Church Growth Rate, Latest Statistics

[passionflower]

When Joseph Smith wrote the Articles of Faith, he did NOT call faith, repentence, baptism and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost "principles". He called them "ordinances", and the word "principles" was added by other men at a later date. So to compare the word "principle" in Section 89 (dictated to Joseph by the Lord) with the non-existing word "principle" in the original Articles of Faith as Joseph wrote them, is meaningless. Unless, you just want to compare the articles of faith as altered by others at a later date, with the Word of Wisdom being turned into a commandment by others, also at a later date.

In the History of the Church, Volume IV, on page 541, you can read the Articles of Faith in the Wentworth letter as written and signed by Joseph Smith himself, and I quote, "We believe that the first principle and ordinances of the gospel are: (1)Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; (2) repentance;
(3) Baptism for the remission of sins; (4) Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The only change made looks to be the rendering of the word "principle" from the singular to the plural.

Watch where you are getting your information from. It can really hurt you.

If Joseph Smith never died, but still lived today as was our one and only prophet seer and revelator, the church would be exactly like it is now. Nothing would be different.

Of this I am very very certain.

[passionflower]

Maybe there is just very little actual revealed doctrine, and the GA's are filling in the gaps with their own personal opinions, and that's what changes over time.

For example, the church does not have any official position on human evolution. None. And yet it is easy to find prophets and apostles speaking with seeming authority on the matter.

Why do they do this? I think like most of us, they believe their opinions to be true, and feel compelled to impart that truth to others. Maybe, like many of us, they can't tell the difference between their opinions and revealed doctrine. It all "feels" right, after all. Or maybe they are driven by some agenda.

This article you sight would be more correct if it said "the church does not have an official SCIENTIFIC position" on the theory of evolution, and the reason why I have already stated in my other post.

A new revelation on the veracity of the theory of evolution is not needed. One already exists in the first two chapters of Genesis, as well as the PofGP. The first chapter, with the seven days of creation, details the spiritual creation only. Genesis chapter 2, which seems to be a repeat, is the actual physical creation. That is very obvious and is no secret out of school. It is only after Adam ( MIchael, as we know him )is given a physical body, that the animals come forth out of the earth to gain theirs. Then Adam names them. Reading this makes it quite clear that Adam could not have descended from any form of animal life, as he existed before they did ( in the physical form, that is. And we know that the theories expounding evolution and all like sciences are very materialistic in scope ).

A careful and intelligent reading of Genesis can break through other teachings of the Darwinists, too.

If you want a revelation on the subject, it has been right there in Genesis all this time.

[mcusick]

Regarding The Hastening, AKA the policy of sending 18-yo Elders and 19-yo Sisters into the mission field, has it had a net positive effect on the lives of those who answered the call?

That's a tough question. Our sons served missions (last one got back in 2015, so fairly recently), they finished them, and they have remained active in the Church. They learned a LOT on their missions, but most of it was not what many might think. They suffered quite a bit while on their missions, because despite what some idealists want to think/believe - it really IS all about the numbers. Their whole missions revolved around numbers and how many people they could baptize. The pressure was insane - about as non-Christ-like as you can imagine - and Sec.121 had, seemingly, never been read by or understood by most, including mission presidents. Other negatives were - getting things stolen quite often by other missionaries; bullying to the extreme if you were at all different than whatever the current "norm" was in any particular area; seriously bad influences (mainly other missionaries - I won't go into detail), etc.

Our sons were exposed to some pretty heinous things while serving their missions - not so much by the world or people they were teaching, but by other missionaries, members, and especially one of their mission presidents (a few months after my son got home, his recently released mission president was called as a Seventy in GenCon, and I literally could not raise my hand to sustain him - given what I knew of his true character from interactions I had with him while my son was in his mission).

. . .

Anyway, what a deal - these poor boys have to live with the stigma (which, of course, shouldn't exist, but let's be real, it does exist) of "coming home early", when they didn't want to go in the first place but were forced to by parents. Sad situation. Our boys learned lots of good things, too; I hasten (had to use the word at least once) to add - but I would not say their missions had a net positive affect on them. I will say they are still active and thriving in the Church and gospel, no thanks to having served missions.

