[DevilsAdvocate]

Personally I think the Church’s overall “health” peaked around 1997-1998 and it has mostly decreased and stayed down since then as reflected in the following unit growth statistics:

Year units growth

1993 21002 4.6%

1994 21774 3.7%

1995 22697 4.2%

1996 23528 3.7%

1997 24670 4.9%

1998 25551 3.6%

1999 25793 0.9%

2000 25915 0.5%

2001 26084 0.7%

2002 26143 0.2%

2003 26237 0.4%

2004 26670 1.7%

2005 27087 1.6%

2006 27475 1.4%

2007 27827 1.3%

2008 28109 1.0%

2009 28424 1.1%

2010 28660 0.8%

2011 28784 0.4%

[DevilsAdvocate]

Ilovechrist77 wrote:

DevilsAdvocate, it’s funny that you mentioned garment friendly clothing. I checked the recent garment designs from LDS.org and I was shocked. The women’s garment tops sleeves are shorter than the men’s, almost sleeveless. The men’s garment top sleeves don’t look like that. I just don’t understand.

I think it’s because enough LDS women have complained about garments so much that they finally made this minor concession. But even these new re-designed garments still wouldn’t work with the 1964 BYU homecoming queen’s dress. And why should women and girls that aren’t even wearing garments yet still be expected to wear clothes that would cover them in the first place? It seems like it has become yet another obedience test and externally visible in-group versus out-group marker to try to separate the good Mormons from the supposedly evil world similar to the Word of Wisdom.

[DevilsAdvocate]

AmyJ wrote:

I could be wrong, but I get the impression sometimes at church that we are trying to outgrow the smaller, insulated, non-mainstream cult-like church we could be perceived as being previously as an organization. It’s an awkward question to ask if we were previously cult-like, and since everything is “eternal” – does that mean we are cult-like in some aspects now.

Maybe many individual members are becoming more mainstream on their own by ignoring some of the backward focused ideas still taught by the Church such as homophobia but personally I can’t think of any real top-down changes to become more mainstream since they abandoned the racial priesthood ban in 1978. What other real meaningful official changes have been made since then? For example, the mission age change and exclusion policy for the children of homosexual parents look like they were mostly about trying to maintain tight control over members rather than letting them decide things for themselves. And one instance where it looks like the Church has actually become more cultish recently is modesty. For example, there is a picture of the 1964 BYU homecoming queen wearing a sleeveless dress but now they are pushing the LDS version of “modesty” (garment friendly clothing) even for very young girls.

To me it looks like Church leaders want mainstream popularity, acceptance, and raw numbers but they don’t want to (or don’t feel like they can) let go of some of the cult-like thinking and control such as the us-versus-them mindset, whitewashed narratives, unquestioning obedience, etc. that will typically prevent being truly mainstream in countries like the US that have increasingly valued freedom and equal rights. So instead of real changes to try to become more mainstream in practice what we typically get instead is some kind of PR spin and marketing like the, “I’m a Mormon” advertising campaign to try to make us look mainstream, diverse, etc. without really changing anything.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Reuben wrote:

dande48 wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I don’t think there is any clear dividing line or consistent definition of “cult” that everyone is going to agree with.

I think the universal definition is “an ideological group I don’t particularly like at this moment.” Still, I imagine some concrete lines have to be drawn.

I think “cult” has too many dimensions to draw a useful line. I’ll break out some of them to get more precise definitions…

Have I missed anything major?

What about sex cults? There could be others like austerity cults as well. To be honest, I think the LDS Church fits many of these descriptions you listed at the same time but many members would deny that these points are a bad thing because it is supposedly coming from God so who are we to question God and his chosen prophets?

