- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
A religion which doesn’t do missionary work and is paying for it… When I saw this title I thought it would be the RLDS/Community of Christ Church. I actually like many of their policies better than the LDS Church such as the way they don’t treat unwavering belief in the Book of Mormon and other doctrines as an expected requirement for full fellowship. Maybe they do some missionary work but they never seemed to gain nearly as much momentum as the LDS Church. As far as Zoroastrianism, I think they were mostly overpowered by Islam. So even if they had been trying to convert new members maybe they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time if the Muslims were more zealous about spreading their faith. In the US, the only ones I know of that are as aggressive about missionary work as the LDS Church are the Jehovah’s Witnesses but it seems like most mainstream Christian churches are already much larger in terms of the total membership and attendance. I think the LDS Church almost needs to recruit large numbers of new members as a matter of survival to make up for the relatively high percentage of defections.
At their best, the CoC is what Mormonism should be like, at its worst, it represents the kind of woolly thinking one tends to come across in Anglicanism… IMHO! Quote:In the US, the only ones I know of that are as aggressive about missionary work as the LDS Church are the Jehovah’s Witnesses but it seems like most mainstream Christian churches are already much larger in terms of the total membership and attendance.
Methodism, the Salvation Army etc were all once “aggressive” in their missionary work too. Pentecostalism is picking up a lot of members, but doesn’t tend to go for door to door.
The Church of Christ (one of the organizations going by this name) is very aggressive in its missionary work, going round inviting people to church.
Quote:I think the LDS Church almost needs to recruit large numbers of new members as a matter of survival to make up for the relatively high percentage of defections.
I see it rather as needing to have a robust missionary program to survive and flourish no matter what denomination is being discussed- which the LDS Church still is doing remarkably well compared to most other “mainstream” Christian denominations. There are VERY few Christian denominations that are growing by any statistical measure in the United States right now, and the LDS Church actually is growing still – albeit at a much slower rate than a few decades ago. It also helps to reproduce above the demographic replacement rate – and very few denominations are doing that, especially if you take out the poor and ethnic populations where children still are an economic benefit.
Fwiw, it’s easy to decry the “loss/defection rate” in the LDS Church (
and I’m not even close to happy about it), but every study I’ve ever seen shows that there isn’t any other denomination out there that retains members and keeps them active at a significantly higher rate than the LDS Church does – especially when measured in apples to apples terms – and even more particularly among the top 20 largest denominations in terms of baptized OR active membership. When we think of “active”, for example, we generally think of someone who attends church at least once a week – and the LDS Church officially uses the more widespread and accepted measure of at least once a month, so that the inter-denominational comparative figures match. Lots of Catholics, otoh, count someone as active if they attend at least one or two masses per year – while Jehovah’s Witnesses have counted [perhaps still count?] anyone who attends services “regularly” as a member, even if they have not been baptized or don’t continue attending long-term – and many denominations include in their worldwide membership anyone who has attended a revival of some sort and had their names recorded as having “been saved”. Finally, the LDS Church now is the 4th or 5th largest Christian denomination in the US (haven’t looked in the last couple of years) – so, of course, it’s annual growth as a percent of total membership is very hard to maintain. (I also like that Pres. Packer said very clearly in this past conference that the global leadership doesn’t expect the LDS Church ever to dominate numerically. I’ve never heard an apostle say that in my lifetime, but it’s good to hear it refuted directly.)
With regard to Zoroastrianism, it really is difficult to survive when faced by a larger religion that is expanding and very powerful. Interesting link.
The Assemblies of God and Islam are the fastest growing faiths in the US and World. I actually love the Assemblies of God in many ways and wish the Church could emmulate some of what they do right. I’m really not here to bash the LDS Church but something really has to give. I would say that the environment of the church needs to change drastically and strengthen the members we already have. Support the growth of families and unify the church. We loose members wether or not the numbers want to reflect it or not. I’m not saying abandon the good things but a conservative reformation (not necessarily in the political sense) needs to happen. Frankly, more open admission to the temple, less focus on literalisic doctrine, more basic and broad bishop/sp interviews, drop the conscription style mission calls, bigger emphasis on comunity building programs, LDS private K-12s, better Youth Programs, better mid-singles programs, more women in leadership positions, last but not least and most controversial… open some/all preisthood ordinations to women.
