[Shederlaomach]

Old-Timer wrote:

One comment before I dash to church:

Everyone,

Please pardon my bluntness. Please realize how out of character this is for me. Based on the total body of what I have written here, I hope it is obvious how different this comment is than everything else I write. I am going to be candid and not pull any punches in this comment, then I am bowing out.

It is kind of a weasel approach to launch an attack and then run away.

Shederlaomach,

I and others have tried to respond carefully and thoughtfully to what you are asking. Your response has been, essentially, “I didn’t say that – and nothing you’ve said makes any sense. I am completely right in this, and you are wrong if you don’t reach the same conclusions I do.” That’s not conversation and civil discussion; it’s debate and argument in the classic sense – not to understand each other, but rather to win an argument.

That is your perception, and I think you need to realize that you, also, might be wrong. I think I would know better than you or anyone else what I have said and/or what makes sense to me, unless you are either God or an inspired mind reader. Besides, those are hardly my main responses. I only claim that you misunderstand me when I feel you misunderstand me. Understand? Your generalization of my method of response is severely flawed. I have tried to answer each item you have raised, and I have tried to be polite. I can’t ever remember saying anything like “I am completely right in this, and you are wrong if you don’t reach the same conclusions I do.” Rather, I have stated my opinions and politely asked for others to provide additional insights if they can to help me understand. I don’t care about winning arguments, I care about learning truth.

For example, I’ve already left a comment late last night stating that I would take time to explain why I have some problems with the information on the site you listed – and I logged in quickly this morning to read your response to me that didn’t even acknowledge the time I took to go there and read the site. Instead, you referred me back to a site I just said I had read and to which I would respond later – and you copied and pasted large sections from that site in the process. Iow, you ignored my comment completely and posted a response that made it appear I hadn’t even responded. Then, you responded a second time to a previous comment, again totally ignoring my more recent one.

I tried to do to one of your post just what I am doing here. I read and answered each paragraph as well as I could. The Cumorah.com site has hours’ worth of data and writings. I doubt in the few minutes between the time I told you of this site and your response would indicate that you had the time to read much on the site, or the full text of David Stewart’s book The Law of the Harvest, which is also on that site. I don’t see how you assert I had ignored your response when I tried to respond to every paragraph. You did assert that Stewart’s methodology was flawed and used to cast the church in the worst light possible and that he used data to draw contradictory conclusions. Of course, you failed to provide a single clear example of this apparent flaw. I would gladly try to discuss this material with you or anyone. I don’t see why you are so worked up about this.

Also, valoel said explicitly: “It would be better to keep this thread on-topic and about MADB and apologetics in general.” He asked you to start separate threads for each distinct topic you want to address. You completely ignored that request – didn’t even acknowledge it, in fact.

Actually, I did try to keep this on topic, but conversations often tend to wander a bit. I am fairly new to this blogging stuff, so I surely have a lot to learn. A little forbearance with my ignorance would be appreciated. I will try to do better.

Frankly, going back to what HiJolly said in his very first comment to you on this thread, I’m not sure you want to “discuss” this issue. You seem to be 100% convinced of your conclusions. You called the leadership a “totalitarian gerontocracy”, “bad leadership”, “deceptive”, implied that the leadership doesn’t care about people, that we can’t trust ANY numbers they provide (even a self-critical report that highlights the PROBLEMS we are having and the results of their study of successful and FAILING wards and stakes and stipulates EXACTLY what you are claiming about baptism rates in the US and Canada being 0% growth over previous years), etc.

I have repeatedly asked for help in understanding why things are going the way they are in the church. I do wish to discuss the issue. I am not 100% sure of my conclusions, but I have put hundreds of thousands of hours and read thousands of books about the church and gospel. It would be foolish for me to argue something if I thought I was absolutely wrong, on the wrong side of an issue, and presenting knowingly wrong arguments. This may come as a shock to you, but I have actually experienced discussions where people have taken and position and tried to explain their position by using evidence and responding to other ideas that contradicted their own. What format do you use for your discussions? I have studied things out in my mind and am asking if I am understanding correctly. I try to follow the admonition of Paul where he suggested proving all things and hold fast to that which is good. If there is an error in that approach, I genuinely would like to know a better way. All I did (or tried to do anyway) was present what I perceived and explain why I perceived it that way. I asked many times for help in gaining better understanding. I said that the church leadership was behaving like a totalitarian gerontocracy in some ways. I think it is beyond dispute that most of the senior leaders in the church are old men, a government by old people is called a gerontocracy. I quote: “to·tal·i·tar·i·an [ tō tàllə térree ən ]adjective, Definition: centralized and dictatorial: relating to or operating a centralized government system in which a single party without opposition rules over political, economic, social, and cultural life.” That sounds a lot like the church to me. There are no popular elections in our church and no accepted form of opposition or means to bring about change. I admit that I have related several items that I viewed as bad leadership. I quoted Isaiah when he warns of how bad leadership caused the people to err. Do you also have a problem with scripture? I admit that I stated many times that our leaders have been deceptive in some of the things they have said and presented as fact, when they have been less than honest in telling the unvarnished truth. How do you define deceptive. I NEVER said or implied that the leadership doesn’t care about people. I know several leaders of the church in a variety of leadership positions, and the vast majority of them are very good people and trying to do the very best that they can. I admire many of them for their devotion and willingness to serve without pay or recognition. It is one of the things I love most about the church. As far as believing the numbers provided by the church officially about growth and retention, I think these numbers are often very deceptive. I also think Dave Stewart and others have shown that the official numbers can’t be trusted. I really think the situation in the church is really bad, as I have said. I think I explained the differences between the numbers you proposed as zero growth and what others have said. If I need to clarify that at another time, I will gladly.

In one of your comments, you labeled anyone who disagreed with you (or, at the very least, those who disagree with your “reasoning” – implying they must understand and accept your reasoning) as “tedious turds and power mad tyrants” – and you were talking about a thread that started out discussing whether or not church leaders know the Church is true. You expressed disbelief that they accused you of “derailing” the conversation, when, in fact, you had derailed the conversation and turned it from a discussion about testimonies into a discussion about baptism and retention rates. That is the classic definition of “derailing” – but you also stated that HiJolly should use a dictionary if he wasn’t clear on what the words you used meant. (talk about condescending and sarcastic – and nobody here had stooped to say anything like that to you) Now, this thread has morphed from a concern about that forum into the same discussion about baptism and retention rates – even though valoel asked you to address those concerns in a different thread.

This is a classic example of the way you project your ideas onto me and make claims I never made. If you reread this thread you will see that I labeled one individual, a person who uses the Web handle of Chronos as a “power mad tyrant” and a “tedious turd.” He was the only one–no one else, and I think I explained my reasons for that in my first post. I fail to see your psychic ability to discern the way I imply that people must “understand and accept” my reasoning. Maybe I am just retarded, but I also explained in detail why I felt my arguments were germane to the discussion on MADB. It wasn’t a discussion exclusively about testimonies, it was about whether or not the brethren knew the truth. I still feel that if people know something is true that it damages their credibility if they lie. You may feel I was derailing, but I feel that my comments were on point. I was always taught that discussions often involve people who have different ideas. Arbitrarily banning a person from the discussion with no warning, no possibility of appeal, and no discussion seems to me a very odd way of having a discussion. Sorry if I was condescending to HiJolly. I admit that I felt he had been attacking me personally, and I responded in kind. I am not perfect. How does it feel? It does seem a bit unfair to accuse me of derailing this thread, since I was the person who started it and has made most of the contributions. But maybe you are right that it should have been given another title. I will try to do better in the future. As I said, this is all new to me.

Can you see how it looks from the outside? It appears that you have a singular obsession with this one issue – and that you are forum shopping for a place where you can pound this point, no matter what the initial topic is. It appears that you start or join an existing conversation, introduce this topic, accuse the leadership of all sorts of things, toss derogatory labels on them, then start cutting and pasting from one site and simply dismissing all attempts to reason through the discussion. It appears that you apply your “tedious turds and power mad tyrants” description to anyone who doesn’t take that site’s conclusions at face value and tries to have a moderate discussion – even when they are agreeing that the Church faces a real problem with baptism rates and retention, which we have done here. We have agreed with the general point about the rates, we simply disagree with the harsh and stereotyping conclusions about the leadership and the condition of the Church – and yet you keep pounding the point upon which we agree, as if you aren’t even hearing our points of disagreement.

