Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Church has ZERO Growth!

Wed, 03 Aug 2005 06:47:12 -0700

 
 

DAVEH:  We are obviously seeing this through different perspectives, John.  Yes, perspective is the very thing separates each of us from the other.    When I read Blaine's comments, I see them from the LDS perspective that the Kingdom has been reestablished and will spread throughout the earth as is prophesied in latter-day Scripture.  I don't (and I'm reasonably sure Blaine does not either if his LDS background is anything similar to mine) believe that means that the LDS Church will be either the largest or continue to be the denomination with the fastest growth rate.  I've always believed that even in the end (by the time the Millennial reign rolls around) the LDS Church will be relatively small comp ared to those who oppose it.  To me, Blaine's comments merely reflect that the Lord's Church is now here and proceeding as prophesied, never to be beaten down (as we view the Apostasy) again.  Good enough.

    From your perspective, you are reading into his comments something entirely different.  You see him saying that because the LDS Church is (presumably) the fastest growing church it is the True Church.   I see no logic in that at all. Yes, that was my objection.   Nor do I think that is what Blaine was implying.  For instance, I'm sure Blaine understands just as well as any TTer, that if I were to start my own church tomorrow, and convert one person to believe as I do within a year, and then 2 more next year, and then 4 more the following year.....which should not be too difficult in these weird times......that it would be relatively easy for my church to have an annual growth rate of 100%, which would far exceed virtually any modestly sized church in the world.  I could probably get numbers like that for a dozen years or so.  But that certainly would not be an indication that I've got the true church.  You have made your point.   It is funny to me that I could misunderstand Blaine's comments but I do not misunderstand these  !!   But I do accept your explanation. 

    Nor would sheer numbers indicate likewise.  We all know the RCC folks have massive membership numbers, but I dare say there are few if any (and certainly not Blaine) TTers who would think for a second that that would imply the RCC is the True Church. Yes.

    So John........I simply don't think Blaine was trying to make that argument (that the LDS Church is true because of either its growth rate or size) as you and Kevin seem to believe.  Logically it doesn't make sense.  While there may be some LDS folks who do not think clearly and/or rationally who might miss the logic of this, but I assume Blaine is a reasonably intelligent person, and hence I am reading his comments with a different understanding than you might.

    BTW.........Look at the subject line of this thread.  I assume Kevin penned it, no doubt  -  he enjoys treating others as "the enemy"    but could be wrong.  Anyway, it reflects an attitude that I think Kevin would like other TTers to believe.  Why do you suppose he would want to foster this lie?  And....how many TTers (percentage wise) do you think he has convinced that the LDS Church now has a zero growth rate?    Not one TT'er who actually thinks. 

    Have you considered that Blaine may have posted the things he did to counter some of the stuff Kevin posts, rather than to make an argument that the LDS Church is true because of its size and growth rate?
Actually, I did not.   Good point.  

    FWIW....I think LDS folks have a different understanding of the term Kingdom of God than you, John.  That does not mean we think your view is all screwed up, but rather that our view is different because we have a different understanding based on latter-day revelation.   Yes, but I do not understand why latter day revelation should be different from the actual First Church teachings. 

    Regarding your comment.......

I see many within orthodoxy extending the right hand of fellowship and willing to consider this churc h as a denomination of the Larger Church.   I do not see the same consideration coming from the Mormon Church.

............Interestingly I see it as exactly the opposite.  As I see it, my experience in TT parallels how well the LDS Church fits into the Protestant world.     Perspective, DH, perspective !!

    Regarding your comment.......

My concern is this: that these words indicated that Mormonism considers itself the ONLY (true) Christians.

.............I simply don't know why you would get that impression from what either Blaine or I have posted.  In fact, I think I have said that is not correct when it has come up before in TT.
DH  --  I must confess that have ignored much of your discussion with deegan, until recently.   Because of deegan's willingness to cloud the issue  (any issue) with comments of bias and half truths  (he has done this with me),   I have little confidence in what he has to say. 
 
But, you do not believe that the Mormon Church teaches that it is only (true) Church?  Could be, however  --   remembering the recent exchanges between your leadership and some in the orthodox community. 


    Regarding.......

DAVEH:  How many of those do you suppose can be attributed to the RCC birth rate?
 
Considerable  --  and in much the same way as Mormon growth rates  (?). 