I got back from my mission in 2014. It sounds like your boys had a very similar mission experience to me (i.e. a giant numbers game / at times extremely disturbing behavior from other missionaries). What I gained from my mission was not because because my mission.

[Robin Hood]

I served 1979-81.
It was all about numbers then too.

Nothing changes.

[byugraduate]

I have greatly struggled with the liberalism that has infected the church(illegal immigration, muslims and terrorism, homosexuality, transgender). For 2 years, I wondered if there was something wrong with me. I finally came to the conclusion that what I believed in is right and not to worry about what they said on every little thing. The most important thing is to believe in the Savior. The Church has been wrong on many things before. The Church has always been obsessed with money and will make sure that nothing stops the gravy train. I just can't worry about it anymore.

[Silver Pie]

If nobody ever murdered anyone then we wouldn't have need to be commanded not to murder.

You've got a point there.

[Silver Pie]

See what I mean, Silver Pie?

I do better understand where you are coming from. I disagree, but I understand you better. Thanks for explaining.

[shadow]

I served 1979-81.
It was all about numbers then too.

Nothing changes.

Those numbers represent people so yes, it's going to always be about numbers. Many of Christs parables use numbers too.

[RAB]

RAB, I was not saying that having teenage wives was deplorable. I know it was common practice, though I doubt not alot with husbands in their 30s.

My point was that some people are turned off by such information. I assume that is why it was never shared in church lesson manuals, and why I didn't find out until I was 38 years old that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. The church was deliberately omitting that information.

How would it work if in the first lesson to investigators, missionaries informed them of JS polygamy? I doubt it would go very well. But people can now google and read about it in a few minutes, where years ago they would be ignorant.

So regardless of endless justifications for unsavory parts of church history, many things don't smell right, and make it harder for missionaries, which gets back to the point of this thread as to church growth.

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying about imperfections seeping in. I did not say that God's leaders always get it wrong, like you imply by saying "God tells our leaders what they need to know, and then they tell us wrong." You set up a strawman argument. In fact, I said they get it right way more often then they let their imperfections seep in.

You said whenever humans are involved, there are imperfections.

The problem is not that our leaders do not want to relay things perfectly or intend to teach things that are not totally accurate. The problem is that they are human. The doctrine goes from its pure form in Heaven, through imperfect human beings, and any time human beings are injected in the process, we insert imperfections.

Which explains why church leaders no longer issue revelation. Ages ago they could get it wrong and few would notice, as they could limit discussion. Now with the internet, they would be widely exposed.

Which makes it harder for missionaries to insist that we are led by a prophet,when prophets don't prophecy or say anything more than any other preacher or self-help author would say.

To say they get it right most of the time is hardly a witness of their special access to divine revelation. Most people get it right most of the time.

Okay, I think Inunderstand what you are saying. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that the revealing and dealing with issues in Church History creates a problem with missionary work since the issues dealt with are very outside the mainstream today and are things people may not have learned about until later, presumably after they had a foundation to their testimony. Since I have personally witnessed it cause a problem with some members, I agree that it has probably impacted missionary work. Of course that doesn't mean the Church was wrong to do it. The pure in heart will still feel the spirit and be able to get past those things, but it does cause a sifting, doesn't it? I also think that general authorities today engage in much less gospel speculation than previous decades, but I still see a bunch of heaven inspired guidance with how we should live our lives. General Conference is very uplifting, and I can't help but think that those sincerely investigating the Church would be very inspired by General Conference.

[Robin Hood]

I served 1979-81.
It was all about numbers then too.

Nothing changes.

Those numbers represent people so yes, it's going to always be about numbers. Many of Christs parables use numbers too.

I often hear that, but it is not my experience.
On my mission we were to get a certain number of proselyting hours, same with study, place a target number of Book of Mormons, teach so many discussions etc...... and then we got a prize!
We were even encouraged to read and study How To Win Friends And Influence People by Dale Carnegie.