I can’t just accept your godlike assertions. You need to realize that what you are saying is, “can you see how this looks to me and people like me? I think you have a singular obsession. . .” You are entitled to your opinion. That is the whole purpose of any discussion forum, but you are NOT entitled to be the arbiter of all knowledge. You have your opinion. I have mine. I don’t know what you are thinking and can’t speak as if I did. Get it? Obviously, I am trying to understand your point of view. I am deeply concerned about the issues I have brought up. Again, I don’t think I am “forum shopping,” since I started this topic here and tried to respond to a related topic on MADB. I really have no knowledge of–or much to contribute to or much interest in getting involved in–a discussion of, say, green Jello recipes. I plead guilty to cutting and pasting some information that I thought was relevant to the discussion. I do dispute that I dismiss “all attempts to reason through discussion,” and I think if you go back through this or any of my previous postings that you will see my willingness to engage in dialogue and desire for information stated in nearly every posting. This could be a case case of the pot calling the kettle black. Again, I don’t know which points of agreement you feel I keep pounding on. I also don’t see where you feel we have reached agreement. Frankly, as far as I can see, you have cited one unverified PowerPoint presentation you claim is from the “Q12.” Otherwise, you have provided little in the way of factual evidence or thoughtful, reasoned argument.

This site was NOT established as a place to argue and win debates. Our attempt is to build a community where reasonable conversations can occur that help those who are struggling to “stay LDS”. We aren’t into polemics or apologetics, and we aren’t here as a forum to air single issues of fanatical obsession. Please understand that and start conversing with us as reasonable adults who are able to agree and disagree without resorting to quote bombing and insults.

Do you see your authoritarian attitude here. You are saying what this forum is for, as if your opinion is the only correct one. A man I deeply respect said something about how “by proving contraries truth is made manifest.” That seems like a reasonable approach. I don’t think I have been unwilling to converse with you or anyone else as a reasonable adult. Please explain where I have failed in that. I also don’t think that presenting relevant, verifiable, scholarly evidence in “quote bombing” or where I have been insulting to anyone. You disagree with me. Fine. I have tried to reason with you and explain why I think the way I do. I have tried very hard to give evidence to back up my points. I think you have engaged in a tremendous amount of projection–accusing me for things I have not done. Your mind reading ability needs to be perfected. I am amazed at the hubris it takes to claim to know what another is thinking or implying. You accuse me of saying and implying things I never did and, in fact, deny doing. You take various things I did say and apply them in ways neither I nor any reasonable reader would. And you do it all without bothering to bring any evidence or well-reasoned argument. You have taken a position of being above the fray and have condemned me and my arguments, but you have mostly done it from a position where you claim an authority you do not have. I will gladly try to answer your concerns. If you just want to vent your spleen, declare a moral victory, and vanish into the ether–no one is trying to stop you. Still, I feel this topic is crucial. The state of the church, I feel, has eternal consequences for us. If things are going astray, I feel that the problems needs to be honestly addressed and corrected.

If I can borrow an image started by Brigham Young who first described the church as “The Good Ship Zion.” I feel that the ship has run aground on a sandbar, is listing 5 degrees to starboard, is taking on water, and is stopped in its forward progress. An observer from another ship would see this dilemma and expect that the crew of the Good Ship Zion would be desperately trying to plug the leaks, stabilize the ship, and get it off the sandbar and back on its voyage. Instead, as I have said in other places, the crew is busy rearranging the deck chairs and denying that there is anything to be concerned about. They have the matter well under control. Unfortunately, some 2/3rds of those on board, like rats deserting a sinking ship, have left the church. Others join by coming aboard but an equal number abandons ship. Yes, I think it is deceptive of our leaders to hide the truth of our awful situation from us publicly. Yes, I think they are being intentionally dishonest because they desire to infantilize the members and feel that these members are incapable of dealing with the truth. And, yes, I see a real abuse of priesthood power when they try to exercise totalitarian principles in place of gospel principles. I suggest you listen to Ted Lyon’s talks located in the StayLDS library. I would also reread D&C121 and see if you understand why I am concerned. I would also suggest that you read the parable of the ten virgins and the one of the wheat and the tares. I could relate more scriptures, but you would probably just accuse me of scripture bombing. I honestly feel that I am not the one who is being unreasonable here. As I have said repeatedly, I wish to learn. If you wish to further the discussion, feel free to do so. If necessary, I can easily start another thread with a different title, but a rose by any other name, etc.

[Shederlaomach]

Old-Timer wrote:

Shederlaomach,

Ray, I was having trouble sleeping, so I thought I would try to answer you as well as I can.

Frankly, I have stayed out of the discussion largely because I have been having a hard time articulating what I want to say properly. I can see both sides of what is being said, and I also have sincere concerns about many things, but, in the end, I just don’t see everything you are describing in such black-and-white, alarmist terms as you are presenting them.

I don’t think that I am being “black-and-white” or “alarmist.” I am trying to be honest and objective. If I am failing in that, please feel free to help me see the truth.

Having said that, my main objection is to what I see as a basic misrepresentation of baptism, retention and growth stats. It seems that the justification you are citing most fundamentally for your charges of aged ineptitude is that “people are leaving in droves” and “the growth rate is stagnant”. Frankly, that simply isn’t true (especially in relation to the Church’s historical trends – with many eras having MUCH lower activity rates and MUCH higher “leaving rates” than our current levels) – and even to the extent that retention and growth are critical (with which I agree completely), the Church is one of the few Christian denominations that actually still is growing (both in absolute new initiate rates AND self-identification rates). Almost all others are shrinking and have been shrinking for some time now – not just as a percent of the overall population, but in actual numbers. I will try to find the latest studies again, but here are some tidbits that I have found recently, with some of it coming straight off of a PowerPoint training done by the Q12 last year:

I have grave doubts about the veracity of a report coming from leadership–unless there is some independent way to verify. Their credibility is low on the scale of total truthfulness.

1) The “real activity rate” (meaning the percent of members who actually attend services at least monthly) is HIGHER in the LDS Church than in the Southern Baptist Convention – even with the MUCH higher practical commitment required of Mormons. Also, many SBC leaders are demanding that they excommunicate chronic non-attenders and quit counting them as “real members”. Right now, they excommunicate even less often than the LDS Church does.

This may be true, but who cares? It is apples and oranges. We are supposed to be in the true church. The SBC is another apostate organization. We should be doing better than they are. The problem is when other churches are doing better than the Mormons.

2) Our retention rate for YSA’s (the lowest number we have in the entire church) is not lower than any other denomination. That group disassociates with religion across the board, and the numbers are abysmal everywhere. YSA’s who do attend church regularly generally associate with non-denominational congregations rather than with established denominations.

I’ve also heard these statistics. I have two children that have recently lapsed into inactivity. There are reports that up to 80% of the single young women in the church are inactive. I find it alarming that we are losing so many of our youth.

3) The LDS reactivation rate across a lifetime ends up being around 67%. The LDS Church refuses to count or claim this number, preferring to state the actual “current activity rate” of roughly 40% – again, which puts it near the top of the heap within Christianity at large.

I’ve also heard this statistic, and I believe it applies only to those who are born in the church. We have, historically, had great retention about those BIC, but that also is getting much worse in recent years.

4) We are baptizing roughly 300,000 converts per year, and the average baptism rate per missionary has gone up over the last 5 years since the “raise the bar” announcement.

Actually, we baptize far below 300,000 annually. If you note Stewart’s data reported above, we currently have twice the missionaries converting half as many people as before. The raising the bar episode dropped a lot of numbers. It is starting to go up slightly.

5) The new convert baptism rate in the US and Canada is roughly 0% – but that is measured in terms of the number of convert baptisms in comparison to the previous year, NOT overall membership. That simply means we are baptizing roughly the same number of people each year – not that our overall growth is stagnant. The new convert baptism rate internationally is about 5%-6%, meaning we are baptizing about 5% MORE people each year internationally than the previous year. The overall new convert baptism rate world-wide is about 4% (higher than the previous year) – not stagnant.

I think this is wrong. Net growth should be the total baptisms–convert and BIC–minus those who are excommunicated, resign, die, or lapse into inactivity. Net growth in North America is basically zero. I heard a GA say this, as I have said. I refer you to the ARIS and CUNY reports.