On top of that, I think many Church members think of the word “cult” mostly as an identifier for some of the relatively small and most extreme groups like the followers of Jim Jones that drank the Kool-aid, the followers of David Koresh, Heaven’s Gate, etc. and they will feel like anyone calling the LDS Church a cult is just a hater calling us names out of spite. Personally I think there really is more to this than many Church members want to admit but I definitely wouldn’t call the Church a cult when talking to most Church members because it seems like it will typically just make them defensive.

[DevilsAdvocate]

dande48 wrote:

This makes me wonder, what exactly makes some religions a societal good, and others bad? Because I can’t think of a single attribute belonging to Scientology, which does not also belong to another religion I consider a force for good. Maybe that’s why it still maintains its religious status…Are there any beliefs or practices which should make a religion illegal? Is there a line we should draw, between legitimate, helpful religions and those which harm society? Or are religious groups such as Scientology the price we must pay for the freedom of religion?…Side note: I do not believe or imply that the LDS Church is a cult or should be outlawed. I believe it is, as a whole, a strong force for good

I don’t think there is any clear dividing line or consistent definition of “cult” that everyone is going to agree with. Personally I think it is more of a sliding scale where some religious groups honestly really are more controlling and harder to leave on average than others. Well, the LDS Church literally tells people what underwear to wear that requires everyday clothing choices to cover shoulders and legs almost down to the knees, what they cannot drink, exactly how much money to donate to the Church, how to spend a significant amount of time (callings, full-time missions), who to marry (should be a “worthy” Church member), etc. Even so, I’m not sure this is necessarily always a bad thing by itself; for example, if some people don’t really mind going along with all of this and have no intention of ever leaving then it could feel perfectly comfortable and normal to them.

It is quite often only when people decide they that they don’t want to conform anymore or actually try to leave that the fangs and claws really come out. I think that’s why many ex-Mormons call the Church a cult because they resent some of the things they were told to do by the Church in hindsight and/or it was especially painful for them to leave the Church. In fact, some of them were actually divorced or at least threatened with divorce largely over not believing in the Church anymore. Likewise I think some Christians call the Church a cult largely due to the aggressive missionary work and because they resent the LDS Church acting like what they already believe is not good enough as if they should all be practicing Mormons instead. In other words, some of this criticism is not coming out of nowhere as much as being an understandable reaction to people’s real life experiences with the Church. I’m not sure saying that there are other religious groups that are similar or arguably even worse really helps much when some people have already had negative experiences with the Church.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Scouts was actually one of the few fun things I can remember about Church along with playing basketball and the ward Halloween parties unlike the pure Church youth camps with testimony meetings that were definitely not much fun at all. If the Church didn’t want to be associated with scouts anymore for whatever reasons I wish they would have just stopped directly supporting troops in each ward and let people decide for themselves what to do with the time (including scouts on their own if they want) instead of replacing it with their own program. I expect the new program to be similar to the one for young women that doesn’t sound very interesting or worthwhile at all to me. Don’t these kids already get more than enough church stuff with the weekly meetings, seminary, etc.?

[DevilsAdvocate]

QuestionAbound wrote:

Am I missing something?

Do we know why this was included?

It read strangely to me. I mean, it was understandable, but there was something “off” about the article.

Maybe I don’t understand the purpose of it?

It does seem a little strange that the Church would actually publish an article like this. I guess Daniel Peterson isn’t just an apologist for the LDS Church but also an apologist for Islam and religion in general as well. I understand that “Islamic Studies” is his academic specialty but at the same time it is possible to study history, anthropology, etc. without necessarily sympathizing or agreeing with the beliefs and values other cultures have had so far.

To me it sounds like the general idea behind this article is more or less a way for TBMs to try to tell themselves that they are not completely alone in the world and not really all that weird in terms of having such zealous faith in God and revelation, practicing strict rules and routines in the name of religion, expecting women to dress “modestly” and know their place, and so on and so forth in the face of increasing secularism and liberalism nowadays. Why not also publish similar articles such as, “understanding Scientology” and “understanding the Jehovah’s Witnesses”? I guess these other sects just don’t have quite the same clout on the world scene because they don’t have almost two billion followers and over a thousand years of history behind them.

