Church Growth Rate, Latest Statistics

[h_p]

Hope I didn't come across as implying anything negative about what you said, Lizzy. Someone here was saying the move to smaller wards/stakes might be an attempt to fluff our numbers. I have no evidence of it, but either way, it's a snoozer of an issue for me. I'm more concerned about how the church seems to be more like Alma 4:10 these days.

BTW, our stake split last summer, only 3 years after splitting previously. I never heard any reasoning behind it like your SP gave, so I had just assumed it was because the Austin area was growing so much.

[Lizzy60]

Hope I didn't come across as implying anything negative about what you said, Lizzy. Someone here was saying the move to smaller wards/stakes might be an attempt to fluff our numbers. I have no evidence of it, but either way, it's a snoozer of an issue for me. I'm more concerned about how the church seems to be more like Alma 4:10 these days.

BTW, our stake split last summer, only 3 years after splitting previously. I never heard any reasoning behind it like your SP gave, so I had just assumed it was because the Austin area was growing so much.

I didn't think you implied anything negative. And about Alma 4:10 --- I believe many LDS are going to be surprised at how prophetic the Book of Mormon is about our day, and not in a particularly good way. Look at the arguments over Mormon 8:38, and who the Holy Church of God refers to.

[Silver Pie]

Spoken like someone who really has no idea what it's like. If you're willing to take some advice here, I'd beg you not to tell these kinds of things to someone who truly is suffering from depression. Telling them they're just "feeling down" and should just "snap out of it" or "have more faith" only makes it worse. I know people mean well, but a person really can't understand it until they've been through it themselves.

Amen to this. Depression, real depression, is a hole that is almost impossible to pull out of - and it can be fatal (suicide).

[shadow]

What was this depression? In my mind, in most cases nothing. Yes, there is a rare chemical depression, but most cases of depression are self induced and are simply a matter of 'feeling down'.

Spoken like someone who really has no idea what it's like. If you're willing to take some advice here, I'd beg you not to tell these kinds of things to someone who truly is suffering from depression. Telling them they're just "feeling down" and should just "snap out of it" or "have more faith" only makes it worse. I know people mean well, but a person really can't understand it until they've been through it themselves.

I agree with justdan. "Most cases" - not all cases.
President Hinckley mentioned that while on his mission he was down and his dad told him to get to work. Good advice.

[h_p]

I can't blame ya'll for thinking that way, I guess. It's what I used to believe, until I got to know some people intimately who have been suffering from it for decades. I now believe that depression and other mental illnesses are THE biggest spiritual challenge a person can be given in this life. Nothing else even comes close. I really do hope you will be willing to set aside your beliefs about this some day, and open your minds to understanding.

I'm not talking about people having a "down" day. We all have that now and then. I'm talking about the chronic kinds that can literally cripple your life, cause you to doubt everything, and make it nearly impossible to feel God's love.

[Joel]

This blog has some discussion about the latest statistics: https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/

[Robin Hood]

This blog has some discussion about the latest statistics: https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/

That website clearly has some duff information.
It lists significant growth (in excess of 10%, over 3000 people) for Ireland.
There has been very little, if any, growth in Ireland.

[Darren]

Regarding the relationship of missionaries serving, missionary ages, and church growth it would help to understand traditional, lost tribes of Israel culture and teachings in this area. So here I go:

According to the available Scriptures of the lost tribes of Israel, the traditional role of what we call a missionary today is what would be the role of "The National Guard" - to go forth from the goodly society to both protect and provide opportunities for growth and expansion.

One of the ancient Church Headquarters of the "Band" of lost tribes of Israel was the ancient Hanseatic City of London.

When the young men took their oaths in one of the four Inns of the London Temple, they then were charged with the "National Guard" role.

Temple Bar served as a boundary marker for that society in London.


Temple Bar Memorial built in 1880 by Sir Horace Jones

Temple Bar - principal ceremonial entrance to the City of London - built in 1670 by Sir Christopher Wren

Since 450 A.D. the purpose and location of Temple Bar was traditionally a guarded entrance to the Hanseatic City of London

London Temple built by the Knights Templar in 1185 near the original temple site dating from about 450 A.D.

The Hansa - The Goodly Society based upon Ancestral Law, originally based in Odense upon the Danish Island of Fyn.

And as I have said many times before, this role of National Guard and the expansion of the goodly society was never the role or job of the sisters, and this obligation upon the young men was not intended to put an undue burden upon a young man not ready or able to serve.

From this historical perspective it would be well for the Church to put back up the ages for service of 19 for the men and 21 for the sisters. Instead of bending to the will of the world in gender issues.

Looks to me as if we have not been tending to our own boundaries, and barricade from the influences of the world.