[Vindaloo]

I've visited the forum a few times but never posted but wanted to share some thoughts about what i think is going on here.

I've enjoyed reading the many contributions thus far. Children vary. They vary in many many ways. Some mature at a young age, others are still have that zany character when there 30. As such being prepared to serve a mission and deal with the rigour and hardworking affects them in different ways. IMO it is no different than asking distance runners to become football players, they bring different attributes, so it takes a while to get them molded in a way that will help them deal with it. So all i'd say on this is, that perhaps (just my opinion) we should be in less of a rush to send our children on missions at the first instance but try to prepare them to go at the right time through prayer and discussions with local leaders. For some that could be as soon as they hit that birthday, for others it could be a few years after.

The other factors that come in to this i think are the changes in the world at large, and the changes in our own LDS world. Consider:

1. When i served a mission there was no internet, no mobile phones, no Skype, video games were all platforms played in an arcade or on a basic home console. Today, technology has changed the world from my youth. My son (he's 9) has a console and plays games with his friends with them chatting online all the time. He has an ipad etc, and we keep it secure from things like porn risk. But the way kids socialise has changed a lot.

Facebook came along and now kids are concerned with 'likes' how popular they are has taken a different form and they share information very quickly with one another.

My 9 year old isn't on Facebook but he's very adept with an iPad and with google. I see this skill in lots of kids. My youngest can pick up a phone go online and looks for answers to times table questions!!! Seeing how skilled she was at doing that surprised me. They take it for granted that they simply type the question and bam, answers.

Community now isn't just our street, or our town, it is worldwide. You can have cousins in Germany or Iowa and they can chat all the time so information and experiences are shared rapidly.

2. The world is different culturally. There was a time when pretty much everyone went to a church of sorts or if they didn't classed themselves as a believer of sorts with some gripe about organised religion. Today that is gone. Although some locations still have high church attendance in places like Ireland church attendance has fallen off greatly in the catholic church owing to the priests scandal and the adoption scandal.

Today kids learn about evolution, they learn about quick answers via computers, and they see science in the classroom with the smartest people on the planet being scientists and basing things on 'proof'. Everything is rapid, immediate, tangible, usually available as a video on youtube.

3. Changes in Church circles - In my earlier years i didn't know a single less active. Today i know more less actives than actives (I was EQ president so visited a lot). The reasons for leaving vary, but 20 years ago, people went less active for (IMO) to reasons - they weren't bothered enough to show up - motivated by church, or they had an issue like smoking. Today, the most common thing i see is church history being the thing. The difference now is, the people leaving are not the lazy or the never really felt it types but the highly educated and often deeply thoughtful members who traditionally were amongst the strong. Typically they are below 40 years of age and dislike things they discover in LDS history.

As a member there are things that have surprised me. I read on here in an earlier post where someone claims Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy (page 1 or 2 of this thread). Well, i'm not sure where you are getting your facts from but such a claim presents a lot of problems. First, are you saying that Brigham Young invented a false doctrine? If so, how do you explain so many leaders and apostles practicing it afterwards?

Then i'd ask, what about the evidence that Smith was married to other women? The church put out a detailed essay on this on LDS.org here

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marri ... o?lang=eng

So you can see this is from our church. So unless you are arguing that modern church leaders are lying about this stuff or somehow deceived by Satan then i fail to see how you can claim plural marriage is a fiction or a mistake?

But my main point is, this type of information can surprise people since we - all of us - live in a different time. We don't pump water from the well, we turn on the faucet. We don't smoke our meat and keep it in a cool room we buy it from a store and put it in the fridge. Our world is different from that 200 years ago, and our sensibilities are different as a result. Many past practices we can't relate too but they are there.

If you look at the figures and compare them to the rise of the internet i bet you'll see that people no longer join or leave in a manner that mirrors that growth and the growth of information about church history. Not sure how many of you have read Richard Lyman Bushman's book, Rough Stone Rolling, but it is a fascinating account of early LDS history by a Church Historian. Now some of the things there are like pumping water from the well, not what we're used to. And to kids and people outside i think it could be a whole new level of uncomfortable. They want quick google answers, a yes or no now, not built on prayer over years and pondering and waiting.