For me, paying attention to some of the similarities between Islam and the LDS Church didn’t help reinforce my belief in LDS doctrines at all, in fact this was actually one of the first major cracks in my shelf because I started to think, “Why should I believe Joseph Smith’s story any more than Mohammad’s story?” And I had to admit that I was LDS mostly because I happened to be born in Utah with LDS parents and surrounded by other Mormons so it was relatively easy for me to just go along with everyone else but if I had been born in one of these predominantly Muslim countries the odds are that I would have been Muslim instead for more or less the same reasons that I ended up LDS. After that the idea of thinking we are so special and better than others for being LDS started to seem harder and harder to take seriously any more. It reminds me of the following quote.

Mark Twain wrote:

“The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.”

[DevilsAdvocate]

dande48 wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

So what happens if Church members faithfully pay tithing and then can’t afford to pay for their mortgage/rent or even food for their families in the worst cases?

They’ll probably give them support through fast offerings, which will both increase their loyalty to the Church and feel indebted to it.

Maybe if they are lucky; it depends on the bishop (leadership roulette). There are plenty of horror stories online of Church members that were denied any assistance when they really needed it after they had been paying tithing for years leading up to that point. In any case, my impression is that the leaders typically view Church welfare as a temporary safety net for cases such as if someone is laid off until they can find a new job, not a permanent solution. But for many people, especially in some of these countries where the Church is growing the fastest poverty is a permanent condition even with their normal employment.

I don’t think Church welfare is a very good answer for that. So what is the long-term answer from leaders like Nelson? Magic, as far as I can tell; basically they are counting on God blessing the poorest members so that they can afford to pay tithing consistently. But I think the more likely scenario is that members will either accumulate large debts, move in with their parents or other family members, etc. or else they will not remain faithful very long if 90% of their net or gross income is simply not enough to cover their basic living expenses .

[DevilsAdvocate]

nibbler wrote:

Quote:

“We preach tithing to the poor people of the world because the poor people of the world have had cycles of poverty, generation after generation,” he said. “That same poverty continues from one generation to another, until people pay their tithing.“

I can see how the principle of tithing can help people learn to do more with less and learn the differences between wants and needs but if you’re already poor I’d imagine that life is constantly teaching you those lessons.

What I don’t understand about this claim about the supposed relationship between tithing and breaking out of “cycles of poverty, generation after generation” is that it’s not like Nelson is talking about something like the afterlife where they can easily get away with imagining whatever fantasy scenario they want to and then if their promises and threats are never delivered no one will know the difference for sure either way. He is basically making extremely bold (and reckless in my opinion) claims about real life here when people can easily look at the actual results of paying or not paying tithing after the fact. So what happens if Church members faithfully pay tithing and then can’t afford to pay for their mortgage/rent or even food for their families in the worst cases?

It’s almost like Nelson has never even considered this as a possibility in the first place. And of course, there’s a good chance that top Church leaders will never hear about any real-life cases like this but instead mostly hear faith-promoting anecdotes that lead to confirmation bias. So it’s easy for them to make claims like this when they are not the ones that will have to live with or even acknowledge the results in any cases where this type of prosperity gospel theory fails miserably just like they don’t have to live with the results when young LDS adults rush into marriage ASAP and start having children right away as if it is their sacred duty only to end up divorced or at the very least suffering through a lot of pointless and unnecessary stress early in their marriages.

It looks like many of these top Church leaders have lived rather privileged and sheltered lives. Nelson didn’t even serve a mission. I doubt he has a very good idea what life is really like for average people in some of these countries in Latin America, Africa, the Philippines, etc. But even living in the United States, all you have to do is look at all the people both in and out of the Church that are doing just fine or actually very well financially that have not been paying tithing to clearly see that the “cycle of poverty” absolutely does not continue until people pay tithing in real life. It’s almost like standing up and telling people 2+2=5 with a straight face and expecting them to believe it; but it wouldn’t surprise me if Nelson actually does believe it himself because I’m not sure he has really thought this one through and carefully considered the implications of what he is saying in this case.