God Bless,
Darren

[samizdat]

Ldschurchgrowthblogspot.com is not duff Robinhood. Ireland with 10 percent growth would be something like 350 baptisms in a year.

Might be refugees or simply statistical noise.

[Robin Hood]

Ldschurchgrowthblogspot.com is not duff Robinhood. Ireland with 10 percent growth would be something like 350 baptisms in a year.

Might be refugees or simply statistical noise.

There is absolutely no way there was 350 baptisms in Ireland last year.
Not even close.

[djinwa]

Fascinating how many say just follow the spirit or rely on your testimony of Christ or whatever. So we teach our kids for 18 years to be obedient, and that our leaders are inspired and will not lead us astray, but then when leaders are wrong or abusive, stand your ground? Which is it?

La di da, just follow your feelings, except don't! Mental illness will result. Some are better at blocking out nonsense than others, which is why they cope better.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the influence of the internet. The world in not the same as it was. There is much more information available with but a few clicks. For example, I did not know that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy until I was 38 years old in 1997, from the internet. Somehow they forgot to put that in all the lesson manuals I'd read all my life.

Do a google search on Mormonism and the second entry is Recovery from Mormonism. How does that work when investigators can read that, and elders, too? I could see more depression if you are fed that info daily by people you contact.

There are legitimate problems with doctrine and history the church will have to address. They have admitted some things in the essays, but they're going to have to go further.

Speaking of the essays, this statement is a problem:
"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng&old=true

[RAB]

Fascinating how many say just follow the spirit or rely on your testimony of Christ or whatever. So we teach our kids for 18 years to be obedient, and that our leaders are inspired and will not lead us astray, but then when leaders are wrong or abusive, stand your ground? Which is it?

La di da, just follow your feelings, except don't! Mental illness will result. Some are better at blocking out nonsense than others, which is why they cope better.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the influence of the internet. The world in not the same as it was. There is much more information available with but a few clicks. For example, I did not know that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy until I was 38 years old in 1997, from the internet. Somehow they forgot to put that in all the lesson manuals I'd read all my life.

Do a google search on Mormonism and the second entry is Recovery from Mormonism. How does that work when investigators can read that, and elders, too? I could see more depression if you are fed that info daily by people you contact.

There are legitimate problems with doctrine and history the church will have to address. They have admitted some things in the essays, but they're going to have to go further.

Speaking of the essays, this statement is a problem:
"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng&old=true

I don't really have a problem with the statement. God works with imperfect human beings that said some things that are, in fact, sometimes racist by today's standards, but were probably considered mainstream during their times. Even Joseph Smith struggled with the main moral issue of his day, what to do about slavery. If you read Church history, you see him fall in line with the other Christian denominations of the time and cite the Old Testament as justification of slavery since the Lord gives instructions on how to treat slaves. However, over time his position evolved until eventually he was against slavery, but sought a peaceful solution...have the federal government use the treasury to buy the slaves freedom. I must admit, than when I started dating my future wife, a Japanese American, I wondered if I had violated some divine principle, because I had read the statements you are referring to from leaders in earlier decades. However, read in context, it was clear to me that their statements, like Bruce R. McKonkie's about skin color in Mormon Doctrine, was not doctrine, since it fails the definition of doctrine (not found in the scriptures, nor routinely taught by the Bretheren). Instead, I took the statements about marriage as given in the context of reducing as many challenges to marriage as possible. For example, along with advice against interracial marriage, there was also advice not to marry outside of your own economic circumstance. I have seen how those raised with different standards of living can struggle early on in marriage (though I would advise them to understand that they are going to see how to spend money differently--not to avoid marriage). Likewise, marriage between different races can be complicated if they are also different cultures. My wife, though she is Japanese American, was raised essentially in the same culture I was, and the few things she did have from Japanese culture were neat to learn about. None of her siblings married Asians, and most of her cousins also married white people. One was even accused of being a banana by other Asians in high school--yellow on the outside, but white on the inside. The point is, the advice, in the time it was given, may have had more to do with trying to blend two cultures that were very different in a marriage than the color of ones skin or physical features. So, during the times the advice was given (IIRC, 50s-70s) interracial marriage probably did bring on some unwelcome stress to marriage, as did marrying outside of similar economic circumstances. But, by the time I was married in 2001, it was no big deal. I believe our society is much more open about learning form other cultures, marrying from different economic statuses, etc. than it has been in the past. So, while well-meaning leaders may have shared what they felt was sound advice to relieve pressures of marriage during their times, none of that was doctrine. All that statement is saying is that no racism is part of the Lord's plan, nor has it ever been. But God still works with imperfect people, for which I am grateful. If he can work with imperfect people in positions as prophets, apostles, 70s, etc. then he can also work with me. I think it is important to remember we were promised that the Church, as a whole, would never be led into apostasy...not that our leaders would be perfect or never make mistakes.