My Sister left the church after reading the ces letter - something she googled and downloaded to read after chatting with one of th moms at playgroup who had left with her husband. She read it and went to my parents with a lot of questions about 'why wasn't i told about this or that', and i looked at the letter. I took was surprised at how much i did not know but i was better read on church history so more prepared. Today kids can go online, google CES letter and read it and bam, they don't know how to deal with it. It's not some much that it lies - gone are the days of crass anti mormon rubbish put out by evangelists, the res thing is just church history presented like a bucket of ice water so it kind of shocks because most of it is new, and when they check it out and find out some of it is factual it raises questions like my sisters about why she was never told and she feels deceived and leaves.

It was Apostle M Russel Ballard that stated we have a duty to know the church essays like the back of our hand, yet when i brought this up in Sunday School most members had never heard of them.

So today, kids are different, technology and community is different, pressures are different, and the information out there is something we've not prepared ourselves for - we're caught on the back foot. That is why imo people are coming home early because non members can google church history and it is a lot stronger a drink than the missionary discussions, too strong too fast - so no baptism. Missionaries are disturbed by this information because they're not ready. And members discover this like my sister and they feel they've not been told, so trust is lost.

All these things make for trials that the church will adapt too and come out stronger, but in the meantime adapting is the hard part. It means learning from our mistakes and coming up with revelation on how to meet these challenges head on.

[RAB]

I served 1979-81.
It was all about numbers then too.

Nothing changes.

Those numbers represent people so yes, it's going to always be about numbers. Many of Christs parables use numbers too.

I often hear that, but it is not my experience.
On my mission we were to get a certain number of proselyting hours, same with study, place a target number of Book of Mormons, teach so many discussions etc...... and then we got a prize!
We were even encouraged to read and study How To Win Friends And Influence People by Dale Carnegie.

There are two types of goals. Those where you can't control the outcome, and those where you can. The problem with goals about placing copies of the Book of Mormon, discussions, and baptisms is that they require someone else to exercise their agency in a way that allows you to complete those goals. For young missionaries, the problem with that is the guilt that comes from not achieving the goals they cannot control, or trying to manipulate people so that you can achieve your goals. I saw the manipulation first hand from one of my companions, and I did not like it. So when I became a senior companion, I swore I would not manipulate others in an attempt to achieve baptismal goals, nor would I feel badly if investigators chose not to accept the gospel at this time--that was not something I could control.

Early on in my mission, when I was a junior companion, we set a really high goal for baptisms one month...and hardly anyone was baptized. I think one person was. It was then I realized that just because I want them to get baptized doesn't mean they will. So, when I became a senior companion, and it was time to set goals for baptisms I would first look at my list of investigators and count anyone who was obviously going to be baptized--you know, the golden investigator types that kept all of their commitments, had a testimony, and were attending Church. Those would go in my goal. I would not put anyone in my goal if I wasn't certain they would be baptized, not because I lacked faith, but because I learned early on that Agency cannot be overcome by faith. If I didn't have any golden investigators, I would just say "one" baptism. I didn't know where it would come from, but I felt that if I worked hard and was a worthy instrument in the Lord's hands, He would lead me to someone who was ready, willing, and able to accept the gospel. And He often did. So that was how I exercised my faith. In my mission that were plenty of humble people that would accept the gospel, but they weren't growing on trees. I recognize that every mission is not like that, and in some places you rarely come across someone who is ready, willing, and able to accept the gospel. I guess my point is that setting goals for baptisms did not really impact the way I served as a missionary, but only because I saw the bad and refused to play that game. I would note that I was fortunate to have a mission president who was not big on numbers and was more concerned with our spirituality. So, I didn't feel the pressure to play the numbers game, and set high, unachievable goals even though we still had to set goals. Frankly, I think it would relieve pressure from missionaries not to have to set goals for baptisms at all.