Maybe I’m just a heritic.
I have been to the AoG. I like some of the stuff that they do, but they also have a seedy side, fake healings, and involvement with extreme politics. I’ve been reading a book called, well ‘The Book’ by Alan Watts. It had an interesting quote in the first chapter: ‘As systems of doctrine, symbolism, and behavior, religions harden into institutions that must command loyalty, be defended and kept “Pure,” and – because all belief is fervent hope, and thus a cover-up for doubt and uncertainty – religions must make converts. The more people who agree with us, the less nagging insecurity about our position.’ I’m not sure I completely agree with that, but it was a new thought for me.
I agree with the thought, ss – and I think it’s another way to say what Jacob 5 describes in the pruning of the olive trees. Bad fruit creeps in naturally, and it’s unavoidable – thus, the need for constant pruning and digging and dunging. I think that’s why an openness to on-going revelation and humility at the top is important – and I really do believe the “top” of the LDS Church believes in the ability to change and is made up, generally, of humble people. Some are more “hardline” than others (and there used to be more hardliners than there are right now), but I still believe they are humble and open to change. They’re just collectively cautious about it, and that isn’t a bad thing in and of itself – especially if we believe God isn’t a micro-manager but really does value and honor agency and its attendant risks.
I have been impressed with the missionary process used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. There is an adult who has regularly dropped by to briefly say hello and leave the monthly Watchtower pamphlet. He seems to be the lead missionary in my area as he often has a different adult accompany him and he seems to do most of the talking. It appears that most active JW’s are asked to put in some regular missionary time. Anyway, I have been impressed with the way this individual remembers my name and little tidbits about my work and family and tries to relate them to a short “message” he gives me on my doorstep monthly. Obviously I have no interest in attending his church but it has made me wonder what affect this type of process would have if used in our church in a formalized systematic way – adults occassonally going door to door to leave a short message, drop off some reading material and basically just say I am your neighbor and hello. I can see how if someone were looking for a church to investigate they would have to reflect positively on their visits from the JWs.
FenixDown wrote:…I’m really not here to bash the LDS Church but something really has to give. I would say that the environment of the church needs to change drastically and strengthen the members we already have…We loose members wether or not the numbers want to reflect it or not. I’m not saying abandon the good things but a conservative reformation (not necessarily in the political sense) needs to happen.
Idaho Coug wrote:I have been impressed with the missionary process used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses…it has made me wonder what affect this type of process would have if used in our church in a formalized systematic way – adults occassonally going door to door to leave a short message, drop off some reading material and basically just say I am your neighbor and hello.
The LDS Church is far from dying out at this point and I think its rate of growth is still in the top 5 worldwide. Based on short-term growth statistics there have even been projections that the LDS Church could supposedly grow to over 200 million members in less than 100 years. Of course one problem with this model is that I doubt that it really factors in just how many of these members are inactive and will not contribute to continued growth the same way that active members would on average.
Only about 4 million out of these 13 million members they talk about are still active. In fact, many of these counted members don’t even consider themselves to be LDS anymore and their children will probably not be raised as LDS members so it’s basically a dead end as far as long-term growth is concerned. Even after members the Church has lost touch with die they will continue to be counted until they would have been 110 years old.
The original Zoroastrianism example demonstrates not just their general policy against actively trying to convert new members but also their lack of zeal to compete with Islam in order to retain their own followers from one generation to the next. So even if Zoroastrianism had superior doctrine it didn’t matter either way because the real difference maker was simply that the Muslims were more aggressive about pushing their agenda.
In our case, the Church hasn’t really had that much of a problem recruiting large numbers of new members and it looks like the real difficulty is in trying to keep active members. It’s like taking 2 steps forward and one step back. It looks almost like the Church leaders take existing members for granted as if they assume it should always be the members’ responsibility to serve the Church not the other way around. From boring meetings to intolerant all-or-nothing attitudes about strict rules and hard-line doctrines it looks like they don’t really care that much about losing some members because they figure that new converts and children raised in the Church have always been more than enough to make up for any losses.
da, I know we see things differently about a lot of things, but do you really think it’s fair to say that it appears the top leaders don’t care? They talk regularly about the need to work harder to retain converts, and Pres. Hinckley even said in General Conference that it does no good to bring people in the front door and baptize them if they just leave through the back door. One of the whole purposes for restructuring the missionary program – and it was overhauled in MAJOR ways – was to try to slow down the trickle away effect – and this goes way back to eliminating Stake Mission Presidencies and focusing oversight at the local unit level. Preach My Gospel says explicitly, in multiple locations, that the work should be focused on and tailored to the people – and that the definition of success never should be focused on the numbers. No matter what someone thinks about specific decisions and policies and practices, I have a really hard time believing it’s accurate to say that the top leadership doesn’t care – or even that it appears they don’t care.