[francisco.colaco]

Here's a comparison of the number of new converts per new ward created each year (new converts / new wards) since 2001:
2001: 1927
2002: 5542.8
2003: 2805.4
2004: 671.1
2005: 683.6
2006: 793.1
2007: 924.4
2008: 1115.3
2009: 1004.3
2010: 1299.2
2011: 2499
2012: 1483.2
2013: 1253.4
2014: 788.9
2015: 662.9
2016: 861.9

The last 3 years seems to be trending toward smaller wards, if this ratio has any meaning at all, but I suspect this ratio has as much to do with distribution of new converts as it does a change in desired ward size.

The Church also grows through NATURAL growth. Something I was told we Mormons are very good at performing.

[Rensai]

Fascinating how many say just follow the spirit or rely on your testimony of Christ or whatever. So we teach our kids for 18 years to be obedient, and that our leaders are inspired and will not lead us astray, but then when leaders are wrong or abusive, stand your ground? Which is it?

La di da, just follow your feelings, except don't! Mental illness will result. Some are better at blocking out nonsense than others, which is why they cope better.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the influence of the internet. The world in not the same as it was. There is much more information available with but a few clicks. For example, I did not know that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy until I was 38 years old in 1997, from the internet. Somehow they forgot to put that in all the lesson manuals I'd read all my life.

Do a google search on Mormonism and the second entry is Recovery from Mormonism. How does that work when investigators can read that, and elders, too? I could see more depression if you are fed that info daily by people you contact.

There are legitimate problems with doctrine and history the church will have to address. They have admitted some things in the essays, but they're going to have to go further.

Speaking of the essays, this statement is a problem:
"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng&old=true

I don't really have a problem with the statement. God works with imperfect human beings that said some things that are, in fact, sometimes racist by today's standards, but were probably considered mainstream during their times. Even Joseph Smith struggled with the main moral issue of his day, what to do about slavery. If you read Church history, you see him fall in line with the other Christian denominations of the time and cite the Old Testament as justification of slavery since the Lord gives instructions on how to treat slaves. However, over time his position evolved until eventually he was against slavery, but sought a peaceful solution...have the federal government use the treasury to buy the slaves freedom. I must admit, than when I started dating my future wife, a Japanese American, I wondered if I had violated some divine principle, because I had read the statements you are referring to from leaders in earlier decades. However, read in context, it was clear to me that their statements, like Bruce R. McKonkie's about skin color in Mormon Doctrine, was not doctrine, since it fails the definition of doctrine (not found in the scriptures, nor routinely taught by the Bretheren). Instead, I took the statements about marriage as given in the context of reducing as many challenges to marriage as possible. For example, along with advice against interracial marriage, there was also advice not to marry outside of your own economic circumstance. I have seen how those raised with different standards of living can struggle early on in marriage (though I would advise them to understand that they are going to see how to spend money differently--not to avoid marriage). Likewise, marriage between different races can be complicated if they are also different cultures. My wife, though she is Japanese American, was raised essentially in the same culture I was, and the few things she did have from Japanese culture were neat to learn about. None of her siblings married Asians, and most of her cousins also married white people. One was even accused of being a banana by other Asians in high school--yellow on the outside, but white on the inside. The point is, the advice, in the time it was given, may have had more to do with trying to blend two cultures that were very different in a marriage than the color of ones skin or physical features. So, during the times the advice was given (IIRC, 50s-70s) interracial marriage probably did bring on some unwelcome stress to marriage, as did marrying outside of similar economic circumstances. But, by the time I was married in 2001, it was no big deal. I believe our society is much more open about learning form other cultures, marrying from different economic statuses, etc. than it has been in the past. So, while well-meaning leaders may have shared what they felt was sound advice to relieve pressures of marriage during their times, none of that was doctrine. All that statement is saying is that no racism is part of the Lord's plan, nor has it ever been. But God still works with imperfect people, for which I am grateful. If he can work with imperfect people in positions as prophets, apostles, 70s, etc. then he can also work with me. I think it is important to remember we were promised that the Church, as a whole, would never be led into apostasy...not that our leaders would be perfect or never make mistakes.

I think you're overlooking the two biggest issues with that statement. First, skin color is mentioned as a curse in the BoM and PoGP. Disavowing "theories that skin color is a curse" is a direct rejection of scriptures that state exactly that. I'll list some below. The second big problem is that up til about the 1970's or 1980's basically every church leader made racist statements, so were they all leading us astray? Those are both big problems.