That being said, I do not have a problem with setting goals over things we could achieve on our own, such as the number of proselyting hours, service hours, or number of contacts (golden questions) made. I think if missionaries were taught to exercise faith, follow the spirit, but count success based on the effort they put into their mission, not on the outcomes that they cannot control, they would be less discouraged. It would be well if they memorized the refrain of Joseph Smith, that if we open our mouth, it will be counted unto us though all people accepted the gospel. I think it is also a great life lesson to take joy in the hard work and the journey, not just baptisms. Because even though self-development should not be the primary reason we serve a mission, it certainly is an outcome of it.

But then again, I'm no mission president so what do I know? That's just my opinion.

[shadow]

I served 1979-81.
It was all about numbers then too.

Nothing changes.

Those numbers represent people so yes, it's going to always be about numbers. Many of Christs parables use numbers too.

I often hear that, but it is not my experience.
On my mission we were to get a certain number of proselyting hours, same with study, place a target number of Book of Mormons, teach so many discussions etc...... and then we got a prize!
We were even encouraged to read and study How To Win Friends And Influence People by Dale Carnegie.

There's an equation for just about everything, including proselyting hours, placing BOM's, teaching discussions.
On average, X amount of proselyting hours will result in X amount of discussions. X amount of discussions will result in X amount of baptisms. The number also varies on the personalities and attitudes of the missionaries. Friendly missionaries will have better results than the average. Grumpy missionaries will see a lower result than the average.

[Robin Hood]

Our mission standard was 60 proselyting hours and 20 hours study per week.
Most weeks my companion and I did around 75 and 20.
On two occasions I set the mission record for proselyting hours; once at 106 hours and then at 111 hours; both in addition to 20 hours study time.

There was no lack of commitment. I never had proper P-day for months on end. I cut out meals, went out early in the morning to street contact at the railway station, and so on.
None of it worked particularly well, but I did get a prize or two.

[RAB]

Our mission standard was 60 proselyting hours and 20 hours study per week.
Most weeks my companion and I did around 75 and 20.
On two occasions I set the mission record for proselyting hours; once at 106 hours and then at 111 hours; both in addition to 20 hours study time.

There was no lack of commitment. I never had proper P-day for months on end. I cut out meals, went out early in the morning to street contact at the railway station, and so on.
None of it worked particularly well, but I did get a prize or two.

Yikes. Give up P-day. Now, that is commitment!

[djinwa]

I've visited the forum a few times but never posted but wanted to share some thoughts about what i think is going on here.

I've enjoyed reading the many contributions thus far. Children vary. They vary in many many ways. Some mature at a young age, others are still have that zany character when there 30. As such being prepared to serve a mission and deal with the rigour and hardworking affects them in different ways. IMO it is no different than asking distance runners to become football players, they bring different attributes, so it takes a while to get them molded in a way that will help them deal with it. So all i'd say on this is, that perhaps (just my opinion) we should be in less of a rush to send our children on missions at the first instance but try to prepare them to go at the right time through prayer and discussions with local leaders. For some that could be as soon as they hit that birthday, for others it could be a few years after.

The other factors that come in to this i think are the changes in the world at large, and the changes in our own LDS world. Consider:

1. When i served a mission there was no internet, no mobile phones, no Skype, video games were all platforms played in an arcade or on a basic home console. Today, technology has changed the world from my youth. My son (he's 9) has a console and plays games with his friends with them chatting online all the time. He has an ipad etc, and we keep it secure from things like porn risk. But the way kids socialise has changed a lot.

Facebook came along and now kids are concerned with 'likes' how popular they are has taken a different form and they share information very quickly with one another.

My 9 year old isn't on Facebook but he's very adept with an iPad and with google. I see this skill in lots of kids. My youngest can pick up a phone go online and looks for answers to times table questions!!! Seeing how skilled she was at doing that surprised me. They take it for granted that they simply type the question and bam, answers.

Community now isn't just our street, or our town, it is worldwide. You can have cousins in Germany or Iowa and they can chat all the time so information and experiences are shared rapidly.