6) The other religions you listed as experiencing “millions of new members” aren’t doing so in the studies I’ve seen. Evangelical numbers are notoriously inaccurate, since they often count “souls saved” in their international figures – and that’s determined not by prolonged attendance but rather in a one time event where they confess Jesus and are saved. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists report regular church attendance, NOT official ordinances of entrance and self-identification – meaning that someone who attends JW services for three years but is never baptized (like an investigator on my mission) is counted as a member in the reports. If we did that, our numbers would go up greatly. The “growth rate” might not change, assuming a fairly constant flow of investigators and visitors, but the overall membership numbers would increase. Every other denomination is dropping membership, not simply experiencing stagnant new conversion rates in one hemisphere.

I think if you study the matter closely, you’ll see that the JWs and SDA have us beat in both conversions and retentions. They are also more honest in their reporting. See Cumorah.com.

7) The Church has NEVER been more financially sound, by ALL reasonable estimates I have read – which is interesting as we sort through the current fiscal crisis. Frankly, many complain about how “rich”the church is and the rapid increase in building-related expenditures, but I wonder how “prophetic” that focus might look if global financial conditions worsen at all in the near future (or even simply don’t reverse soon) – meaning that the Church might have expanded for future growth in the only time it was reasonable to do so. If the Church is financially secure (and debt free) through this hard time, while other churches face harsh realities tied to their own financial conditions . . . I don’t think that’s far-fetched, given what I’ve heard from many people outside the Church already.

I never said the church had financial trouble.

Look, as I have said in other threads, I believe there are serious issues within the Church – that elements of apostasy exist still and that they ebb and flow constantly. I also believe there is serious abuse of authority at all levels of our structural governance. I’m not trying to say at all that your concerns are illegitimate as overall issues, and I honestly feel for you deeply. However, I simply disagree with the severity of the issues as you have presented them – and especially that these issues are unique to the Church or radically more striking within the Church than elsewhere. I simply can’t characterize the Church as “on the brink of collapse” by ANY stretch of the imagination, and, in fact, the Church still is looked upon from the outside generally as a marked exception to the serious issues most other denominations are facing right now.

I’ve never said the church was on the “brink of collapse.” I have said that growth has stagnated and people are leaving in droves. I’ve heard that over 100,000 members officially resign each year. Many more just go inactive.

Honestly, I think this is one case where your own personal experiences are coloring your objectivity and leading you to doom and gloom conclusions that objective analysis simply doesn’t support. I’m not totally objective myself, and I’m not claiming my conclusions are totally objective, but mine are based to a large degree on what more objective, outside sources are saying about us and other groups, as well. In relation to the issues you are addressing, those outside voices simply don’t support your conclusions, imo.

It is odd that you find me “doom and gloom.” This is (or was) a millenarian church. Doom and gloom is the future–if we believe the scriptures. I do dispute your findings and look forward to when you will provide some data that can be verified independently. I think you may find that the Q12 PowerPoint presentation you watched was less than totally honest.

[Shederlaomach]

Subject:

More on REAL LDS growth numbers…

Date:

Jul 30 12:02

Author:

Deconstructor

If you think the SL Tribune articles on pathetic Mormon Church growth were good, then you should check out this church statistics page:

http://www.cumorah.com/harvest.html

Here are some interesting facts cited from the page:

Twice as many missionaries, half the converts

“The average missionary in 1989 brought 8 people into the church, while in 2000 the average missionary brought 4.6 people into the church. When one accounts for actual activity and retention rates, with the great majority of LDS convert growth occurring in Latin America and other areas with low retention, and only 20-25% of convert growth occurring in North America, one finds that of the 4.6 persons baptized by the average missionary each year, approximately 1.3 will remain active. This declining growth comes in spite of unprecedented increase in opportunity. From 1990 to 2000, the LDS Church opened an additional 59 nations to proselyting.”

“241,239 LDS convert baptisms were reported for 2004, the lowest number of converts since 1987. Other recent years have also demonstrated decelerating church growth. Over the past decade, LDS missionaries have been challenged to double the number of baptisms, but instead the number of baptisms per missionary has halved.”

Church growth down to 3% per year

“The LDS Church is one of the few Christian groups with a large missionary program to experience declining growth rates in spite of widening opportunities. An analysis of annual LDS statistical reports published in the May Ensigns of each year demonstrates that LDS growth has declined progressively from over 5% annually in the late 1980s to less than 3% annually from 2000 to 2004.”

Pathetic Mormon presence in Europe

“There are over 570,000 active Seventh-day Adventists in Kenya alone, but less than 570,000 Latter-day Saints (of which less than 200,000 are active) in all of continental Europe, Asia, and Africa combined. After more than fifteen years of proselyting in Russia with the largest full-time missionary force of any denomination, LDS membership has risen to only 17,000, with a fraction of those members remaining active. The same period has seen the number of active Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia rise to over 140,000, with some 300,000 individuals attending conferences. There are more active Jehovah’s Witnesses in the countries of Georgia or Armenia than active Latter-day Saints in all of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Russia together. There are fewer than 100,000 active Latter-day Saints in all of Europe, including the United Kingdom.”

Based on growth, Jehovah’s Witnesses is more true church than Mormon Church

“Given that the Mormons are generally viewed as the world’s most successful new religion and had about an 80-year start on the Witnesses, this is an astonishing achievement.” It is even more astonishing when we consider that, since Jehovah’s Witness participation significantly surpasses raw membership alone while LDS participation is only a fraction of raw membership, the number of active and participating Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide far surpasses the number of active and participating Latter-day Saints. In 1935, there were 56,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide and 746,384 Latter-day Saints. Since 1935, the number of active Jehovah’s Witnesses has multiplied their numbers by a factor of more than a hundredfold, while LDS membership has multiplied by a factor of twenty, with only a fraction of that number representing active members.”

Christian churches growing much faster than Mormon Church

“The Seventh-day Adventist Church was organized in 1849 and recently overtook the LDS Church with 13 million members. Seventh-day Adventists were adding an average of 3,176 new members each day in 2000,15 and have experienced increased growth since that time, adding between 900,000 and 1.2 million members each year. In 2004, the LDS Church added an average of 661 converts and 270 children of record each day, from which only a minority go on to experience meaningful church activity. The Assemblies of God are growing at approximately 10% per year, or over three times the growth rate of the LDS Church, while the Seventh-day Adventists report growth two to three times LDS rates at 5.6-8% per year.”

Only Four Million active mormons worldwide

“While the Church makes no claims about member activity rates and no official reports of LDS activity rates are published, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes: “Attendance at sacrament meeting varies substantially. Canada, the South Pacific, and the United States average between 40 percent and 50 percent. Europe and Africa average about 35 percent. Asia and Latin America have weekly attendance rates of about 25 percent.” While various idiosyncratic definitions of activity exist, the definition of members attending church weekly is the simplest and most meaningful. However, rates calculated by dividing church attendance by total membership may over-represent actual activity if nonmember visitors, small children, and other attendees are counted regardless of membership status. By multiplying the number of members in each area by the fractional activity and summating the data, one comes up with a worldwide LDS activity rate of approximately 35%, or approximately 4 million members. This is very similar to estimates published by the Associate Press in April 2003: ‘While the church doesn’t release statistics on church activity rates, some research suggests participation in the church is as low as 30 percent.’ For comparison, Adventist News Network reported in 2001 that worldwide Seventh-day Adventist member retention rates had fallen from 81% in previous years to a still very impressive 78% at present.”

Mormonism not sustaining growth from within

“Only about four million of the 11.3 million LDS members worldwide are active, and therefore likely to raise their children in the Church. Fractional annual proportional increases in LDS children of record relative to growth rates of healthy populations around the world correlate closely with low activity rates, suggesting that a large majority of inactive members raise their children outside of the church. Second, birth rates have declined substantially among the lifetime North American LDS members that have traditionally constituted the core membership of the LDS faith. Active LDS in the US average about three children per family, which represents a large decline from twenty years ago. A fertility rate of 2.1 children per couple is required for population replacement. With only 22% of Latter-day Saints born to active families in the U.S. remaining active lifelong and another 44% returning to the Church after periods of inactivity, the natural growth of Latter-day Saints in the U.S. appears to be below the level required even to sustain a stable population.”

Lower levels of temple marriages

“The Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes: “The percentage of adults in a temple marriage varies from about 45 percent in Utah to less than 2 percent in Mexico and Central America… For all of South America, with 2.25 million members, less than 1.8% of the total adult membership has been married in the temple.” This is a significant finding, since approximately 35% of all LDS members live in Latin America. Sociologist Tim Heaton notes that “Mexico saints have fewer children than the national average.” Difficulty in generating new LDS families through temple marriages has been a chronic problem for the church, especially outside of North America, where many young people marry outside of the Church or remain unmarried.”