2 Nephi 5:21

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a SKIN OF BLACKNESS to come upon them."


Jacob 3:5

"Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the CURSING WHICH HATH COME UPON THEIR SKINS, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them."


Jacob 3:8

"O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their SKINS WILL BE WHITER than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God."

Jacob 3:9

"Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the DARKNESS OF THEIR SKINS; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers."


Alma 3:6

"And the SKINS OF THE LAMANITES WERE DARK, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."


3 Nephi 2:15

"And their curse was taken from them, and their SKIN BECAME WHITE like unto the Nephites;"

". . . there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people . . . (Moses 7:8)."

"And . . . they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them (Moses 7:22)."

". . . from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land (Abraham 1:24)."

"Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, . . . Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, . . . but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

"Now, Pharaoh being of the lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, . . . (Abraham 1:26-27)."

[RAB]

Fascinating how many say just follow the spirit or rely on your testimony of Christ or whatever. So we teach our kids for 18 years to be obedient, and that our leaders are inspired and will not lead us astray, but then when leaders are wrong or abusive, stand your ground? Which is it?

La di da, just follow your feelings, except don't! Mental illness will result. Some are better at blocking out nonsense than others, which is why they cope better.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the influence of the internet. The world in not the same as it was. There is much more information available with but a few clicks. For example, I did not know that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy until I was 38 years old in 1997, from the internet. Somehow they forgot to put that in all the lesson manuals I'd read all my life.

Do a google search on Mormonism and the second entry is Recovery from Mormonism. How does that work when investigators can read that, and elders, too? I could see more depression if you are fed that info daily by people you contact.

There are legitimate problems with doctrine and history the church will have to address. They have admitted some things in the essays, but they're going to have to go further.

Speaking of the essays, this statement is a problem:
"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng&old=true

I don't really have a problem with the statement. God works with imperfect human beings that said some things that are, in fact, sometimes racist by today's standards, but were probably considered mainstream during their times. Even Joseph Smith struggled with the main moral issue of his day, what to do about slavery. If you read Church history, you see him fall in line with the other Christian denominations of the time and cite the Old Testament as justification of slavery since the Lord gives instructions on how to treat slaves. However, over time his position evolved until eventually he was against slavery, but sought a peaceful solution...have the federal government use the treasury to buy the slaves freedom. I must admit, than when I started dating my future wife, a Japanese American, I wondered if I had violated some divine principle, because I had read the statements you are referring to from leaders in earlier decades. However, read in context, it was clear to me that their statements, like Bruce R. McKonkie's about skin color in Mormon Doctrine, was not doctrine, since it fails the definition of doctrine (not found in the scriptures, nor routinely taught by the Bretheren). Instead, I took the statements about marriage as given in the context of reducing as many challenges to marriage as possible. For example, along with advice against interracial marriage, there was also advice not to marry outside of your own economic circumstance. I have seen how those raised with different standards of living can struggle early on in marriage (though I would advise them to understand that they are going to see how to spend money differently--not to avoid marriage). Likewise, marriage between different races can be complicated if they are also different cultures. My wife, though she is Japanese American, was raised essentially in the same culture I was, and the few things she did have from Japanese culture were neat to learn about. None of her siblings married Asians, and most of her cousins also married white people. One was even accused of being a banana by other Asians in high school--yellow on the outside, but white on the inside. The point is, the advice, in the time it was given, may have had more to do with trying to blend two cultures that were very different in a marriage than the color of ones skin or physical features. So, during the times the advice was given (IIRC, 50s-70s) interracial marriage probably did bring on some unwelcome stress to marriage, as did marrying outside of similar economic circumstances. But, by the time I was married in 2001, it was no big deal. I believe our society is much more open about learning form other cultures, marrying from different economic statuses, etc. than it has been in the past. So, while well-meaning leaders may have shared what they felt was sound advice to relieve pressures of marriage during their times, none of that was doctrine. All that statement is saying is that no racism is part of the Lord's plan, nor has it ever been. But God still works with imperfect people, for which I am grateful. If he can work with imperfect people in positions as prophets, apostles, 70s, etc. then he can also work with me. I think it is important to remember we were promised that the Church, as a whole, would never be led into apostasy...not that our leaders would be perfect or never make mistakes.

I think you're overlooking the two biggest issues with that statement. First, skin color is mentioned as a curse in the BoM and PoGP. Disavowing "theories that skin color is a curse" is a direct rejection of scriptures that state exactly that. I'll list some below. The second big problem is that up til about the 1970's or 1980's basically every church leader made racist statements, so were they all leading us astray? Those are both big problems.

2 Nephi 5:21

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a SKIN OF BLACKNESS to come upon them."


Jacob 3:5

"Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the CURSING WHICH HATH COME UPON THEIR SKINS, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them."


