LDS general conference - Fall 2013

[mellow]

What are these EQ functions you speak of? Is that when we get together to put up chairs, or when we get together to take them down?

 

[LogGrad98]

I did an example of this arithmetic in my previous post for Brazil whereby the church claims 1,138,740 members in Brazil, but in the 2010 census only 225,695 Brazilians claimed they were LDS. In other words 93% of the supposed church membership in Brazil is missing.

How exactly is the census structured? Is LDS provided as an option in a list, or do they have to specify "Other" and then specifically identify LDS? So if 1 million of the mormons polled in Brazil stated "Christian" as that was the choice in the list, and the rest specifically stated Other-LDS, then that doesn't mean the other million are not LDS. Also, census is self-identification, so I could have chosen Pacific Islander as my race regardless of what my race actually is.

I found their 2010 questionnaire. Here is the question on race:

6.12 - WHAT IS YOUR RELIGION OR CULT? Open combo box of religion (entering 4 characteres)
(If you are under 10 years, go to 6.13. Otherwise, skip to 6.14)

So what is your religion or cult and then an open blank to write it in. So how did they differentiate the possible different responses? LDS, Mormon, RLDS even maybe, is that lumped in? Church of Jesus Christ, and the out of space, so there are more than 1 Church of Jesus Christ out there. How many mormons wrote in Christian or some variation of that?


Anyway, I think the reporting of the actual number of church membership and activity is spotty at best and no doubt controversial. I guess my question is why does it matter? The church wants a higher number to look good to prospective members maybe? Is there outright lying on the part of the church, or its detractors? I think this last is the most relevant question and seems to be the overwhelming assertion. Is it possible it is simply the use of different methods (census vs count of church records, etc.) and both are legitimate and no one is actively trying to be deceptive?

 

[sirkickyass]

Sorry, I must have missed that. I didn't notice anything about death rates. Can you steer me to that again?

What do you think about the #congregations and #stakes point that I made earlier in the thread?

Are we hashtagging things now?

What I wrote earlier was:

Let's take the numbers reported on April 6, 2013. Official membership was reported up by 341,127 to 14,782,473. The "increase in the children of record" is 122,273 and new converts are 272,330. (Mormon children are typically baptized at age 8, so a new "child of record" is a child of a member or a convert that hasn't been baptized yet.)

So are there any subtractions? The gross increase is 122,273 + 272,330 = 394,603. Difference between net and gross increase is 394,603 - 341,127 = 53,476. Even if we assume the entire subtraction is due to death, the death rate is at MOST 3.7 deaths per 1000. Compare that to the 8.4 and 8.3 deaths per 1000 for the U.S. and World respectively.

https://www.indexmundi.com/united_sta...s_profile.html

This has been going on for decades, and the LDS assumptions about its own death rates lead to a constantly increasing gap between the "real" number and the reported number even if we assumed retention rates were truly close to 100% as the church treats all former members that haven't officially resigned membership as current members.

I have seen allegations (although I don't know if they are accurate) that the church puts members on the roster until it officially learns of their death or until they are something like 105 years old. I'm not certain if the number is accurate, but it would explain the lower assumed death rate that we can reach just from simple arithmetic.

The congregations and stakes number is harder. I do know that growth has occurred in the net but I don't know what that necessarily means about membership. I suspect that parishoners per stake/ward is not uniform across countries nor do I know what that says about active members. I do know that stake/ward numbers were predicted at one point in the 1970s-1980s based upon then-current growth rates and the current numbers are well below those predictions.

 

[JAG]

I had to drag my flock to the church with me so that I could have the service opportunity of watching other peoples kids while the husband was home.

My battle with cynicism continues.

Impressive. It always gets defaulted to the YW here.

But I still stand by what I said about it being split between the YM and YW. YM and YW are at the age where they need to learn how to be an adult and how to raise a family. That requires the YW learning how to do some of the things the YM have to do and vice versa.