Decline in new church units not because of unit size changes

“In 2002, LDS unit growth fell further to 0.22%, less than one-seventh of the annual rate of world population growth. Those who insist that the low number of new LDS units being formed is a result of policy changes influencing unit size are uninformed: the average number of LDS members per unit has remained relatively stable, going from 439 per unit in 1973 to 431.7 in 1991 and 437 in 2001.”

Hinckley lied about the numbers

“In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley stated: “We are experiencing a combined growth of converts and natural increase of some 400,000 a year. Every single year that is the equivalent of 160 new stakes of 2,500 people each.” This statement has been widely quoted as evidence of the Church’s rapid growth. In fact, the Church has never yet experienced a net gain of 400,000 members in a single year, nor has there ever been a year in the history of the Church when 160 or more stakes were formed. The highest stake gains ever were of 142 in 1995 and 146 in 1996, which were up from annual gains of 32-78 over the preceding decade. Over the most recent five-year period for which data are available (1998-2003), the Church gained a total of 119 stakes, or an average of only 24 stakes per year. The low number of congregations and stakes being formed reflects fractional retention of converts.”

LDS congregational growth in perspective

“In comparison to the 26,670 congregations serving the 12.256 million nominal LDS members, the Seventh-day Adventist Church had 12.894 million baptized adult members in 117,020 Sabbath Schools (congregations) meeting in 53,502 churches, while the Jehovah’s Witnesses with 6.5 million members list 96,894 congregations in their August 2004 membership annual report. This is not because LDS congregations are particularly large, but because the great majority of LDS members on the rolls are inactive. While on paper the LDS Church appears to be roughly the same size as the Seventh-day Adventist church in terms of members, and much larger than the Jehovah’s Witness organization, in reality, the latter two organizations are both far larger in terms of the total number of committed, active, and contributing members.”

[Shederlaomach]

Gabe P wrote:

Given the South American experience, I don’t know that stake creation is a good measure of growth. I think an equally compelling interpretation would be that the Church is more concerned now about maintaining stakes with enough active people to support the Church’s programs, so they err on the side of not creating them.

Gabe, let me clarify myself. I think we are in agreement, but, since the church does not make much data available, stake growth is a better indicator of real growth than the meaningless baptismal numbers. The reason for this, of course, is that there have to be enough active members to fill the necessary positions, and most converts go inactive within 12 months. So, while some 300,000 people are being baptized annually, only some 40 stakes are being created annually. It takes some 4000 members per stake. You do the math. Most of the growth is smoke and mirrors. This is from MormonWiki:

“For instance, official church statistics report that in the two year interval between 2000 and 2002–the years relevant to the census data used above–Argentina added one stake and 19,500 new members. Venezuela also gained one stake and 16,320 members. Church-wide, however, the average number of members per stake is 4370. In the U.S. there are only about 4000 members per stake. Thus, based on the church-wide mean, Venezuela added over three stakes’ worth of members for its one new stake, and Argentina added the equivalent of four stakes’ worth of members for its new stake. In this same two year span, neither Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala or Honduras added a single new stake, but between them they added 38,185 (or almost 9 stakes’ worth) of new members. Colombia lost a stake through consolidation–going from 23 to 22–but added 6385 members. Peru lost a stake as well, but managed to add 19,731 new members. Finally, Brazil lost 3 stakes and a total of 190 congregations (88 wards and 102 branches) through consolidation between 2000 and 2002, yet added almost 66,000 new members–going from 743,182 to 808,940. The only explanation for the countervailing pattern of stake consolidation and membership growth in these nations is that rates of convert retention in Latin America are extraordinarily low.” – Rick Phillips, “Rethinking the International Expansion of Mormonism,” Nova Religio 10(1):52-68, August 2006.

As I said before, I went to a missionary meeting recently where a GA admitted there was no growth in North America. Most of the growth is in Latin America, and there you have horrendous retention problems and inactivity over 80% in places. Here is some info from Cumorah.com:

Methodological differences in the inclusion criteria among Latin American censuses shed further light upon data analysis. The Brazilian census recorded religious affiliation for people of all ages, whereas the Mexican census queried individuals aged five and above, and the Chilean census had the highest minimum inclusion age for religious preference at 15. The Brazilian census, which was completely inclusive, has the highest correlation between official LDS membership claims and self-identified religious affiliation at 27%; whereas the Mexican and Chilean censuses with their minimum ages of 5 and 15 correlate to official LDS membership at rates of 24% and 20%, respectively.

The correlation between results and inclusion ages would caution thoughtful analysts against concluding that the true correlation of self-identified and official membership, and by extrapolation member participation and activity in general, is any higher in Brazil than in Chile. The cohort of children under 15 excluded from religious reporting on the Chilean census constitutes 25.7 percent of the population; we can therefore estimate (ignoring potential differences in religious preferences among cohorts of various ages, which we have no way to calculate for young children) that the 103,735 individuals who identified themselves as Latter-day Saints represent 74.3% of the true LDS cohort, and that 139,600 individuals would have identified themselves as Latter-day Saints if younger children had been included. This would bring the correlation between self-identified religious affiliation and church-reported membership number up to 26.8%, which is nearly identical to the Brazilian census correlation. The 0-4 age demographic on the Mexican census constituted 11% of the population, leading to a similar corrected correlation ratio of 27%.

Other Data on the Church in Latin America

Census data harmonize closely with wide-ranging data from other sources. Peggy Fletcher Stack reported: “According to several Brazilian leaders, the LDS activity rate here is between 25 percent and 35 percent. That means for every three or four converts, only one stays.”[4] Former Eastern Europe Area President Wayne Hancock noted at a conference of the Russia Moscow Mission in December 2000 that in some parts of Latin America, 30 to 40 percent of new converts do not even return to church after baptism to be confirmed.[5]

Brigham Young University professor Ted Lyon, who served as a Chilean mission president and the president of the Chilean Missionary Training Center, noted that of the nominal 535,000 Latter-day Saints in Chile, only 57,000 attend church on an average week.[6] More Latter-day Saints attend church each week in Provo, Utah, than in the entire nation of Chile with the world’s fourth largest LDS membership.

End of quote.

All I can say is that I have studied this subject in great depth. I did not find anything contradictory in David Stewart’s reasoning or methodology. Things are pretty dead as far as church growth is concerned. I think our leaders know this, but, for whatever reason, are unwilling to admit it. If the official numbers are bad, they just quit reporting them. In Church News, you will only read that the church is growing steadily with constantly improving retention. I just wish they would tell the truth and make real efforts to solve the problem.

[Shederlaomach]

Ray,

I’m glad you joined the discussion. I have been studying the rate of growth and retention for some time. I feel confident in the data that I presented. I would urge you to read David Stewart’s book The Law of the Harvest. You might be surprised at how bad the situation is. That old saying of how there are lies, damned lies, and statistics is true. You can find someone, somewhere who will say whatever you wish to find. There are still people coming in the front door, but an equal number are leaving out the back door. Look at the CUNY survey results cited earlier in this thread. The church used to also report the number of men in the Melchizedek priesthood and the endowments performed in the temple. They have stopped reporting those numbers. Why? I good indicator of real growth is the number of stakes being created, and that has slid to about 40 new stake worldwide per year.

Please provide documentation of your statistics, and I will review them. Not all Christian churches are losing ground. As far as the JWs and SDA, I would refer you again to Cumorah.com. They are far more honest about reporting their growth than our church is.

I don’t think I’ve ever said the church was having financial problems. Even though only a small percentage of the church pay tithing, the church is in great shape financially. I would just like to see more concern for the poor and needy and less spent in building shopping malls and empty temples, but maybe it is just because I really believe that people matter most.

I was surprised when I found how bad the situation in the church really is. Again, if you have some sources, please cite them. I really would like to be wrong about this. The sad truth is that our church has maybe 3-4 million members who come to church regularly. Probably half of those active members pay tithing and attend the temple. Growth has virtually stagnated in the truth. It really isn’t just my twisted opinion.

[Shederlaomach]

Gabe,

Thanks for an insightful comment.

Gabe P wrote:

I hear you about prophets being fallible and the examples that abound, but there are certainly scriptures in our canon that suggest that the basic direction of a true prophet will always be sound. For example, the excerpts following OD 1 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1). At the least, one can make an argument that the scriptures don’t clearly make the argument that prophets can lead the church astray in a fundamental way.