Jacob 3:8

"O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their SKINS WILL BE WHITER than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God."

Jacob 3:9

"Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the DARKNESS OF THEIR SKINS; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers."


Alma 3:6

"And the SKINS OF THE LAMANITES WERE DARK, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."


3 Nephi 2:15

"And their curse was taken from them, and their SKIN BECAME WHITE like unto the Nephites;"

". . . there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people . . . (Moses 7:8)."

"And . . . they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them (Moses 7:22)."

". . . from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land (Abraham 1:24)."

"Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, . . . Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, . . . but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

"Now, Pharaoh being of the lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, . . . (Abraham 1:26-27)."

Very well aware of those scriptures. See https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publ ... -blackness for an explanation that speaks more of the prophets classifying insiders vs. outsiders, rather than an actual change of skin pigmentation as a response. The same explanation applies to the Pearl of Great Price references. So, no, I don't have a problem with the statement as it relates to skin color claims, since that is how the modern reader interprets those scriptures, not necessarily a factual description of skin changing color when written.

Second, I have no problem with the leaders from the 70s making those statements. Remember, after the revelation allowing the Priesthood to all worthy bretheren, Bruce R. McConkie admitted he had made a mistake, and that we had received new revelation on the matter. So, no, some of the leaders (it was not virtually all of them--many pushed much earlier for inclusion of all races in the Priesthood) being incorrect about cursed skin does not bother me because they did not lead the Church into apostasy. Our leaders opinion's about issues that do not pertain to the salvation of mankind could hardly be characterized as leading the Church into apostasy. While I suppose there could be an argument that it did affect the salvation of Blacks prior to 1978, I would argue that it did not, as surely God would not withhold salvation from good brothers and sisters who, through no fault of their own, could not yet receive the ordinances they required...Just like God will not withhold salvation from those people who were refused the gospel by Peter prior to his revelation that the Church should go out to all people in the early days of the Christian church.

[Rensai]

Fascinating how many say just follow the spirit or rely on your testimony of Christ or whatever. So we teach our kids for 18 years to be obedient, and that our leaders are inspired and will not lead us astray, but then when leaders are wrong or abusive, stand your ground? Which is it?

La di da, just follow your feelings, except don't! Mental illness will result. Some are better at blocking out nonsense than others, which is why they cope better.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the influence of the internet. The world in not the same as it was. There is much more information available with but a few clicks. For example, I did not know that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy until I was 38 years old in 1997, from the internet. Somehow they forgot to put that in all the lesson manuals I'd read all my life.

Do a google search on Mormonism and the second entry is Recovery from Mormonism. How does that work when investigators can read that, and elders, too? I could see more depression if you are fed that info daily by people you contact.

There are legitimate problems with doctrine and history the church will have to address. They have admitted some things in the essays, but they're going to have to go further.

Speaking of the essays, this statement is a problem:
"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng&old=true

I don't really have a problem with the statement. God works with imperfect human beings that said some things that are, in fact, sometimes racist by today's standards, but were probably considered mainstream during their times. Even Joseph Smith struggled with the main moral issue of his day, what to do about slavery. If you read Church history, you see him fall in line with the other Christian denominations of the time and cite the Old Testament as justification of slavery since the Lord gives instructions on how to treat slaves. However, over time his position evolved until eventually he was against slavery, but sought a peaceful solution...have the federal government use the treasury to buy the slaves freedom. I must admit, than when I started dating my future wife, a Japanese American, I wondered if I had violated some divine principle, because I had read the statements you are referring to from leaders in earlier decades. However, read in context, it was clear to me that their statements, like Bruce R. McKonkie's about skin color in Mormon Doctrine, was not doctrine, since it fails the definition of doctrine (not found in the scriptures, nor routinely taught by the Bretheren). Instead, I took the statements about marriage as given in the context of reducing as many challenges to marriage as possible. For example, along with advice against interracial marriage, there was also advice not to marry outside of your own economic circumstance. I have seen how those raised with different standards of living can struggle early on in marriage (though I would advise them to understand that they are going to see how to spend money differently--not to avoid marriage). Likewise, marriage between different races can be complicated if they are also different cultures. My wife, though she is Japanese American, was raised essentially in the same culture I was, and the few things she did have from Japanese culture were neat to learn about. None of her siblings married Asians, and most of her cousins also married white people. One was even accused of being a banana by other Asians in high school--yellow on the outside, but white on the inside. The point is, the advice, in the time it was given, may have had more to do with trying to blend two cultures that were very different in a marriage than the color of ones skin or physical features. So, during the times the advice was given (IIRC, 50s-70s) interracial marriage probably did bring on some unwelcome stress to marriage, as did marrying outside of similar economic circumstances. But, by the time I was married in 2001, it was no big deal. I believe our society is much more open about learning form other cultures, marrying from different economic statuses, etc. than it has been in the past. So, while well-meaning leaders may have shared what they felt was sound advice to relieve pressures of marriage during their times, none of that was doctrine. All that statement is saying is that no racism is part of the Lord's plan, nor has it ever been. But God still works with imperfect people, for which I am grateful. If he can work with imperfect people in positions as prophets, apostles, 70s, etc. then he can also work with me. I think it is important to remember we were promised that the Church, as a whole, would never be led into apostasy...not that our leaders would be perfect or never make mistakes.