2. The world is different culturally. There was a time when pretty much everyone went to a church of sorts or if they didn't classed themselves as a believer of sorts with some gripe about organised religion. Today that is gone. Although some locations still have high church attendance in places like Ireland church attendance has fallen off greatly in the catholic church owing to the priests scandal and the adoption scandal.

Today kids learn about evolution, they learn about quick answers via computers, and they see science in the classroom with the smartest people on the planet being scientists and basing things on 'proof'. Everything is rapid, immediate, tangible, usually available as a video on youtube.

3. Changes in Church circles - In my earlier years i didn't know a single less active. Today i know more less actives than actives (I was EQ president so visited a lot). The reasons for leaving vary, but 20 years ago, people went less active for (IMO) to reasons - they weren't bothered enough to show up - motivated by church, or they had an issue like smoking. Today, the most common thing i see is church history being the thing. The difference now is, the people leaving are not the lazy or the never really felt it types but the highly educated and often deeply thoughtful members who traditionally were amongst the strong. Typically they are below 40 years of age and dislike things they discover in LDS history.

As a member there are things that have surprised me. I read on here in an earlier post where someone claims Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy (page 1 or 2 of this thread). Well, i'm not sure where you are getting your facts from but such a claim presents a lot of problems. First, are you saying that Brigham Young invented a false doctrine? If so, how do you explain so many leaders and apostles practicing it afterwards?

Then i'd ask, what about the evidence that Smith was married to other women? The church put out a detailed essay on this on LDS.org here

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marri ... o?lang=eng

So you can see this is from our church. So unless you are arguing that modern church leaders are lying about this stuff or somehow deceived by Satan then i fail to see how you can claim plural marriage is a fiction or a mistake?

But my main point is, this type of information can surprise people since we - all of us - live in a different time. We don't pump water from the well, we turn on the faucet. We don't smoke our meat and keep it in a cool room we buy it from a store and put it in the fridge. Our world is different from that 200 years ago, and our sensibilities are different as a result. Many past practices we can't relate too but they are there.

If you look at the figures and compare them to the rise of the internet i bet you'll see that people no longer join or leave in a manner that mirrors that growth and the growth of information about church history. Not sure how many of you have read Richard Lyman Bushman's book, Rough Stone Rolling, but it is a fascinating account of early LDS history by a Church Historian. Now some of the things there are like pumping water from the well, not what we're used to. And to kids and people outside i think it could be a whole new level of uncomfortable. They want quick google answers, a yes or no now, not built on prayer over years and pondering and waiting.

My Sister left the church after reading the ces letter - something she googled and downloaded to read after chatting with one of th moms at playgroup who had left with her husband. She read it and went to my parents with a lot of questions about 'why wasn't i told about this or that', and i looked at the letter. I took was surprised at how much i did not know but i was better read on church history so more prepared. Today kids can go online, google CES letter and read it and bam, they don't know how to deal with it. It's not some much that it lies - gone are the days of crass anti mormon rubbish put out by evangelists, the res thing is just church history presented like a bucket of ice water so it kind of shocks because most of it is new, and when they check it out and find out some of it is factual it raises questions like my sisters about why she was never told and she feels deceived and leaves.

It was Apostle M Russel Ballard that stated we have a duty to know the church essays like the back of our hand, yet when i brought this up in Sunday School most members had never heard of them.

So today, kids are different, technology and community is different, pressures are different, and the information out there is something we've not prepared ourselves for - we're caught on the back foot. That is why imo people are coming home early because non members can google church history and it is a lot stronger a drink than the missionary discussions, too strong too fast - so no baptism. Missionaries are disturbed by this information because they're not ready. And members discover this like my sister and they feel they've not been told, so trust is lost.

All these things make for trials that the church will adapt too and come out stronger, but in the meantime adapting is the hard part. It means learning from our mistakes and coming up with revelation on how to meet these challenges head on.

Well said! We are in a different world. Harder for churches to control the information to which their members are exposed. After all, look at the discussions on this site. Many of them would not be allowed in Sunday School.