choice for a Christmas display.

 

[Bronco70]

JS was one of the primary sources of LDS doctrine. One cannot separate many core LDS doctrines from JS--they are intimately intertwined. This is jus tone way.

Can you cite some examples? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just think you and I have different definitions of "doctrine". I'm interested in your perspective.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Can you cite some examples? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just think you and I have different definitions of "doctrine". I'm interested in your perspective.

Honestly, I'm surprised I need to answer this question. Try the Doctrine and Covenants for a starter, which contains the revelations given to JS.

Next, try King Follett Sermon, where JS laid out the foundation for the doctrine that God was once man and man may become God.

How about the First Vision, in which we learn that God and Jesus are separate beings with corporeal form.

Are you really going to ask me to go on?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Honestly, I'm surprised I need to answer this question. Try the Doctrine and Covenants for a starter, which contains the revelations given to JS.

Next, try King Follett Sermon, where JS laid out the foundation for the doctrine that God was once man and man may become God.

How about the First Vision, in which we learn that God and Jesus are separate beings with corporeal form.

Are you really going to ask me to go on?

So all of the revelations were pointing to Christ and his church and the nature of God? Where's the part where Joseph Smith tells people to worship him?

Is John the Beloved worshiped because he wrote so much of the Bible?

 

[Bronco70]

Honestly, I'm surprised I need to answer this question. Try the Doctrine and Covenants for a starter, which contains the revelations given to JS.

Next, try King Follett Sermon, where JS laid out the foundation for the doctrine that God was once man and man may become God.

How about the First Vision, in which we learn that God and Jesus are separate beings with corporeal form.

Are you really going to ask me to go on?

Nope. Sorry to trouble you. I'll try to not be such a jerk next time.

 

[colton]

You didn't find this even a little strange at all as a Christmas display? Really?

It was not a Christmas display. It was a display put up around Christmastime, because that's when Joseph Smith was born.

But my point was not how YOU would view this, but how a reasonable outsider might view it. And yes, I do think that a reasonable outsider might interpret this as something akin to the worship of JS or at the very least a questionable choice for a Christmas display.

I am very confident in the opposite. There's no way a reasonable outsider would interpret this as anything close to worship of Joseph Smith. In fact, when I googled it earlier today I saw no evidence that any reasonable outsiders HAD made that mistake. All I saw were anti-Mormon sites making fun of it.

Do YOU have any evidence that even as many as a single reasonable outsider incorrectly interpreted the display??

 

[colton]

I should say net growth rates are stagnating. I'm not saying the church isn't growing, you seem to be confusing declining net growth rates with no net growth rates. Even with declining rates at the margin, the church would still creating new wards/branches/stakes and building chapels.

I'm not confusing that, but it seems like you were.

So, do you admit that the church is still growing, possibly even with an exponential growth rate--just that the exponent itself has decreased a bit? I have no problem with that claim, it seems very reasonable. Or am I misunderstanding you again?

 

[colton]

So, do you admit that the church is still growing, possibly even with an exponential growth rate--just that the exponent itself has decreased a bit? I have no problem with that claim, it seems very reasonable. Or am I misunderstanding you again?

By the way, I just finished inputting the membership and congregation data for the past 30 years into a spreadsheet, and that's what it looks like to me. Around 1999 there was a substantial change in the real growth rate (as measured by # of stakes and # of congregations). Prior to that the growth rate was about 3-4%. After that, the rate has been about 1-1.5%. The growth is still exponential, though.

The reported growth rate of membership is consistently larger than that, though, so that's pretty good evidence that the activity rate has been consistently decreasing, as sirkicky said (and perhaps you as well).

I've got to run now, but I should be able to post the actual numbers and charts tomorrow for those who are interested.

 

[Gameface]

It was not a Christmas display. It was a display put up around Christmastime, because that's when Joseph Smith was born.



I am very confident in the opposite. There's no way a reasonable outsider would interpret this as anything close to worship of Joseph Smith. In fact, when I googled it earlier today I saw no evidence that any reasonable outsiders HAD made that mistake. All I saw were anti-Mormon sites making fun of it.

Do YOU have any evidence that even as many as a single reasonable outsider incorrectly interpreted the display??

As an outsider it doesn't establish JS worship in my opinion. For what that's worth. It was 200 years since his birth, a pretty significant milestone. Deserves commemoration.

 

[LogGrad98]

Can I ask why activity rate matters to an active member of the church?

It is actually a central tenet of the religion: bring people into the fold, aka missionary work. This includes bringing people "back" into the fold.

It is also, imo, a means to justify belief. If you can get more people to believe what you believe then it makes you feel better about what you believe. Basic human nature there.

Way back when I took debate in school our teacher told us to expect the most common argument from most people to be an appeal to authority. If they can find a person in authority who believes what they do, it justifies their belief.

(FYI, He said the 2nd most, which imo is actually the 1st most, common argument is ad hominem, followed by straw man. I have no idea if his claims were true, but they have seemed that way to me for the most part.)

 

[colton]

It is also, imo, a means to justify belief. If you can get more people to believe what you believe then it makes you feel better about what you believe. Basic human nature there.

Absolutely. Why are Jazz fans happy when their team wins games? It means they are being successful. Same thing.