I think you're overlooking the two biggest issues with that statement. First, skin color is mentioned as a curse in the BoM and PoGP. Disavowing "theories that skin color is a curse" is a direct rejection of scriptures that state exactly that. I'll list some below. The second big problem is that up til about the 1970's or 1980's basically every church leader made racist statements, so were they all leading us astray? Those are both big problems.

2 Nephi 5:21

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a SKIN OF BLACKNESS to come upon them."


Jacob 3:5

"Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the CURSING WHICH HATH COME UPON THEIR SKINS, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them."


Jacob 3:8

"O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their SKINS WILL BE WHITER than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God."

Jacob 3:9

"Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the DARKNESS OF THEIR SKINS; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers."


Alma 3:6

"And the SKINS OF THE LAMANITES WERE DARK, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."


3 Nephi 2:15

"And their curse was taken from them, and their SKIN BECAME WHITE like unto the Nephites;"

". . . there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people . . . (Moses 7:8)."

"And . . . they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them (Moses 7:22)."

". . . from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land (Abraham 1:24)."

"Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, . . . Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, . . . but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

"Now, Pharaoh being of the lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, . . . (Abraham 1:26-27)."

Very well aware of those scriptures. See https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publ ... -blackness for an explanation that speaks more of the prophets classifying insiders vs. outsiders, rather than an actual change of skin pigmentation as a response. The same explanation applies to the Pearl of Great Price references. So, no, I don't have a problem with the statement as it relates to skin color claims, since that is how the modern reader interprets those scriptures, not necessarily a factual description of skin changing color when written.

Second, I have no problem with the leaders from the 70s making those statements. Remember, after the revelation allowing the Priesthood to all worthy bretheren, Bruce R. McConkie admitted he had made a mistake, and that we had received new revelation on the matter. So, no, some of the leaders (it was not virtually all of them--many pushed much earlier for inclusion of all races in the Priesthood) being incorrect about cursed skin does not bother me because they did not lead the Church into apostasy. Our leaders opinion's about issues that do not pertain to the salvation of mankind could hardly be characterized as leading the Church into apostasy. While I suppose there could be an argument that it did affect the salvation of Blacks prior to 1978, I would argue that it did not, as surely God would not withhold salvation from good brothers and sisters who, through no fault of their own, could not yet receive the ordinances they required...Just like God will not withhold salvation from those people who were refused the gospel by Peter prior to his revelation that the Church should go out to all people in the early days of the Christian church.

Well, if you want to wrest the scriptures and disregard the plain reading and interpretation Joseph Smith gave, then I won't waste my time trying to debate that. But regardless, even if you're willing to do that, many others are not, so the statement IS a problem for many.

[Serragon]

Fascinating how many say just follow the spirit or rely on your testimony of Christ or whatever. So we teach our kids for 18 years to be obedient, and that our leaders are inspired and will not lead us astray, but then when leaders are wrong or abusive, stand your ground? Which is it?

La di da, just follow your feelings, except don't! Mental illness will result. Some are better at blocking out nonsense than others, which is why they cope better.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the influence of the internet. The world in not the same as it was. There is much more information available with but a few clicks. For example, I did not know that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy until I was 38 years old in 1997, from the internet. Somehow they forgot to put that in all the lesson manuals I'd read all my life.

Do a google search on Mormonism and the second entry is Recovery from Mormonism. How does that work when investigators can read that, and elders, too? I could see more depression if you are fed that info daily by people you contact.

There are legitimate problems with doctrine and history the church will have to address. They have admitted some things in the essays, but they're going to have to go further.