..........Yes, certainly the LDS growth rate is larger due to our birth rate.  As I said in a parallel post tonight, the figures Kevin posted indicate there are about 100,000 convert baptisms per year by our missionaries.  Yet I believe our Church is growing even faster than that despite the death rate combined with those who leave the Church........which leads me to wonder why anybody would think LDS Church has ZERO Growth! as the subject line of this thread incorrectly implies.  Yet it seems some TTers are pretty proud of their growth rate (was it 3,000 per day) when in fact many of that number may simply be accounted for by RCC births.........  You do understand that I threw this into the mix just in case we were thinking that "growth rate" meant something.   And yes, I am excited about that number. 

The list includes the rapidly growing Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church in America, Jehovah?s Witnesses, and ? largest of all ? the Roman Catholic Church.

..........This is from the National Council of Churches.  Pretty interesting, is it not....especially since there must be some TTers who would like you to believe the LDS Church has a zero growth rate as the subject line implies.  Yes

    I would think it would be much more meaningful to know how many new Protestants there are each day.  Does anybody have any figu res on that?  It might also be interesting to see how the Protestant Church membership rolls have held up over the years.   If anybody has the time to search the net, that might be interesting to see.

    For instance, the NCC 1998 yearbook shows a decline for three mainline Protestant Churches....

Data on the continuing "flattening out" of "mainline" membership losses and "non-mainline" gains. For example, three mainline bellwethers, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), United Church of Christ and United Methodist Church, all have cut membership losses significantly over the past three years.

.........Does it make you wonder how they've fared since then? 

    I found your comment........

DAVEH:  Such the RCC folks believe.   They just don't quite understand why you (Protestants) felt the need to leave the nest.
 
It had to do with grace verses works salvationism. 

......to be really interesting, John.  I would have thought your main disagreement with them to be based on the authority.  The RCC folks believe in a priesthood authority of the leadership, whereas I understand the Protestants to believe the authority is in the eyes of the believer.  To me, that pretty much trumps the grace vs salvation distraction.   IMO, one has to do with the essence of the gospel message, the other (authority) does not. 

    Regarding......

DAVEH:  I don't recall doing much debating with Kevin recently.  Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else, though that hardly seems possible.
 
I refer to what has been going on between the two of you over the past year and half.  

...........Ahhhh, now I understand.  I gave up trying to have a reasonable theological discussion with Kevin some time ago, and I didn't think we ever had a two sided debate previous to that....which is one reason why I gave up trying.  We are one in this opinion, brother !!!

    Concerning the Apostasy.....

DAVEH:  I respectfully disagree, John.  IF there was not a falling away, there would be no need for a restitution of all things, as I see it. 
 
You have kinda of lost me, here.  All of us can read about the First Church in the Book of Acts   -- a church full of Jews unwilling to break with any of the Law, it's requirements and traditions, while, at the same time, accepting the message of Christ as Son of God.   The First Church could not be any further off base than it was a month after Pentecost Day.   Seeds of dnominationalism are recorded in script no more than 30 years following Pentecost.   What was not effected by this missing of the mark was the preaching of the gospel of unmerited redemption by the apostles.   That is what changed in the falling away  --   and the Mormon Church certainly did not re-establish that teaching.  ; 

........I am surprised that you are somewhat lost on what I was conveying, since you have a bit of a connection to Mormonism through your Mother-in-law, if I remember correctly.  (Or am I confusing you with Perry?)   No.  Mommanzon is Latter DAy. 

    Anyway.......I believe the Bible predicts the Apostasy and Restoration, and as I see it the LDS Church fulfills that need...so to speak.  But discussing it under this thread is a bit of a tangent, so if you want to chat about it more....let's start a new piece of paper and discuss it under a new subject heading.  I'll leave it up to you to instigate the discussion as I'm sure Perry will find a reason to complain IF I introduce the topic.    :-)   Yes.   I really think we have spent entirely too much time over this growth issue.   I mean, year after year,  deegan has probably gotten larger and larger  -  sure doesn't mean HE is right !!
 