[DevilsAdvocate]

On one hand I don’t think it’s fair to blame the Church for the bad behavior of one individual (one bad apple) basically acting on his own in a way that is clearly out of sync with what the Church tries to teach. But on the other hand I think the Church deserves a lot of blame for the way they reacted to this scandal and for creating an environment where situations like this could quite often be ignored and swept under the rug instead of faced and dealt with appropriately. For example, what was the deal with the official response talking about how she was a “former” member and only “briefly” a missionary?

As far as I can tell they were mostly trying to discredit the alleged victim and deny her claims like self-serving lawyers typically would. Is that what Jesus would do? I doubt it. And it’s not like this is even a case of “he said, she said” to begin with, he has already been recorded basically admitting that he was out of line with multiple different sister missionaries, not just her. Maybe it’s not enough to convict him of anything illegal but it easily seems like more than enough to not react the way they have so far. It’s just not a good look and to me it gives the impression that they care more about trying to maintain the Church’s reputation and the false expectation that the leaders are always right and should always be trusted than trying to protect their members from being victimized, or else some of them actually believe this false notion too much themselves to the point that they don’t believe the victims in cases like this.

[DevilsAdvocate]

mom3 wrote:

Paul though flumoxes me. I love his words on Charity in Corinthians. I love sections of Romans. But darn it all, Paul ruffles my gospel feathers…Today I had the honor of being told by an unsuspecting Pastor that his church couldn’t serve at an interfaith homeless shelter because Mormons were at it. His specific words were “Unequally yoked to unbelievers.” And he said, not only in marriage but in all other forms, too. He didn’t know I was LDS. I just happen to be the calendar sign up person of the shelter. He pressed to know what other religions were on the list. Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. His church has served with the shelter for quite a few years, but because the Mormon’s sneaked in, then got mentioned in a local newspaper article (not of their promoting) he was enraged…All I could think of, as he spoke was how Paul sets all Christian Faith’s up for this…

I definitely don’t agree with everything Paul or even Jesus reportedly said if taken literally but in this case I think this pastor was just looking for an excuse to act in an ignorant and intolerant way toward Mormons (that he already didn’t like for whatever reasons) so then he cherry-picked this one verse out of context and tried to interpret it in the worst possible way to try to justify his questionable position. If you read the whole chapter it sounds like Paul was really trying to say something to the effect that if unbelievers (specifically pagans in this case) expect you to practice their beliefs and values that directly conflict with your own (idolatry in this case) then don’t let them pressure you into it, not that they should be completely shunned and avoided altogether.

I don’t see how simply working together with “unbelievers” at a homeless shelter is anything like “unequally yoked” oxen because it doesn’t prevent the believers from completing their intended “Christian” life goals in any way. How many of this pastors’ flock work with Mormons, non-religious people, etc. in their everyday jobs and how is that any different from working together at a homeless shelter? The main difference I see is simply that it is much easier to make a big stink about Mormons in a self-righteous way when it is some part-time volunteer work like this but it would be practically impossible for many self-proclaimed Christians to really take this pastor’s suggested course of action to its logical conclusion nowadays in every case unless they live in some kind of commune. And what about Jesus himself being criticized for eating and associating with supposed “sinners” by the Pharisees?

[DevilsAdvocate]

nibbler wrote:

They’re in a difficult position. Their theology has placed limits and constraints on the kind of answers they can give to the questions asked. They’re going to have to receive new revelation to give answers that are any more satisfying than the ones they gave. Until then, they are painted into a corner…Phrased differently, they’re stuck answering 21st century questions and concerns with 19th century answers.