 

[LogGrad98]

Not quite sure what you mean by that. Offhand, I can think of
1890ish - stopped polygamy
1978 - extended priesthood to blacks

Both of those were done by revelation (if you believe in that), or as a results of outside pressure (if you don't). Or maybe a little of both. But twice since the death of Joseph Smith in 1844 hardly qualifies as "a frankly staggering rate" to me.

But maybe you are thinking about other things.

A lot of people lump "policy" into "doctrine" or "beliefs". From where I sit the core beliefs of the church have changed very very little. Policy on the other hand has changed quite a bit at various times. Most often, imo, to fit the exigencies of the time. Not sure if that is the same or not. Maybe it is, as wouldn't the claim be that the church structure itself is perfect, therefore policies would be as well, right?

 

[JAG]

In my ward, when the RS/EQ have a function, the YM/YW usually provide a babysitting service. Both are involved, and frequently more YM show up than YW.

Apparently our ward/stake is behind the times.

 

[spycam1]

That right there is the issue. The difference between a man and a woman is not just their junk. I can't see why this would even be arguable.

What differences, specifically, are you referring to?

 

[framer]

I had to drag my flock to the church with me so that I could have the service opportunity of watching other peoples kids while the husband was home.

My battle with cynicism continues.

Also, it is not to be referred to as "child care" or "baby sitting." It is a class. Supposedly a lesson is supposed to be taught. In one ward this was actually one of my callings. This is not a new policy direction, it has supposed to have been in effect for a number of years now.

 

[framer]

What differences, specifically, are you referring to?

You can start at the chromosome level and move up from there. Estrogen v. Testosterone, relative strength and endurance, center of balance, emotional differences, thought pattern differences, the propensity of certain disabilities like colorblindness. Seriously, this is not even debatable. . .

 

[JAG]

Fair enough. I can appreciate that. I think that perhaps using the term "above it" was not the best way to describe my thinking.

Ultimately, this is what it boils down to for me: I would be 100% on board if the church decided to give women the priesthood. Personally, I have no qualms about them having it. But, as it currently stands, it's not enough to shake my tree or cause me to denounce my church.

The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of things I don't understand, and a few things that I just plain disagree with. But there are many things I like, and have a positive impact on me and my family.

The priesthood "issue" is one of the many things that can be explained by the emphasis on the family unit in the LDS church. Women have been given the ability to have children. Of course there has to be a sperm contribution from the man, but the woman has the biology to carry a child and then give birth to it. This is the act of giving premortal beings an earthly body (a huge part of God's plan) and is considered a Godly attribute. Men, on the other hand, are given the priesthood. This is often defined as the authority to act in God's name. It is used within the family (blessings) as well as to perform essential ordinances such as baptism, endowments, and sealings. The obtainment of a body is nothing without the priesthood, and without bodies, priesthood ordinances could not be performed. They work together to accomplish God's work.

"Neither is the man without the woman, neither is the woman without the man, in The Lord." 1 Corinthians 11:11

 

[LogGrad98]

What differences, specifically, are you referring to?

There are none. Men and women are literally exactly the same, there is no difference other than a penis and boobs. The only imagined "differences" are complete fallacies foisted on us by an overly zealous religious movement that has had centuries to ingrain everyone with false ideas that there is even the tiniest difference at all in the sexes. Nothing mentioned as a difference could possibly hold any weight since it is all the product of a pervasively male-centric sexist culture that places a premium on being male and relegates all females to second-class citizens by design. We will only ever be free when we can resist any pigeon-holing of any kind and never acknowledge any differences in anyone, while at the same time celebrating and promoting, institutionally and through government mandate, diversity at every level.

 

[spycam1]

You can start at the chromosome level and move up from there. Estrogen v. Testosterone, relative strength and endurance, center of balance, emotional differences, thought pattern differences, the propensity of certain disabilities like colorblindness. Seriously, this is not even debatable. . .

Strength/endurance and all that falls under physical differences I was talking about before.

What are the proven emotional differences between genders? And why are there these differences? Honestly curious, if you happen to know the details.