Speaking of the essays, this statement is a problem:
"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng&old=true

I don't really have a problem with the statement. God works with imperfect human beings that said some things that are, in fact, sometimes racist by today's standards, but were probably considered mainstream during their times. Even Joseph Smith struggled with the main moral issue of his day, what to do about slavery. If you read Church history, you see him fall in line with the other Christian denominations of the time and cite the Old Testament as justification of slavery since the Lord gives instructions on how to treat slaves. However, over time his position evolved until eventually he was against slavery, but sought a peaceful solution...have the federal government use the treasury to buy the slaves freedom. I must admit, than when I started dating my future wife, a Japanese American, I wondered if I had violated some divine principle, because I had read the statements you are referring to from leaders in earlier decades. However, read in context, it was clear to me that their statements, like Bruce R. McKonkie's about skin color in Mormon Doctrine, was not doctrine, since it fails the definition of doctrine (not found in the scriptures, nor routinely taught by the Bretheren). Instead, I took the statements about marriage as given in the context of reducing as many challenges to marriage as possible. For example, along with advice against interracial marriage, there was also advice not to marry outside of your own economic circumstance. I have seen how those raised with different standards of living can struggle early on in marriage (though I would advise them to understand that they are going to see how to spend money differently--not to avoid marriage). Likewise, marriage between different races can be complicated if they are also different cultures. My wife, though she is Japanese American, was raised essentially in the same culture I was, and the few things she did have from Japanese culture were neat to learn about. None of her siblings married Asians, and most of her cousins also married white people. One was even accused of being a banana by other Asians in high school--yellow on the outside, but white on the inside. The point is, the advice, in the time it was given, may have had more to do with trying to blend two cultures that were very different in a marriage than the color of ones skin or physical features. So, during the times the advice was given (IIRC, 50s-70s) interracial marriage probably did bring on some unwelcome stress to marriage, as did marrying outside of similar economic circumstances. But, by the time I was married in 2001, it was no big deal. I believe our society is much more open about learning form other cultures, marrying from different economic statuses, etc. than it has been in the past. So, while well-meaning leaders may have shared what they felt was sound advice to relieve pressures of marriage during their times, none of that was doctrine. All that statement is saying is that no racism is part of the Lord's plan, nor has it ever been. But God still works with imperfect people, for which I am grateful. If he can work with imperfect people in positions as prophets, apostles, 70s, etc. then he can also work with me. I think it is important to remember we were promised that the Church, as a whole, would never be led into apostasy...not that our leaders would be perfect or never make mistakes.

This is a great explanation. The only problem is that is simply your own reasoning attempting to reconcile past and current positions. This is what we all must do as the Church has not ever explained why we have shifted on so many things. They also have never explained why todays position are correct and authoritative while yesterdays was not.

There is no explanation for the Church's position on racism. Currently the Church claims all racism is wrong. Previously they claimed it was divine. If past prophets were a product of their times then what assurance do I have that current prophets are not also a product of their times? It appears that our changing positions mirror the changing positions of the world. The same questions can be asked about a myriad of topics like birth control, marriage, and homosexuality.

Positions keep changing without any explanation for previous positions, while at the same time being told to follow the General Authorities as they will not lead you astray.

I personally believe racism to be wrong. But I must admit that I have no clue what God's actual position about race is. I feel much like Joseph Smith when he wrote "for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible." Only in this case, the teachers of the different sects are our prophets from different generations.

[Silver]

Line upon line. Precept upon precept.

I'm not shaken one bit. Joseph saw God and Jesus in the grove. The Book of Mormon is true. There is nowhere else to go.

[Serragon]

Line upon line. Precept upon precept.

Line upon line is a building up. You must build upon previous precepts. Kingdoms of Heaven, Sealing, Eternal marriage are all examples of this idea of building upon previous revelation.

What has been happening is a deletion and rewriting of lines. Precepts have been removed and replaced with others with no explanation.

[Silver]

Line upon line. Precept upon precept.

Line upon line is a building up. You must build upon previous precepts. Kingdoms of Heaven, Sealing, Eternal marriage are all examples of this idea of building upon previous revelation.

What has been happening is a deletion and rewriting of lines. Precepts have been removed and replaced with others with no explanation.

It does seem confusing. As for me though, I have had wonderful revelatory experiences that assure me the Gospel is true and the closest thing on Earth to God's will for us. Thus, in spite of any issues, there is nowhere else to go.

[Serragon]

Line upon line. Precept upon precept.

Line upon line is a building up. You must build upon previous precepts. Kingdoms of Heaven, Sealing, Eternal marriage are all examples of this idea of building upon previous revelation.

What has been happening is a deletion and rewriting of lines. Precepts have been removed and replaced with others with no explanation.

It does seem confusing. As for me though, I have had wonderful revelatory experiences that assure me the Gospel is true and the closest thing on Earth to God's will for us. Thus, in spite of any issues, there is nowhere else to go.

THanks Silver. I too have a firm testimony in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. But I am still confused about all of this. My personal belief system is in line with our current church teachings. But I often wonder if I'm not just a "product of my times".

[Silver]

Line upon line. Precept upon precept.