My only quibble is that what you cite is NOT scripture. If you look closely, you will see that the part about the prophet leading the church astray is from excerpts from talks. Those comments are no more canonized scripture than McConkie’s introductions to chapters of the BOM. I know some believe that whatever is said by a prophet or said in General Conference is scripture, but that idea is not scriptural.

My feeling is that in this information age that we live in, there needs to be more and not less openness and honesty about the church. I think the investigator who doesn’t look things up on the Internet is a fool. The leaders constantly say for us to trust them because they are inspired, but they really avoid saying or doing anything that they can be called on. That kind of deceptive behavior has and will continue to backfire.

I have not yet gotten to the point where I feel that more members would be hurt than helped by honesty. I sincerely hope you are wrong about that. You are right about some of the causes of apostasy, but don’t forget that bad leadership was also involved in some cases. Isaiah 9:16 “For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.” Bad leadership is a killer.

[Shederlaomach]

HiJolly,

I know you disagree with much that I have written. Fair enough. If you wish to move the discussion along, you need to provide evidence and/or examples of what you mean. I really didn’t understand some of your concerns. Those I felt I understood, I tried to answer.

You may not see the church being run by a totalitarian gerontocracy, but I would need you to explain how that title doesn’t fit. Sadly, I think it does. Feel free to consult a dictionary. Sorry you felt I was attacking you. I never intended to. I apologize for making you feel that way. I just honestly didn’t get where you were coming from. Still, I find it interesting that you feel safe in judging my ability to love the church. I certainly don’t think you are right. In case you have been unable to understand my relationship with the church at present, all I can say is that I do not like the direction it is going. I think that the loss of freedom of thought, insistence on conformity, shallowness of the quality of teaching at church, and the high level of deception being practiced by the current leadership has really had a negative impact on the church. I think that is born out by the fact that the church has ceased growing, and the fact that the younger generation is leaving the church in droves. Something needs to be done by the leadership to fix those problems. I fail to see how attacking me personally and refusing to intelligently discuss the problems will help the situation. I mean, the first step in fixing a problem is to be aware of the problem, then analyze the problems, then make plans to fix the problem, and then implement the procedures to fix the problem. Currently, the way I see things in church is that when someone says there is a problem, the response is to deny that a problem exists. The next response is to blame the person and call him evil and a sinner. Neither an ostrich-like approach or blaming the whistle blower will ever solve any problem.

[Shederlaomach]

Gabe P wrote:

Interesting point. How “absolute” is the truth of the Church in your view? Do you think all of the doctrines that have been revealed are perfect and true? Or would you simply say that there’s no other institution we can join that can provide salvation?

It seems that your problem isn’t doctrinal, but with the leadership. That’s a legitimate position, but I wonder if the leadership can be as misguided as you say if you have a conventional LDS understanding of doctrine. Obviously, prophets aren’t perfect in our doctrine, but you seem to be saying that they’re mismanaging the Church to the point of incompetence. Now, maybe that’s true, but how do you reconcile that with the idea that the prophet won’t lead the Church astray?

I am not sure exactly what you mean by absolute, but I believe that the church is the restored church of Christ. I have no doubt about the truthfulness of the concepts that have been revealed. Of course, the LDS church really doesn’t have much that can be called “doctrine” in the Catholic sense of the word. I also don’t think any other institution can provide access to salvation, since no others have the restored priesthood.

The idea that the prophet can never lead the church astray is not doctrinal or scriptural. The scriptures do warn us not to put out trust in the arm of flesh. Also, if you believe LDS scriptures and the Bible there have been numerous instances of the church falling into apostasy, and we are told what to expect in an institution that is apostate or falling into apostasy. I never said the leadership of the church is all misguided. I have just seen clear examples of the abuse of power and unrighteous dominion the Lord warned us about in scripture. We are told that a person (or church) will be known by their fruits. We are further warned of false prophets that will come and liars who are apostles. I doubt if God would give us scripture warning of such things if he didn’t think we needed the information was necessary. That said, I don’t think the church has fallen into apostasy, but I fear things are heading in that direction.

[Shederlaomach]

Gabe,

I’ve read your latest post few times. For me the situation is like the one described in John 6: 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus to the twelve, Will you also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life.

I believe that this church really is the restored church of Christ. It has the restored doctrines, additional inspired scriptures, and the priesthood. No one else does. There is really nowhere else for me to go, and I have looked.

Gabe P wrote:

Questioning member named Gabe on StayLDS.com: “Well, I know the Church doesn’t meet the needs of some. But if the Church just isn’t working for people, maybe it isn’t so bad if they leave. What’s bad is folks not having the knowledge that there’s an option for them, that they don’t have to choose between being a cookie cutter Mormon and an apostate who must leave the community. Maybe it’s evidence that we need to become responsive, but I knew that already.”

I believe that the choice is complicated by the absolute truth of the restored church. I would walk in a minute if I could have found a source of truth and salvation elsewhere, but no one else has it. Of course if the salt loses its savor, we have a problem. I think we have a serious problem that is developing in the church. I agree that the church needs to become more responsive. I knew that too, but I see the opposite thing happening. And that is my dilemma.

[Shederlaomach]

HiJolly,

I really have no desire to get into an argument with you, and I often think we are not connecting and are misunderstanding each other. Have you ever ever read Roger Sapp’s essay on “Honoring the Truth Teller?” Here is a link:

http://www.harvestnet.org/teachings/truthteller.htm

I think if you read Sapp’s ideas you may see where my concerns for the church lie. I see the church has been devolving into a very totalitarian gerontocracy where very old men make all the major decisions, refuse to listen to criticism, and try to spin and cover up the truth. A couple of decades ago, our church really was growing. Now it isn’t. Why do you think that is? It is not that people are completely turning away from religion, or the JWs, SDAs, AoGs, and Pentecostals wouldn’t be gaining millions of new adherents. If people haven’t changed, and the gospel hasn’t changed, then church must have changed. Sadly, I think it has. And not for the better.

In my world, I have seen most of my friends, a lot of my relatives, most of my former mission companions, and most of my children lapse into inactivity. When I talk to them about it, I hear the same complaints–the church is boring, the church is irrelevant in their lives, and the church’s leaders are lying to them about the church’s past and not being honest about things now.

Unlike, most organizations, the church really doesn’t have any system in place for loyal members to express concerns. I think the example of Chile is classic. A problem was created and allowed to perpetuate itself for decades. When the church finally took action, it was done in almost complete silence from official channels. And, that silence allows the exact same problem that caused the disaster in Chile to perpetuate itself in other places.

It seems to me that when the growth of the church has stagnated and that once-loyal members are leaving in droves, that the problem needs to be addressed honestly and dealt with in a manner that will correct the problem. Think of THM’s first talk. He asked for those members who have left to come back, but he didn’t provide any changes to the status quo. I’ve read many former Mormon’s comments that they feel nothing is changing, so the things that turned them away from the church in the first place remain unchanged, so why should they go back? Now, don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying that doctrines or things of eternal value can or should be changed just to make the church more palatable, but other things can be. If boring manuals, inane speakers, dirge-like music–or a host of other things of no eternal value–are turning people off to the gospel, why not change those things?

As far as your asserting that nothing good could have come from my talk with the GA, I can tell you that I can easily envision a scenario where the GA would have looked into the things the MP was doing that were out of harmony with the gospel. The GA could have told the MP that he needed to cease doing these things and apologize to those he had offended. And then they could have instituted a new missionary program that would have been in harmony with the gospel. The missionaries would have been happy. The members would have been relieved. And the investigators would have been exposed to the true restored gospel of Jesus Christ. What would be the downside of that scenario? I can just tell you that what really happened was terrible. Tons of missionaries went inactive. Many members quit. Few new members joined the church. The church looked stupid. It was a total disaster. Decades later, the church is still stagnant in that country.

Your “glass half full” thinking and that good things come from bad idea is rather unconvincing to me. If a bus that is poorly maintained with no brakes carrying a load of school children plunges off a cliff and all aboard the bus die, and the school district decides to buy a new bus with better brakes, I think that the negative outweighs the positive. Just because one can always find some positive in a bad situation, doesn’t mean that the situation is overtly positive. Baptizing millions of people and having a few handful remain active is not a great situation. In theory, at least, the church has belatedly started to make efforts to only baptize those who are truly converted. I am amazed that you can see your “popcorn baptism” survivor as such a positive thing when compared on balance to all of the other lives damaged and destroyed by those abandoned programs. Surely, you can see this.

I would reply to more of your assertions, but I honestly can’t see the logic behind much of your reasoning. Maybe I am just dense, but you would have to explain it differently in order for me to understand.