I don’t know about that; personally I think there are quite a few possible answers they could have come up with that would have sounded better to both TBMs and outsiders alike than the answers they gave even if they don’t feel like they can make major changes in the Church’s structure, commandments, etc. For example, even if they feel like they can’t ordain women that doesn’t mean they needed to respond to Peggy Fletcher Stack the way they did and talk about how women are meant to be wives and mothers as if that is the only thing they are good for.

Likewise I don’t believe that “marriage” is one of the only possible answers they could have given to the question about trying to retain millennials. In fact, it sounded almost more like some kind of Freudian slip than what I would expect them to openly admit publicly as one of the best answers they could think of for a simple question like that. Like I said before, I think many of these responses actually ended up basically adding fuel to the fire for people seriously questioning what the Church is doing.

[DevilsAdvocate]

I watched these questions and responses; to me it mostly sounded like they don’t really know of any good way to solve some of the most common problems and challenges facing the Church nowadays so they are just going to keep on doing and saying the same things they always have for the foreseeable future. And to be fair, from a TBM perspective it is supposedly God himself that set the Church up this way with these commandments and this specific structure and that is directly calling these top leaders. So I can understand why Church leaders would feel like they can’t just “ordain women”, openly approve of homosexual behavior and lifestyles, etc.

But if that’s the case then why don’t they just come right out and say it and leave it at that in a clear way instead of apparently trying to tap dance around and obfuscate the issues by talking about how much they have a special place in their heart for Peggy Fletcher Stack, love women and the poor people in Mexico, the Philippines, etc.? What was the purpose of some of these responses to fairly simple and straightforward questions? Was it an attempt at some kind of PR spin and damage control? To me it sounded like a lot of this mostly ended up adding fuel to the fire for anyone seriously questioning what the Church is doing and came across as condescending, flippant (“now what was your question?”), sexist, and out-of-touch with the real-life concerns of many rank-and-file members nowadays. The most interesting questions to me were about trying to retain and attract millennials and the trend of many members falling away often due to historical issues.

Personally I didn’t hear anything in their responses that made think anything is going to change any time soon with the trend of so many members falling away from the Church. For example, Oaks claimed that marriage was a supposed solution to help retain young adult members. While it is probably true that a higher percentage of married members stay active in the Church than those that are single, in many cases all the focus on eternal marriage and worthiness actually compounds the problems when temple married members end up losing faith anyway and it results in mixed-faith marriages that are put under significant stress sometimes to the point of divorce which doesn’t reflect very well on the Church. It seems like many of the most committed critics of the Church fit this category (temple married) and they now provide a sort of constant anti-missionary force. In other words, I don’t think it’s that simple to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of any one factor that correlates to increased Church commitment in isolation and pushing ideas like “just get married” can easily backfire in several different ways.

[DevilsAdvocate]

I don’t see anything wrong with it. In fact this looks like one of the most common and harmless of all supposed “sins” as taught by the LDS Church right up there with coffee and tea. I think LDS Church leaders have generally considered it a sin mostly because of the idea that sex is supposedly only intended by God for straight married couples. In other words, it is a purely theoretical objection based on assumptions about what God supposedly wants and expects rather than any practical real-life considerations such as health, lack of harm, etc. If you don’t believe in God or that God cares that much about anything like this then worrying so much about masturbation seems pointless and even harmful to Church members that are repeatedly given a guilt-trip about it sometimes to the point of confessing to priesthood leaders. Does this really need to be anyone else’s business?

Beefster wrote:

Why isn’t it mentioned by name regularly in GC? What about church publications on the matter?…A number of GAs are known for bringing up the subject, but most of that was before 1990 and they did not bring it up with any regularity. There is a pamphlet on the order of curing homosexuality that condemns it by name, but it does so under the false pretense that it causes homosexuality.