Line upon line is a building up. You must build upon previous precepts. Kingdoms of Heaven, Sealing, Eternal marriage are all examples of this idea of building upon previous revelation.

What has been happening is a deletion and rewriting of lines. Precepts have been removed and replaced with others with no explanation.

It does seem confusing. As for me though, I have had wonderful revelatory experiences that assure me the Gospel is true and the closest thing on Earth to God's will for us. Thus, in spite of any issues, there is nowhere else to go.

THanks Silver. I too have a firm testimony in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. But I am still confused about all of this. My personal belief system is in line with our current church teachings. But I often wonder if I'm not just a "product of my times".

Can you imagine what it must have been like to live in the time of Christ as one of His followers? Judas betrayed Him. Peter denied Him. And then He died. There must have been many disciples who were shaken to their core. Then came the glorious resurrection. We'll have an experience like that too some day, although it appears we're going to have to wait more than three days for that day to get here.

[RAB]

The idea that seems to be at play here is that the doctrine as recorded in the scriptures and related by our Prophets and Apostles must be perfect. People seem to be linking not being led astray and truthfulness with perfection. So I pose a question. Is it possible to continue on the Lord's path and be saved, even if some things taught by the Prophets, Apostles, or in the scriptures are not perfectly accurate? To that I would answer a resounding yes. We can do all that is necessary in this life for salvation and continued progression even if some things we are taught not quite accurate. We can have faith, repent, receive all of the necessary ordinances, and continue progressing. 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. We were never promised our leaders would be perfect, only that they would not lead us into apostasy. That means at times, they may share opinions that are not totally accurate. When it becomes important to correct those inaccuracies, the Lord will do so by revelation, even if it means correcting the imperfections of previous prophets as recorded in the scriptures.

This Church is the only one with a complete picture of the plan of salvation, with the keys, power, and authority to carry out the saving ordinances. Whatever doctrinal confusions we may have, or things we don't quite understand yet, this is the Lord's true Church, guided by inspired, though imperfect men. None of those imperfections undercut the truthfulness of eternal gospel principles, the plan of salvation, or the keys, power and authority to carry out the saving ordinances. If we are expecting perfection in how doctrine is taught and recorded in scriptures, then that doctrine must be taught and recorded by perfect beings. Is it blasphemy to say that the Book of Mormon is not perfect? No, even the prophets writing it admitted their imperfections. Surely they did not record everything with 100 percent precision as it happened, but from their point of view. Joseph Smith said it was the most correct book, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book. Notice he did not say it is perfect. How can it contain imperfections and still be true? I don't think the Holy Ghost testifies that what was said by Nehor, Ammoron in his epistle to Captain Moroni, Zeezrom (pre-repentance), Korihor, or Laman and Lemuel is true. I believe Moroni's promise is that we can know that the Book of Mormon is truly of ancient origin and is written by prophets inspired by God, and contains eternal gospel principles...not that everything contained therein is perfect. Likewise with the Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, etc. We can know the source from whence it was received is from God, though some of it may have been muddied up a little by imperfect human beings. Notice even Christ said the Church was the only true and living Church with which He was well pleased. He did not say it was perfect.

So, at times, our leaders have to strip away some of the previous imperfections of others when we are ready for more light and knowledge. This is the very process Brigham Young talked about and Joseph Smith approved...even if what was taught by current leaders contradicted that taught by previous leaders in the scriptures. But, I ask, what eternal doctrine of any significance has been changed from what we find in the scriptures? Faith? Repentance? The need for baptism by immersion or confirmation by the laying on of hands by those in authority? The only changes I have witnessed in the church are either clarifications of previous speculation or changes in policy, practices, or procedures, which the Lord may change depending on what is best for His people at the time. The eternal doctrine and principles found in the scriptures and taught by God's anointed have not changed and will not change. It is those things that we shall not wrest, lest we come under condemnation.

I should add that I believe the errors that may be recorded in scripture and taught as speculative doctrine are few and far between. There is way more that is taught and recorded that is right than errors that have slipped in through man's imperfection.

[Silver]

Bravo! Well written, RAB.

As you said, the Book of Mormon certainly contains errors, as its authors admit. None of the mistakes are regarding doctrinal issues though. It is the "most correct book," not the perfect book. Still, it's my favorite book and the only one I have read dozens of times.

[RAB]

Bravo! Well written, RAB.

As you said, the Book of Mormon certainly contains errors, as its authors admit. None of the mistakes are regarding doctrinal issues though. It is the "most correct book," not the perfect book. Still, it's my favorite book and the only one I have read dozens of times.

My favorite book as well. There is no other book that has transformed me or continues to transform me more than the Book of Mormon in trying to abide by the precepts taught therein.