[Shederlaomach]

HiJolly,

Thanks for your comments. I often wish that I had not had the negative experiences with church leaders that I have had. It would be much easier to for me to think that all is well in Zion and Zion prospers.

HiJolly wrote:

Anyway, I think if I were that GA I would also not engage you and your issues. After reading your comments, opinions and viewpoint I just don’t think a direct response could possibly do any good for you, the individual responding to you, or for the Church. Particularly in such a limited forum.

I disagree with your opinion here. For example, in Dallin Oaks’ talk about criticism, he recommends taking the problem up privately with the offending person, as I tried to do with my MP, or to talk to the person in rank above if talking to the person in private fails. I tried both, and they both failed. As I said, the fallout of my disastrous mission experience certainly was the background for several RMs and local members to leave the church. D&C 121 warns clearly about unrighteous dominion and what the results will be.

As far as your example of your friend who was a “popcorn baptism,” I don’t get your point. If you baptize enough people, surely some will stay. But retention will be horrible, as it currently is. GBH mentioned the harm that it done when people are baptized and then fall away. I assume you know that talk. The point is that the inspired leadership has steered the church onto the rocks. The church is no longer even keeping pace with the population growth–in terms of percentage of population. We are falling behind. In private, our leaders are worried. In public, the just insist that all is well and growing steadily. It most certainly is not.

[Shederlaomach]

Tom,

I went back through my posts and did remove the two words I assume that you felt were offensive. I hope I got the words you were thinking of. If not, you’ll have to tell me which ones, and I will change them. Thank you for the extremely polite way you made your request.

Hawkgrrrl,

I wish my bad experiences with church leaders had only been limited to the ones I had related. From your comments, I assume you are referring to John Dehlin’s experience on his mission and his subsequent letter to Dallin Oaks–although it could be someone else entirely. Ecclesiastical abuse and failure to correctly deal with problems are, unfortunately, legion in the church. For example, the–baptize, baptize, baptize and baptize some more–thrust of mission work gave us the baseball and graveyard baptisms of he 60’s. The same techniques gave us the beach party baptisms in Chile decades later. Of course, these abusive programs filled the church rolls with thousands and thousands of non-participating members. The result in Chile was that Elder Holland had to go there and dissolve some two dozen stakes. One would hope the lesson has been learned, but just a couple of weeks ago, I went out with the local mishies to teach a young woman. This young woman was unmarried but had four children from a variety of men. She worked full-time in an adult sex paraphernalia store. She was uneducated and had no background in any kind of religion. As our discussion progressed, it was clear to me that this young woman didn’t possess the background vocabulary to be able to understand the religious concepts the mishies were trying to teach her. Yet still, at the end of the discussion–a very initial, preliminary, first discussion–the mishies challenged this woman to baptism, and she accepted. I was so pi….er, sorry, Tom, irritated with them for their willingness to manipulate this young woman into committing herself to baptism and membership in a totally life-changing church before they adequately and fairly let her know what she was committing herself to. This woman was weak enough and desperate enough that the mishies could easily manipulate her into the waters of baptism, but there isn’t a snowball’s chance in He..er, sorry, Tom–shall we say H. E. double hockey sticks–that she will remain long enough to become a participating member. The church would then add another digit to the official membership, but, in reality, would add one more inactive member to the 8 million plus (and growing rapidly) number of members who have chosen to not actively participate in church. It boggles my mind that the same techniques for growing the church that have been failing and causing grave problems for decades are still being used to exacerbate a very serious problem. And, as an active, participating member, I can’t do a g…er, gosh darn thing about it, as one can never criticize the church’s programs–even when they are failing.

Dallin Oaks’ comment about how one should never criticize a church leader–even if the leader is wrong–is one of my main concerns about the state of the church right now. This GA that I had my bad experience with on my mission might have been having a bad day, but I have heard from other missionaries in the same region who had similar experiences with him. I have no doubt that the leaders, like most people, are happier when they don’t have to constantly deal with problems and complaints. The military has streamlined that process, and those of a lower rank are compelled to follow orders. It does make things flow smoothly, but the church, in my opinion, should never follow the military model. Free Agency is just too important. I think the most damnable heresy in the church is the one where a member is told that if he or she is asked to do something by a leader, and the leader is wrong, and the member is obedient, that the member will not be held accountable for obeying the bad order but will, instead, be blessed for his or her obedience. And the leader takes the punishment. I know that is wrong–with every fiber of my being, I know it is a false and dangerous idea. Sadly, though, that type of thinking has permeated the church so thoroughly that many feel that their only choice is to obey and do whatever they are told, or, they can choose to be in defiance of God and lose their salvation. Free agency, for the people with this mindset, is that they have only two possible choices–they can choose either to obey or be damned–no other option is viable. One recent example of this black/white thinking is the recent earring controversy. David Bednar amplified this problem with his talk on being quick to obey.

I must admit that I was blown away when GBH said, “My role is to declare doctrine,” since every time I heard GBH declare doctrine, he seemed to be denying those very doctrines that are most unique to Mormonism. Frankly, I don’t personally need (or want) a prophet to tell me how many and what type of earrings that I and my family can or can’t have. I don’t need a prophet to tell me what color shirt I should wear, my hair length, whether or not I can have facial hair, and a host of other petty things that make up the bulk of what it seems our current leaders have been most concerned with. Instead, I feel the prophet can and should tell the church what the Lord’s will is concerning moral and social issues that impact society. Yet the church is strangely silent about almost all of the most current societal concerns. I mean, when did the church ever take a position recently about war, global warming, health care for the uninsured, etc? They have only taken strong positions on two hot button topics that I can think of in the last few decades. The Equal Rights Amendment and the recent Proposition 8 controversy are examples of this. My gut inclination would have been to support the ERA and oppose Proposition 8. However, once I studied the issues and prayed about them, I am now convinced that the prophet was absolutely correct. Of course, the prophet will not always be popular with society in general, or even with all of the church members. Still, his calling demands that he relate the Lord’s will. Personally, I find it distressing that church leaders spend so much effort on dress and grooming standards and so little effort on serious societal and moral issues.

[Shederlaomach]

Thank you all for your comments. I guess I am coming at spiritual matters from an unusual perspective. I am descended from good polygamist stock. Great-grandpa had five wives–three of them were sisters and a heckuva lot younger than he was. I was born and raised in Provo. My dad was a professor at BYU. Most of the people in my ward were either professionals or on the faculty at BYU. I got to know intimately the finest minds in the church. I don’t want to drop names, but it was a heady way to grow up. I really felt that these people had a good grasp of what it meant to be a distinct individuals and yet have both tremendous freedom of thought and action. It was a great childhood. I’ve felt that a stable Mormon life is like a stool with three legs–social, intellectual, and spiritual. My early life had all three legs in abundance.

The good times came to a screeching halt when I went on my mission. I had a Nazi for a mission president. I am not kidding. My MP was a Nazi collaborator in WWII. He came to the USA after the war and became a millionaire by selling stuff to the church. He was also not terribly bright. He was also a liar and devoid of spiritual abilities. Yes, I didn’t like him much. When he was very old, he was called to be an MP, and he drew heavily on his training with the Nazis to run his mission. I experienced a lot of the same stuff as John Dehlin has described on his mission.

One of the terrible experiences I had on my mission. was when I met with a 70, who was in charge of our area. I had had grave concerns about many of my MP’s programs. I mean the mission was run like an Amway distributorship. Everything was about pushing the product really hard. Numbers were all that mattered. Everything one did as a missionary was assigned a numerical value. For example, one got X number of points for a contact, more for a discussion, and lots for a baptism. The missionary partnership with the most points each month got their picture of the cover of the mission newsletter, and copies were sent to the mishies home bishop, stake president, and parents. The winning mishies got to have a nice meal at a fancy restaurant with the MP and some other perks. It became a bizarre experience. I remember how we would be out street contacting, and if you said hello to someone, it was counted as a contact. If the person returned your greeting, it was a discussion. There was even a dog-eared copy of the Book of Mormon that a missionary would hand to passersby. There was also a garbage can a few feet away, and the person would invariably drop the ratty BOM in the trash, where the mishies would recover it–but they chalked up another placement of the BOM. More points! It was an awful, soul-sucking, spirit-quenching experience. I couldn’t understand why something as sacred as the Gospel had been reduced to this petty, stupid competition. And, of course, obedience was everything. We were told that unless you obeyed every rule, Jesus wouldn’t love you or bless you with success. And, like a good Pharisee, my MP instituted a bumper crop of extra rules. Most of these extra rules were mind-numbingly stupid, but the missionaries obeyed them all–at least the letter of the law. For example, since missionary diets were notoriously bad because we didn’t have enough money to buy decent, healthy food, my MP made a rule that you must eat something green each day. In typical missionary fashion, this rule was obeyed to the letter. We had bottles of green food coloring, so we had green spaghetti, green potatoes, green french fries, etc. The sad thing was the way these otherwise intelligent mishies were so beaten down and forced to surrender their free agency to the whims of a tyrant. I am still grateful that I refused to participate in all the bull. My fellow mishies did, and many of them have paid a heavy price emotionally in the years since. I grew to love all but one of my companions and still keep in touch with all but one. Sadly, as of this present day, 2/3rds of my former missionary companions have become completely inactive in the church.