This is the one of the most interesting things about this to me. Why is it that they talk about pornography so much in the Church but we hardly ever hear about masturbation anymore and usually only in a rather vague way such as “self-abuse” (leadership handbook) and “Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.” (For the Strength of Youth)? Personally I think Church leaders realize deep down that if they tried to push the idea that masturbation makes men unworthy too hard and if very many men and young men take this idea very seriously and get discouraged by it then there wouldn’t be many completely “worthy” men/young men left to bless and pass the sacrament, go on missions, get married in the temple, serve in callings, etc. So they are basically stuck in this state where they still think it is technically a sin but they have no choice but to live with it to some extent simply because of the sheer numbers involved where weeding out all the masturbators simply would not fly in practice.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Gerald wrote:

I read enough blogs and listen to enough podcasts from the liberal side of the Mormon spectrum to know that what many people look for, focus on, and hope for is change! Change in doctrines, change in policy, change in leadership, change in so many things that will make the Mormon faith (from their perspective) a closer approximation of Christ’s gospel, or make it more inclusive, more universal, more all encompassing. These are laudable goals in many ways but I have come to the conclusion that such dramatic changes will not occur…at least not quickly. To make the kinds of changes that more liberal Mormons find palatable would almost assuredly alienate a large percentage of the more hardline membership. The LDS leadership has only to look at their “sister” church, the Community of Christ for an example of what occurs when you “liberalize.”

I was listening to a podcast by a historian from the Community of Christ …The training had the effect of encouraging the leadership to “loosen up” on some of the more dogmatic doctrines they had. This, in turn, helped the RLDS Church establish a foundation for giving women the priesthood back in the 80’s. Such changes can be considered good on the one hand but had significant consequences: a large percentage of their membership left as a result…I have to believe that the LDS Church leadership are aware of these events and recognize the inherent danger in being less literal and more nuanced. Such changes would threaten the very existence of the Church and, at the least, would create a significant exodus of members for whom the stability and structure of the Church are the very things that keep them in it. I just don’t think they will make big changes for that reason….it’s just too risky.

I am happy to have someone else fill in details or even correct anything I have wrong regarding the history of the Community of Christ (my memory is a bit sketchy) but I just don’t see big changes coming down any time soon. That doesn’t mean that change shouldn’t be advocated where viewed necessary but such advocates probably ought to steel themselves for an inevitable disappointment. Too many members of the Church like the Church just the way it is…Feel free to disagree!

Personally I don’t think the RLDS/Community of Christ is a very good example of what to expect if any major changes are made because it seems like they never had nearly the same number of followers and momentum as the LDS Church to begin with. For example, it looks like they never had anything like the Mormon corridor with so many followers concentrated in so many cities and towns where they are not an insignificant minority but in many cases the predominant religion in the area. All you have to do is look at the fact that the LDS Church already abandoned the practice of polygamy (in this life) and the racial priesthood ban to see that it is clearly possible for them to make at least some major changes and actually have the majority of members largely take it in stride rather than be alienated by it. In fact, if they hadn’t made these changes I think the Church would already be much smaller and less influential now than it currently is.

I don’t really expect the leaders to make radical changes any time soon but trying to cater to what the members want and what will make the majority happy or even what will be best for the Church’s survival is not something that I think Church leaders really focus on that much. Personally I think the main reason they don’t make major changes is simply because they feel like it is not really their place to change the doctrines and established LDS traditions in most cases and the way the leaders are selected precisely based on their strong loyalty to the Church and its teachings above all else. However, one problem with the status quo is that it looks like it simply isn’t going to produce the type of results they were used to seeing in past decades anyway due to smaller families on average now, the impact of the internet, homophobia/sexism becoming increasingly unpopular, etc. It will be interesting to watch how the next few decades play out for the Church. Personally I expect a slow decline as more and more baby boomers die off and a significant number of active members continue to leave without nearly enough younger members and converts to replace them from one generation to the next.

[Author]

Posts