I'd say curiosity. Same reason non members and inactive members care.
LDS general conference - Fall 2013
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
I'd say curiosity. Same reason non members and inactive members care.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Can you be more specific?
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
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.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Of course, one of the ironies of the LDS Church is that behavior it praises in others it condemns among its own members. One someone else rejects the faiths or traditions of their fathers, doubts their religious beliefs, questions their religious authority, etc., this is all AOK IF it leads to conversion to the LDS church. BUT if members of the LDS Church engage in any of the above behaviors, then . . . well, you know the story.
This highlights one of my primary observations of religious faithful (particularly those belonging to dogmatic religions, which I consider the Mormon Church to be), a steadfast unwillingness and/or inability to apply the same standards to their own beliefs and behaviors that they expect of others.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Although 'nativity scenes' of Joseph Smith's birth (such as was at BYU a few Christmas's ago), might understandably cause reasonable people to wonder whether the LDS do worship Joseph Smith. (Google Joseph Smith nativity scene at BYU if you want to see.)
The only reasons I see any one being itnerested are mere curiosity or to further an agenda. For me it is just interesting to see the growth of the church. For others it is to prove it is "insert descriptive phrase".
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Not to be too flippant about it, but just how excited can you get about .002 of the world's population? Is it like, '"Wow, only .998 to go. Yahoo!!"
Honestly, at this rate, the sun will have collapsed on itself before the LDS Church approaches anything like a 'significant' share of humanity.
Let me put it this way.
If you found the Vinyl among vinyls that changed your life, for lack of a better term the OneVinyl, and you knew that it would change the life of anyone else that truly listened to it... would you want to share it?
What if someone you cared about sort of listened to it but then blew it off and you could tell they didn't really take the time to enjoy it and soak it in and were distracted... would you try again and see if they had time to really listen to it this time?
Would you keep the OneVinyl to yourself?
So? Progress is progress. If you view it as members do, which is saving people shouldn't you celebrate every convert?
You ever see a fire start, or the beginning of an avalanche? It usually starts with something smaller than .002.
Exponential growth goes fast once it gets rolling. No I'm not expecting the world to convert to the LDS Church, just stating the possible.
Personally I know the work is a one by one work, it just takes more one's to be working at the same time. This is a personal thing, so I don't get too caught up in the numbers unless I'm trying to figure out what that means for the individuals.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Sure. I'm not saying that the LDS faithful should not celebrate every convert or take pride in church growth--they are fully justified in doing so. What I am suggesting is that notions that the LDS Church is growing at the rate to fulfill some kind of prophecy about the gospel filling the earth or to serve as a 'social proof' about the Church's divine mission appear to be misguided based on actual membership numbers relative to the overall population. (And again, this is using generous assumptions about membership numbers.)
When I was in the Church, a common refrain was that Church growth was fulfillment of the Prophecy in Daniel (or which book was it?) about a stone cut without hand rolling forth to fill the earth. In this story, the stone was the LDS Church. I'd say that .002 of the population, with stagnating net growth rates, is a far, far cry from fulfilling this prophecy.
I think it's completely reasonable for some people to come to the conclusion that JS is worshipped in the church. He is held in high regard (to understate it), and I can see where that line could be fuzzy for someone looking in. But the fact of the matter is, Jesus Christ is the central figure in the doctrine. JS is merely an historical figure, and inconsequential to the doctrine itself.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
The problem is that exponential growth is not occurring. See for example https://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/5611/mormon_numbers_not_adding_up/. While this is by no means definitive, it does corroborate many other data points about endemic inactivity rates and stagnating net growth (conversions - those leaving). I think it is all well and good not to get caught up in the numbers, but that's NOT what has happened generally in the past, as the LDS Church continually made claims for itself as one of the fastest growing churches and used growth numbers to indicate fulfillment of prophecy. I suspect that given recent trends, we'll be hearing less about this in the future among the leaders and rank and file as the implications of the numbers start gradually to settle in.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
I agree with you until your last sentence, which I find NOT to be true in even the remotest sense of the word.
p.s. Sorry for all the posts today. It's one of those days I've got writer's block and am looking to kill time.
How do you figure?
He's extremely important in the context of the history of the church, but the doctrine and the history are separate things.
Edit: He is also an important influence in policy, but there again, that's different than doctrine.
And that is fine. But I do find it to be true.
I'm really not stressed about numbers and don't read into them as much as other people, members and non members, apparently.
I read this and the rest of the thread, but I really don't care. It means nothing to me. Sorry, I'm trying to see how any arguments about "bad" numbers matters to me, but it just doesn't.
I don't hurry to get my home teaching done by the last day of the month and hurry to schedule it close to the last day if I haven't done it yet. I visit the families when it works out for them. I don't stress about getting them "the message" they need to have, I go there and talk to them, share a message if I can, and try to help them or make a difference in their lives. Despite this I visit my home teaching families (friends) pretty much every month and I think I make a positive impact in their lives. I visit neighbors and friends and talk with them and hang out even though they are not my "home teaching assignment". I might share a message... if you call it that... I just talk about life and if some sort of lesson comes out of it then it does.
Sorry, numbers for the most part mean nothing to me, and arguments about bad numbers means even less.
*shrug
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Which begs the question, why does the Bishop have to contact the person to make certain? The fact that he/she took the time to write the letter or make the request should be accepted at face value and honored.
To be honest I am not sure. Perhaps for the same reason federal agencies verify. To make sure the request came from them.