Anyway, I had prayed and studied these stupid ways my MP was running the mission extensively in my mind. I had felt powerful spiritual promptings that told me clearly that my MP was wrong. Some months later, we were visited by the area GA. I thought that this was my chance to right a terrible wrong when I was asked to meet individually with this GA. I thought the GA would be desirous to know why my MP had run the church in that area into the ditch, why baptisms had dropped, why nearly 10% of the members had quit the church, and why morale in the mission was so low. I met in a face-to-face meeting with this GA and told him what was going on. I noticed that something felt wrong very quickly and that this GA really didn’t want to talk to me. After a few minutes of a one-sided conversation where he appeared very bored and distracted as I tried to explain my deep concerns about the way my mission was being run to him, he looked at his watch and just ended our talk. He said, “Just do what your MP tells you to do.” And that ended the meeting. I was, and still am, sad that this GA was so devoid of discernment and inspiration. Of course, this 70 is now one of the 12.

Toward the end of my mission, I received a call from the elder serving as the financial secretary. I still don’t know why he called me, but our MP had taken some of the money that had been donated by the local members to build a temple in the area and used those sacred funds on something that had absolutely nothing related to the church at all. Remember, my MP was a millionaire, and the local members were, as a group, not overly wealthy. In many cases, it was a real sacrifice for them to give money to build the temple. My MP’s misuse of these funds bothered the financial secretary so much that he felt the need to tell someone, and, for reasons I will never know, he called me. It upset me too. I still can’t understand why my MP felt entitled to take the hard-earned money offered by these faithful for something as sacred as building a temple–especially when he was so very old and wealthy. I mean, did he think he could take it with him? I have no clue as to my MP’s method of rationalization. I ruminated on the situation for several days, and it made me more and more frustrated. Ultimately, I felt that I needed to talk with my MP about the situation to see if he could explain his actions in a way I could understand what his motives were. I hoped that somehow I had either been given misinformation or that my MP had some justification for what he had done. When I met with my MP and related my concerns, he got very silent. He refused to explain what he had done with me. He didn’t deny that he had taken the money. He just refused to discuss the matter with me, and then he told me to get out of his office. As I was walking out of his office, the entire office staff was watching the situation with great intensity. My MP hauled off and kicked me right in the butt with all his might. His face went purple, and he shouted, “Elder XXXXXXXX, you are the worst elder in the entire mission.” I never met with the guy again on my mission. He didn’t go to the airport to see me off at the end of my mission. I did see him after my mission once at a reunion, and he blew my mind by offering me a job working for him in a new MLM scam he was starting. It was the only time I was ever openly rude to him, but I just started laughing at his proposal. There was no way in Hell that I would ever work under that guy again.

I’m afraid that I have had too many bad experiences with unrighteous dominion and poor leadership in our church for me to ever return to being the kind of Mormon who can just accept without question anything that comes from the leaders. I will gladly and gratefully accept good leadership and instruction, but I have to have spiritual confirmation before I can accept anything that goes against my common sense or better judgment. I recently read Greg Prince’s book on David O. McKay and found it the most inspiring (and paradoxically the most depressing) book I have read in recent memory. I am deeply concerned that the kind of independent thinking and tolerance the McKay’s era represented has been replaced by Correlation and conformity. I decided some time ago that I am not leaving this church. I have had too many profound spiritual experiences to ever just chuck the whole thing. It is a baby and bathwater thing for me. But I am sorely tired of these know-nothings who want to run the church through totalitarian principles.

So, I believe that there is a place for apologists, but I think that they should be totally honest in their approach. Too often they are not. There are many things that cannot be explained easily. Still, I have over 4000 books–most of them are church books. I’ve read extensively about the church and its history. Obviously, some things like BOM geography, or how we got the Book of Abraham, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, or the matter of blacks and the priesthood are, among many other things, concepts that there are no easy answers for. Still, I have had too many wonderful experiences–both spiritual and intellectual with the church’s teachings and scriptures to want to be able to honestly reject its claims to be the restored church of Christ. In my experience, I have found, in most cases, answers to my most crucial questions. I think it is a major mistake for the church to be unwilling to deal honestly with either its history or its doctrine. As one of my teachers said, “You shouldn’t attempt to teach the truth with a lie.” I think the church’s doctrines and history can withstand the most intense scrutiny that can be applied to it. I feel it is a major mistake to try to avoid such honest inquiry. I think the infantilization of the church’s members could prove to be a fatal error in judgment. It irritates me that many leaders in this church feel that members’ testimonies are so fragile that if they are presented with honest truths about the church, that members will lose their testimonies. To me, it is like overprotective parents trying to shield their child from the fact that Santa Claus is not real–when that child is a senior in high school. Some months ago I was teaching the high priests in my ward. I was talking to one of the high priests about how little I liked the manual we are using, as it only teaches basics and little substance. This guy, a high priest said that he felt that he still needed the milk before meat, and that he wasn’t ready for the meat. I asked him when he, as a 60-year-old man and lifelong member of the church, would feel that he might be ready for some meat. He just shrugged. The sad thing is that this same guy openly brags about the fact that he loves to immerse himself in various conspiracy theories–and he claims to believe in these odd, illogical conspiracies. He has also gotten involved with this herbal beverage called Reliv, and he keeps trying to tell everyone in the church that Reliv will do more for their cancers, tumors, and other serious medical conditions than conventional medicine. I think the church needs to grow up and expect their members to grow up. I think that we will be experiencing a great winnowing, and those who can’t stand on their own light are going to face some really hard times. Those who feel that the answer to any tough gospel question is to bear their testimony would do well to supplant that testimony with some real, hard-earned knowledge.

I am glad I can wander a little off the topic here without getting banned–maybe it has something about how all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole.

[Shederlaomach]

I appreciate the comments from everyone. I am still really upset by the experience. Since some of you have asked, I think the thread on MADB was entitled something like “If the church weren’t true, wouldn’t the brethren know” or something like that. Since they have banned and blocked me, I really can’t check back to make sure. From the initial post, the thread starter said something like church leaders are not involved in the church for the benefits of lavish lifestyles and financial perks. To me, it seemed that the foundation for the thread was that the brethren show by their actions and commitment to the church that the church must be true, or surely someone would have made big money by spilling the beans about the church being a giant deception.

That seemed to me to be a valid theory to test. After all, what is the point of a discussion forum if people are limited to only discussing one side of an argument–exclusively sharing faith-promoting stories and other comments that just reaffirm the idea that the church must be true because the brethren know it is true. Now, I personally, believe that the church is true, but I also have grave concerns about the way some things are being done in the church. I will try to recall what I said on MADB, but remember this is coming from memory. You are all free to visit the website and read it for yourselves. I cannot.