I would not say that they absolutley don’t care. I would say however that the local leadership need advisement, council, and sometimes a slap on the wrist for alot of the bravo sierra that some leaders pull. Secondly I think it would be extremely helpful for the leadership in SLC to lighten up on people. I know the diehards will say “Well … Let’s just let everyone do what they want…etc, etc.” The problem comes down to culture becoming policy and it being acceptable. Some will say that it is simply people exercising free agency, I dissagree.
Frankly I think it should come down to a handful of broad questions in regards to worthiness.
Do you have a testimony?
Do you do your best to follow the commandments?
Do you have anything you feel we need to address?
Is there anything that the Church can help you with?
Is there anything you feel you can help the ward/branch/stake/church with?
Why there needs to be this whole long process and layer after layer of dogma, discussion, etc. is beyond my senses.
It’s really funny to me as a student of Tudor history and history in general how the Church is almost replicating the events of the Reformation in the microcasm of the Church. Not directly in a side by side comparison but close enough to make one wonder what the future holds. I have read many arguments on many boards varying in opinion as to wether or not the Church is growing or declining. I would say it is stagnant and sliding slowlty toward decline.
In my personal life I know all seven of my immediate family are on the churches records as members but only my mother is semi-active and I am moderately active, the rest are inactive with 4 of us ranging from hatred to ambivelant dispostions toward the church but still counted as seven. My friends growing up about 33% of aprox. 30 youths active in the church today and about 90% of the 33% had major lapses becoming active again.
My old ward was in the third largest city in WA state and the ward has had major problems and a rapid succession of bishops in the past 15 years a total of six bishops atleast half asking for early release.
Finally my parents families out 17 children from each side none on my father’s side are active. 3 from my mother’s side are even semi-active. These were heavily active people in the past but since the early nineties most have left unofficially and some have formally resigned.
If my examples are red-herrings so be it but both sides of my family are UT second gen. or BIC Mormons. This example to me speaks volumes of the un-recorded decline in the church. Some of this is socio-political in nature but I would say mostly it is due to the culture of Mormon Fuedalism especially prevalent in the Mormon Corridor and to a lesser degree soft-apostasy and the aforementioned psuedo-culture of the South Puget Sound Area.
I believe these issues could and should be addressed from the leadership in Salt Lake. I daresay even chastening from the leadership is in order. While I would like to see a more enlightened approach and scholarly freedom of doctrinal and spirtual issues, there should be a reigning in of these local leaders who take advantage of thier position in the church and blatant hubris of the more established families that have formed these little dynasties within the church.
You may ask what my solution is. It is quite simply a leveling of the playing field. I have seen some members of the church “get away” with all kinds of breaks from church standards while poor, less fortunate, and less established families/members get the book thrown at them of simply made unwelcome. The solution is simple simplify the requirements for membership and eligibility to hold callings. Adopt a sort of honor system and a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Furthermore, It is true the BoM is the foundation of our religion but it doesn’t have to be fact to be true.
Lastly de-regulation of ward boundries coupled with a softer policy regarding membership and degree of testimony ephasised at the level of the Church presidency I believe would strengthen the culture of Mormonism and create a level of understanding and brotherhood which would in turn grow the Church while strengthening the foundations of the faith.
Old-Timer wrote:da, I know we see things differently about a lot of things, but do you really think it’s fair to say that it appears the top leaders don’t care? They talk regularly about the need to work harder to retain converts, and Pres. Hinckley even said in General Conference that it does no good to bring people in the front door and baptize them if they just leave through the back door…I have a really hard time believing it’s accurate to say that the top leadership doesn’t care – or even that it appears they don’t care.
