DAVEH: Stating the grow rate of the Church is either high (by Blaine)
or low (by Kevin) does not imply either the truthfulness, nor the
untruthfulness of the LDS Church, Perry. To conclude such is simply
bad logic.
Kevin posted several quotes that showed the missionary efforts have
now declined to a rate of less than two conversions (1.9 comes to mind)
per missionary per year...which with over 50k missionaries represents
nearly 100,000 new members every year. He also quoted material from
the SLT that quoted the CUNY report.....
When the Graduate Center of the City University of New York conducted
an American Religious Identification Survey in 2001, it
discovered that about the same number of people said they had joined
the LDS Church as said they had left it. The CUNY
survey reported the church's net growth was zero
percent.
........Interestingly, this conclusion does not include any
consideration of the birthrate's effect on the growth rate. So....Does
Kevin's subject line reflect the truth? Not in my opinion. It is a
lie based on culling statistics that support a conclusion that reflects
the agenda one want to espouse.
Here is another conclusion derived from the CUNY report Kevin
posted......
http://xmo.lege.net/packham/growth.htm
Approximately half of all converts each year are outside the United
States. Applying that fact to the 273,973 convert baptisms, deducting
those who will no longer be active after the first year, the net
increase by converts for 2000 was approximately 104,000. Placing that
figure against the 87,500 who took the trouble to resign officially,
and considering the fact that many who become disenchanted with
Mormonism simply walk away without requesting name removal, one must
conclude that the net growth of the church - other than by breeding
children - is close to zero.
........Note the close to zero comment....hardly the same as
zero growth. Note also that it recognizes that childbirth growth rates
are not included in the conclusion.
In order to substantiate his LDS Church has ZERO Growth
conclusion, Kevin has even resorted to blogger comments which he
(commendably) recognized as a postulation.
Kevin further quotes material which plainly show a positive growth
rate.....
http://www.cumorah.com/trends.doc
worldwide LDS membership is currently growing at less than 3% per
year
.....So, why should we believe his subject line conclusion when he
posts contradictory material below it?
Now let me comment about the CUNY report. They surveyed
approximately 50k Americans, which at a rate of about 2% of Americans
being LDS, would reflect them contacting about 1,000 LDS folks. I'm
not sure that is enough to accurately (or scientifically) portray
trends in the growth rate of the LDS Church. Let me ask you,
Perry....do you believe the growth rate of the LDS Church is
zero as Kevin has stated with his above subject line?
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Blaine has, on more than one occasion, brought up what he
said was a fast growth rate and implyied that this was indicative of
the mormon church being the one true church. I also seem to rememeber
it was he that started this original thread (different subject line) by
mentioning the growth rate of the church. The above subject line
reflects an article that Kevin presented that indicates that the
conversion rate may be offset by a low retention rate. Kevin did not
make it up and is not lying, as you have accused.
Perry
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Church has ZERO Growth!
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:30:44 -0700
DAVEH: We are obviously seeing this through different perspectives,
John. 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 compared 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.
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. 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.
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.
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, 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?
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?
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.
Regarding your comment.......
*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.*
............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.
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.
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.........
/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.
I would think it would be much more meaningful to know how many new
Protestants there are each day. Does anybody have any figures 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.
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.
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?)
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. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* As you read my response, please note the
two underlined phrases at the very beginning. It appears that you
missed my parenthetical. *
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
|