There were several people posting on this thread. Dan Peterson was one of the participants. I actually knew and worked with Dan for several years. I genuinely love and respect Dan. I posted several thoughts and concerns about what I perceived as the way the brethren treat treat members. Often, in my experience, I think church leaders behave in a way that, in my opinion, infantilizes church members. For example, on the subject of these leaders as “special witnesses,” I speculated why church leaders in the early days of our church had experienced glorious visions of Jesus and had then spoken publicly of these experiences–like Joseph Smith’s First Vision. Now, suddenly, these experiences have become “too sacred to talk about.” And leaders often bear testimony in a way that never directly, clearly state that they have seen Christ, but it also leaves room to speculate that they have. I wondered (and still wonder) why a special witness would opt to equivocate. Why not state clearly one way or the other? I feel that it is less than honest to make statements that are intentionally unclear–especially when that creates confusion. I also pointed out how George P. Lee had expressed some ideas that the brethren disliked and had gotten him in trouble before his sexual problems were known. I also expressed my feelings that Paul H. Dunn and his years of lying for profit and popularity was very offensive to me and had hurt the credibility of church leaders, in general, as being the type of men who command absolute credibility for their honesty. I also found the way Dunn had been allowed to quietly fade from the scene (without ever really asking forgiveness for or even admitting to what he had done wrong) very disturbing. I gave a few examples of how GBH had puzzled me by both giving intentionally deceptive answers in interviews as well as providing examples where GBH had presented as fact certain statements that were demonstrably false as historical information. I might have mentioned the Hofmann affair and my disappointment with the way church leaders had failed to detect Hofmann as a fraud and had lied about their involvement with Hofmann and his forged documents. These things do bother me, and I really was asking for others who could explain it to me. I mentioned how this type of deception has been causing many to feel that the church is lying to them and cited how Jerrell Chesney, a former temple president, and other members, who had served loyally in many important callings and positions, were resigning from the church and felt that they had been systematically lied to and deceived by the church leaders.

I also expressed concern that these leaders also only tell of positive elements of the church’s progress through official sources and either deny or diminish any problems. I feel that the church is true, and I was taught that we are supposed to be strictly honest in our dealings with our fellow beings. I can’t see how deception makes the church look anything but false. In this day of readily-accessible Internet information, cover-ups invariably boomerang back very quickly and make the person who is being less than honest look doubly guilty and intentionally deceptive. To illustrate, I cited the example of the constant use of the numbers of convert baptisms as proof to show that the church is growing, and this growth, in turn, is used as proof that the church must be true. So many members have been told for years that the church is fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel, but, in the last couple of decades, that growth has stalled. I pointed out how there is rampant inactivity and growth has completely stagnated in North America. This brought some other people into the discussion, and some said I was wrong and that the church was growing well. One cited the ARIS survey and claimed several million Mormons had self-reported that they were members of the church, and this showed I was totally wrong and that the church was growing successfully in North America. I responded with other data and showed how the ARIS survey was not a self-reported survey from the data in the link he had posted. (In fact, I looked deeper into the ARIS survey and found that their data suggested that our church is just holding its own with neither significant growth or decline.) I provided links to Cumorah.com and other sources that showed clearly that the church’s net growth in America is about zero, and that, world wide, inactivity is around 2/3rds of the membership. I think that this shows that there are real problems that need to be dealt with honestly and effectively.

Then, one guy stated how the church leaders were humble men who lived modestly. He cited Monson’s modest home and another apostle who pumped his own gas as evidence of their humility. I pointed out that those two leaders that he had cited belonged to what I considered the old group of church leaders and that the new leaders were men who had been very successful professionally before being called as apostles, and these new apostles were financially successful and used to the kind of lifestyle that comes from being successful. The same guy used Nelson and Oaks as examples that I was wrong, and that Nelson had been an apostle for 23 years. My how time flies. I stated that Nelson and Oaks were what I thought of as the new school of leaders–lawyers, businessmen, administrators, doctors, high-level educators, etc.–all professionals who were successful and wealthy. I also noted that these guys travel in limos and ride on private jets when they are on church business. Gone are the days of traveling without purse or scrip. Some guy insisted that GBH modestly requested to stay in a simple hotel room and ride in a Toyota at the dedication of the Houston Temple. I said I had personally seen GBH ride in limos and posted a link to a photo of GBH getting ready to climb into a black Lexus that the observer had been told was bullet proof. One guy said that photos could be doctored and disputed my “evidence.” Another guy said he had worked for the BYU Police and knew the “prophet mobiles” were big, black, bullet-proof limos. At about that point an officious little turd named “Chronos,” a moderator appeared and stated something like, “stop derailing,” and he threatened to ban anyone who argued with his godlike authority. It was addressed to no one, so I asked Chronos who he was talking to, as I couldn’t see that I was “derailing.” I got no response from Chronos, but another person posted a comment and said I was derailing. I asked him why–in a discussion about whether or not the brethren knew the church was true, and the thread-starting statement said that they didn’t benefit from economic perks and “lavish lifestyles”–comments about the impact of these leaders staying in 1st class hotels, riding in limos, and flying around in private jets were proof of derailing. I said that I felt my comments certainly were germane to the conversation. I posted my comment and, as soon as my most recent response was posted and became visible on the forum, saw that Chronos had posted a comment blaming me as the person who was “derailing.” Now, as Chronos (or anyone who posts on MADB) knows is that there is a weird lag time between posts. I mean, you can write a response and post it and find that other posts written after yours can appear as if they were posted before your posting. I wrote a polite reply to Chronos, but when I tried to post it, I found I had been banned for a week–no warning, no discussion, no appeal. Needless to say, I was upset. It was my first–and probably last–day on that forum.

I find the experience unfortunate. After all, I was interested in the topic. My postings were polite–no profanity, no hostility, nothing I could see as being out of line with the rules. I stated many times that I was a believer and was wanting to gain knowledge of things I had seen that concerned me. I supported my statements with examples and links to give additional support. It seems clear to me that they just didn’t like what I had to say or want to discuss my comments, and they didn’t. It is the easiest thing in the world to take the high moral ground by claiming that anyone you disagree with is “derailing” the argument. It is a much harder thing to explain why you think a person is “derailing” or even form rational responses to what has been written. It is easier to shut a person down by ending the argument by suspending someone than to explain your reasons for your actions.

Sadly, this is what I often see in church. People have their beliefs–religious, economic, political–but they are incapable of having a civil discussion with anyone who doesn’t completely accept their worldview. If someone says something they don’t like and/or can’t answer, they simply get angry and shut down the conversation. How can anyone learn from that approach to education and dialogue? I really can’t see the value of a discussion site where a person gets banned for the kind of things I had done. Maybe my “netiquette” is flawed, but I really wanted to engage in dialogue. I would really like some new insight into the concerns I raised. Since I was new, if I had made a mistake, it would have been nice to have had things explained to me in a kind way–rather than being subjected to a heavy-handed smack-down. This Chronos, in my view, behaved like a totalitarian dictator. I’ve always loved D&C 121 and found that only Nazis and others who misuse power need to fear free, honest, and open discussion. Unrighteous dominion is the norm for those who can’t reason. There are so many scriptures where God says that his desire is to reason with us, as one man with another. That is the only way we can learn. Tedious turds and power mad tyrants are the only ones who are incapable of rational discussion. I’m afraid that Chronos really falls into that category. Anyway, the whole experience left a very bad taste in my mouth.

[Shederlaomach]

This subject is one the intrigues me greatly. For whatever reason, I have been the recipient of several life-changing spiritual experiences–miracles, visions, and revelations. The most amazing thing to me about these experiences, however, was how quickly I managed to come back to the regular routine of my daily life after having these incredible spiritual moments. Almost as soon as I had some distance from these spiritual high points, I would begin to entertain doubts and the power of the experience would just fade into the background–not completely, of course, but much more than would seem possible so soon after a profound supernatural experience had occurred. The knowledge of having had such a moving, supernatural experience, thankfully, would remain and serve to form a large part of my core belief system. Of course, Oliver Cowdery and many others had been present at great supernatural experiences, and they still fell away. Brigham Young said, “Pray that you never see an angel.” Initially, that seems like an odd thing to have a prophet say, but he explained that almost all of the people who had seen an angel apostatized. Sadly, I have known several people who had the most amazing spiritual experiences, but the challenges and drudgery of everyday life was too much for them to stay true to their faith. There is a lot to say for people who never have supernatural experiences but yet manage to develop great faith and continue to serve and endure.

Still, it seems like many of the most dedicated members I have known have had some kind of supernatural spiritual experience that has grounded them and served as an anchor to their testimonies and discipleships. I have even toyed with the idea of collecting many of these stories and compiling them into a book, as these stories are very powerful as is their effect on the people who experienced them. Ours is (and should be) a church founded on revelation and nourished by miracles and spiritual experiences. One of my greatest concerns is that in our correlated, “follow-the-rules-and-you’ll-be-blessed” approach that is so common in the church today often seems to me to be very pedestrian, and, even worse, denies the very things that demonstrate to all that this is the restored church of Christ. I wonder if the lack of inspiring meetings, teaching only milk-and-no-meat doctrines, and looking only to the “brethren” as the sole source of spiritual experience has had the effect of making the church uninteresting to seekers of truth. Certainly there has to be some reason behind the flat baptism rate, the near stagnant growth of the church in North America and Europe, and the horrible rates of retention in Latin America.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.

[Author]

Posts