I don’t doubt that top Church leaders care about losing active members to some extent, I just don’t think they care enough at this point to really do anything about it that would involve any significant changes in their same old policies. Maybe they will take notice once they start to see net losses in US membership. Talking about trying harder to retain members is not really the same thing as really looking at some of the most common reasons that members leave the Church or become inactive and seriously considering whether or not all these familiar TBM traditions are really worth alienating so many members over. For example, here are a few possible exit scenarios I can think of off the top of my head:
1. Some members don’t really enjoy the meetings and callings and just want to take a break from these responsibilities. Once they get into the habit of staying home on Sunday the thought of returning to full activity is not very attractive to them.
2. Some members start drinking or smoking and don’t really want to stop or they don’t feel like they can stop. Because of some of the teetotal fascist attitudes exhibited by other members they feel like they have no other choice but to stay away from Church indefinitely.
3. Some members have doubts about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Because of the strong emphasis that everyone should have a testimony of these points they feel like they have no choice but to leave the Church almost as a matter of personal integrity.
Basically giving people the idea that this is what being LDS is all about (doing what you are told and glorifying prophets) really limits the percentage of members you can realistically expect to retain over a long period of time. More important than the limitations some of these TBM traditions put on the total potential membership is the question of whether or not they are really necessary to be a good Christian. Not only are they not entirely necessary in my opinion I think they are actually a hindrance in many cases to being a good Christian for misguided members that attach exaggerated importance to these things. The Church should do what is right and let the consequences follow but the problem is that they already think they are right so more often than not they will err on the side of doing nothing instead.
I agree with much of what you say, da and fd, about stuff that has “cumbered the vineyard” – but I also think you might have missed lots and lots of statements from the top over the last 5-10 years that try to address much of what you’ve said directly. Seriously, there have been some massive changes over that time period – so much so that many people complain that the Church is trying to jettison its uniqueness and be just another mainstream Christian church (which I believe is a vast overstatement). Again, I agree with many of the issues you raise, but when a decent percent of people are complaining that radical change is happening too quickly because the top cares too much what other people think and a different decent percent are complaining that change isn’t happening and the top just doesn’t care . . . I see a bigger difference in perspective than in actual unconcern.
Finally, there is a HUGE difference between thinking someone doesn’t understand and that someone doesn’t care – and that is my main point.Not to focus exclusively on one issue, but take homosexuality as an example. It’s easy to believe otherwise, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the top leaders care deeply about individuals who are homosexual. I don’t believe they are lying at all and masking their unconcern when they say they care. I simply think they don’t have any idea how to make it possible for most homosexuals to stay actively involved in the Church without taking steps that they feel they can’t take. That’s not lack of concern; that’s lack of understanding – or, conversely, full understanding that it can’t happen right now (that’s there’s nothing they can do within the consensus in which they operate).
However, there has been a very important and critical change in the way that the Church officially discusses homosexuality from the way it did so even 10 years ago. Of all the “conservative” Christian denominations, the LDS Church now is doctrinally probably the most liberal – despite its opposition to gay marriage. The mere fact that the official position has changed shows a high degree of concern, imo – even if the change is not what many members would like.
Again, I’m not arguing that “The Church” and its leadership is perfectly lovingly and accepting of all members. That would be absurd, and it’s why I encourage sexually active homosexuals, for example, to think seriously about their continued activity in the Church right now. It simply might not be the best place for most. However, I still think the global leadership cares about them, even if they can’t care fully for them.
Ray I like your statements, and agree with them in many ways. I think where the church goes wrong and not necessarily wrong but could be better is, the Church is a highly structured entity and as such has a tendency to create a pseudo-theocracy. What I mean is that the upper leadship needs to dispell the myth that just because one is called everything they do is inspired. Unlike many on the boards like StayLDS, NOM, and others I don’t believe in the evil LDS Inc. However, the only way the dogmatic, hardline, and less enlightend of the Church will continue to operate in an autocratic theocracy mindset. If Pres.Monson were to say “Hey lighten up!” they would listen or leave. I think they would listen. I personally have experienced too many micro dictators at church and I think that while yes they may have many good traits, they are destroying the church at it’s foundations by having thier more hardline personal doctrines re-inforced by silence in SLC. I personally think that the Q15 slump in thier chairs at night in exasperation in many cases when dealing with the soft-fundamentalism of some TBMs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.