JD
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 As you read my response, please note the two underlined phrases at the very beginning.  It appears that you missed my parenthetical. 
 
deegan and I are clearly not in the same boat BUT.  I do think you are missing the point he is making on this, DH.   blaine has hung his hat (not entirely, of course) on Mormorn growth rate
DAVEH:  I didn't quite see it that way.   If Blaine believes that growth rate alone reflects truth, I'd say he is using some pretty screwed up logic as well.  Perhaps he can clarify what he was saying.  Looking at the posts below in this thread, I was correcting what I perceived to be outdated material you submitted, and Blaine was updating the information even more.  Relative to these posts, Blaine made no comment about the relationship between the growth rate and its trueness.  Kevin pulled some quotes from other posts that made it seem like (and Kevin implied that) Blaine was saying that the LDS Church is true because of its rapid growth.  I don't think that is what Blaine said or implied at all.  But....let's let him respond, as we (you, Kevin and me) have o ur biases that affect our thinking processes.   Yes,  I agree.   Blaine should speak for Blaine, in the final analysis.   But, do you see how some of us hear Blaine saying that growth (to a degree )  is evidence of God's approval and the ultimate goal  (set by God, apparently) that the Mormon Church  (equated to the "kingdom of God")  will  establish the Kingdom of God throughout the world is irresistible, i.e.    (Blainer)  The figures don't lie.  The rate of growth for the  Mormon Church exceeds even the Moslems in the US.  Zion will flourish,  and the Kingdom of God will be established by the Mormon Church.  It is  just a matter of time   ?????
 
By the way  -  I do not see the Kingdom of God and the Church as being the same, biblically speaking, anymore than I confuse  "sovereign rule and authority"  with "assemblage." 
 
.

and sees the Mormon religion as just that  -  a religion.
DAVEH:  Do you not find it interesting that the LDS Church is classified amongst Christian churches in this study?  Do you suppose it is considered as a Christian church in contrast to what some TTers believe?
 
I see many within orthodoxy extending the right hand of fellowship and willing to consider this church as a denomination of the Larger Church.   I do not see the same consideration coming from the Mormon Church. 
  I was thinking that the claim was that Mormonism is Christian.     Such does not appear to be the case .   Blaine writes:   Mormonism, or the religion of the Church of Jesus Christ of  Latter-day Saints.  A rather disappointing comment.
DAVEH:  Without knowing the context of what else he said at the same time, I can't offer an opinion one way or the other on this one.   I don't see where such a statement alone would suggest that Mormonism is not Christian.
 
My concern is this: that these words inidcated that Mormonism considers itself the ONLY (true) Christians. 
  And when we are talking about growth rates, world wide, the Christian faith (excluding Mormonis  -  apparently by thei r own admission) is growing at the rate of 3,000 per hour .
DAVEH:  How many of those do you suppose can be attributed to the RCC birth rate?
 
Considerable  --  and in much the same way as Mormon growth rates  (?). 
   Kingdom rule has already been established.
DAVEH:  Such the RCC folks believe.   They just don't quite understand why you (Protestants) felt the need to leave the nest.
 
It had to do with grace verses works salvationism. 
  Grace is the order of the day and the "right church" was never The Divine Concern except that this assemblage be CONSIDERED RIGHT through and because of Christ.   The notion that the church was initially right  (Book of Acts ) and that it fell away is simply not historically accurate  (Book of Acts).
DAVEH:  I respectfully disagree, John.  IF there was not a falling away, there would be no need for a restitution of all things, as I see it. 
 
You have kinda of lost me, here.  All of us can read about the First Church in the Book of Acts   -- a church full of Jews unwilling to break with any of the Law, it's requirements and traditions, while, at the same time, accepting the message of Christ as Son of God.   The First Church could not be any further off base than it was a month after Pentecost Day.   Seeds of dnominationalism are recorded in script no more than 30 years following Pentecost.   What was not effected by this missing of the mark was the preaching of the gospel of unmerited redemption by the apostles.   That is what changed in the falling away  --   and the Mormon Church certainly did not re-establish that teaching.  ;    
  And your debate with deegan
DAVEH:  I don't recall doing much debating with Kevin recently.  Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else, though that hardly seems possible.
 
I refer to what has been going on between the two of you over the past year and half.  
 and other works-salvationists on TT is only a debate over which rules are the right rules.   The primary theology is the same  and the method of institutional purity is identical  --  x those who disagree  --  damn such passages as Romans 14.   
 
JD
 
 
 
 
 
 

-- 
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Reply via email to