- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was reading on Yahoo today (becoming a source of news as good as Cosmopolitan, these days it seems) that the LDS church is considered a “successful religion”. What in your mind, makes a religion successful, and does the LDS church seem to meet that criteria? There’s success at the organizational level and success at the individual level. Defining success at the organizational level is probably the most uniform and easy to measure. Things like growth in membership, financial stability, etc. I don’t think the church does this, but organizations can also survey their members and consolidated survey results that are positive could indicate that an organization is successful.
Defining success at the individual level is going to be different for everyone and likely the more important measure. What does it matter whether the organization itself is successful if the individual doesn’t consider it to be successful in their own life? What does it matter whether the organization itself is unsuccessful if the individual considers it to be a success in their own life?
I think that it’s hard to argue the Church has not been successful. Look at growth, devotion of members, staying power, etc. Most of the religious movements at the time of JS fizzled out and are no longer around. I think from outside, people are amazed that Mormons continue to be devout and we are seen as a cultural and religious phenomenon. I think we often forget this as we look at the people leaving the Church and slackening of devotion that has come with all the faith crises of the internet age.
I also think we forget that from the 80s to the 2000s the Church became more and more conservative in requirements and expectations of devotion. From what I’ve heard from my parents and grandparents, a lot of people were more lax across the board in the 50s, 60s and 70s. With everything from church and temple attendance, to Word of Wisdom, to Sabbath Day observance. Look at how many of the current apostles talk about growing up in less active homes. I think now that the pendulum is swinging back toward less devotion people forget how amazing it was that people were so devout during that 30 year period from the 80s to the 2000s. I predict looking back, that will be seen as the golden age of Church strength (growth, activity, etc.).
I define successful for an organization as growth and stability. The LDS church has had this. We lucked out in getting our current succession process. It is a model of stability. I would not have liked to have a more familial line succession process – which was one of the competing systems for succession set up by JS before his death.
I think the observations that the church has been successful simply because it’s lasted when so many other religions faltered since JS time is a point in its favor for success. Its financial success is pretty clear, even though we don’t know exact numbers. It is a cultural phenomenon which is something I had never thought of before. We’ve had a few doctrinal and historical farts along the way like priesthood ban, plural marriage, and some weird doctrine that I think holds us back. But it’s amazing that the church has engendered such membership growth and commitment in spite of these anomalies. At the individual level, I am not sure what to say. For me it was a success for about 15 years and then only off and on for a little while, eventually fizzling into a force to be managed so it doesn’t destroy my family and marriage. For my daughter and wife to some extent, it has been very successful. Across the board, I am not sure if it’s successful for individuals at not.
It’s both successful and unsuccessful. Long story. felixfabulous wrote:
I think that it’s hard to argue the Church has not been successful. Look at growth, devotion of members, staying power, etc.
I agree with these measures of success as an organization.
…and also…billions of dollars.
Individual results may vary.
Heber13 wrote:
and also…billions of dollars.
Yeah, I tend to think that this has to do with “staying power” in the minds of some leaders. In a future calamity or long period of adversity – deep financial resources can provide the church with options. It is like saving for a retirement that may never come.
By relatively objective, comparable matrices to other churches, yes, it is successful. By more subjective indices, it depends on who creates them.
Since all churches are the constructs of humans you should probably judge success by the standards men set. Financial stability, influence, brand awareness, etc. On those metrics I think the church is quite successful. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.