Church to respond to Salt Lake Tribune articles concerning the church’s growth proble

[SoUtSkeptic]

Wednesday, August 31st, Merrill Bateman former president of BYU and current member of the Quorum of Seventy will respond to Salt Lake Trib reporters Matt Canham and Peggy Fletcher-Stack interviews on growth problems.

Program will be on Radio West Weekdays, 11 am to 12 pm and repeated at 7 pm until 8 pm. See http://www.kuer.org

SoUtSkeptic

[why me]

Wednesday, August 31st, Merrill Bateman former president of BYU and current member of the Quorum of Seventy will respond to Salt Lake Trib reporters Matt Canham and Peggy Fletcher-Stack interviews on growth problems.

Program will be on Radio West Weekdays, 11 am to 12 pm and repeated at 7 pm until 8 pm. See http://www.kuer.org

SoUtSkeptic
I will not be able to receive it. Please keep us non-Utahans informed about what was said. I am very interested in what the GA has to say in this matter. Thanks for the info about it. And please keep us informed after the radio program.... :)

[cactus jack]

That is a problem I have with these organized churches. They tell you not to protest on political issues, because it's not respecting authority. Funny thing is, I never voted Bush in to be my babysitter. Hell I didn't even vote for the SOB. I won't hide that I voted for Kerry. And hionestly, looking back through time, WHEN has a republican president been good for America? Only one I can think of is Reagan. The rest have screwed America over good. Bush included!

[why me]

That is a problem I have with these organized churches. They tell you not to protest on political issues, because it's not respecting authority. Funny thing is, I never voted Bush in to be my babysitter. Hell I didn't even vote for the SOB. I won't hide that I voted for Kerry. And hionestly, looking back through time, WHEN has a republican president been good for America? Only one I can think of is Reagan. The rest have screwed America over good. Bush included!
Cactus, I think that you took a wrong turn somewhere with your post...I think that you confused your post with a different thread...
Now lets get that head back on cactus...ready....okay lets lift that head up...now put it just alittle to the left...now right...tighten a screw right there...now it is on for sure...wait...add just a little more glue...PERFECT! Now how is my head? Is it on straight? No!....I didn't think so....where is the mirror....? I think I need some glue....there...now my head is on just right too... now I look like a real smiling guy....with a nice round yellow head...... :) In fact maybe we look like two greenhorns with a great big smile... :D :D ready for some action...Take care, cactus...

[peter_mary]

The Church HAS to address this issue, because the sheep in the pen start getting nervous when it appears that all is not well in Zion. As long as one of the suits can suggest that the paper doesn't know what it's talking about, or that they are trying to run a smear campaign, then the sheep all settle down and start producing more baby sheep again.

FARMS and FAIR often produce the same result. They assure the sheep that the scientific problems of the day have all been resolved, and the sheep don't need to get their woolly coats all in knots over it. The GAs have to address the socio-political issues of the Church.

And the sheep? They just keep paying their tithing to keep the GAs and FARMS cranking out chloroform to keep the sheep anesthetized.

Peter_Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

The Church HAS to address this issue, because the sheep in the pen start getting nervous when it appears that all is not well in Zion. As long as one of the suits can suggest that the paper doesn't know what it's talking about, or that they are trying to run a smear campaign, then the sheep all settle down and start producing more baby sheep again.

FARMS and FAIR often produce the same result. They assure the sheep that the scientific problems of the day have all been resolved, and the sheep don't need to get their woolly coats all in knots over it. The GAs have to address the socio-political issues of the Church.

And the sheep? They just keep paying their tithing to keep the GAs and FARMS cranking out chloroform to keep the sheep anesthetized.

Peter_Mary
I've decided that human nature is such that it's easy to become addicted to a religion -- they need that chloroform and will even lie to themselves to get it. I think there are many similarities between the behavior of an alcoholic and a person addicted to religion.

- denial
- defensiveness
- lashing out at people who try to help them
- cloudy thinking
- false sense of security

I’m sure there are other similarities too. I believe I'm correct in saying that most alcoholic situations include a co-dependent dynamic, like a spouse who makes excuses for the behavior of the alcoholic husband because somehow she needs him to be as he is – it feeds a need in her, like maybe a need to have someone who depends on her -- gives her a purpose in other words. I see Mormonism as a similar co-dependent relationship. The members need the leaders to tell them what to believe and the leaders need the members to tell them how wonderful they are. It works, in that it’s a stable co-dependent relationship, but it sure isn’t healthy!

Jeff

[why me]

The Church HAS to address this issue, because the sheep in the pen start getting nervous when it appears that all is not well in Zion. As long as one of the suits can suggest that the paper doesn't know what it's talking about, or that they are trying to run a smear campaign, then the sheep all settle down and start producing more baby sheep again.

FARMS and FAIR often produce the same result. They assure the sheep that the scientific problems of the day have all been resolved, and the sheep don't need to get their woolly coats all in knots over it. The GAs have to address the socio-political issues of the Church.

And the sheep? They just keep paying their tithing to keep the GAs and FARMS cranking out chloroform to keep the sheep anesthetized.

Peter_Mary
I suppose the question that needs to be asked P_M is: Are you not also a sheep? I think that you are. It is difficult not to be a sheep today. Most of us support whatever the elite puts on our table. Do we actively protest the decisions of the elite? No I don't think so. Most Americans support the elite and the elitist decisions which are made for them without even a critical thought as to whether it is good or bad for them. And I assume you give such unconditional support too. And if not, I will be the first to take my hat off to you. But before we refer to anyone as sheep we need to look into the mirror and question our own sheepish behavior in society. And we also need to ask: Am I sheep or a human being and then critically look at the answer we may give. Are mormons sheep...no I don't think that all mormons are sheep in their religion. But yes I would also say that if all support the current system of elites, then yes they are sheep, just like most members of this forum.

Oh by the way...do you think that you are no longer a sheep because you broke free from the herd? and if not, do you find yourself adopting an elitist position of: I am better than thou approach to your thinking? I am just curious...P_M.

[why me]

I've decided that human nature is such that it's easy to become addicted to a religion -- they need that chloroform and will even lie to themselves to get it. I think there are many similarities between the behavior of an alcoholic and a person addicted to religion.

- denial
- defensiveness
- lashing out at people who try to help them
- cloudy thinking
- false sense of security

I’m sure there are other similarities too. I believe I'm correct in saying that most alcoholic situations include a co-dependent dynamic, like a spouse who makes excuses for the behavior of the alcoholic husband because somehow she needs him to be as he is – it feeds a need in her, like maybe a need to have someone who depends on her -- gives her a purpose in other words. I see Mormonism as a similar co-dependent relationship. The members need the leaders to tell them what to believe and the leaders need the members to tell them how wonderful they are. It works, in that it’s a stable co-dependent relationship, but it sure isn’t healthy!

Jeff
Is not atheism also an addiction? You seem to look down on people who have faith in god. At least it seems this way from your post. But then again what is religion? Perhaps religion is a belief system in which a person sees creation as something outside of himself or herself. Maybe an atheist sees creation as emanating from within himself or herself. Both however can form an addiction but can they form an alliance of connection in making this world a more moral and ethical place to live? Perhaps this is the key to human advancement: To form a bond...a common bond based in principles which uplift the human condition to achieve true creative independence. Marx stated that religion was an opiate designed to give the poor masses a drug to numb the pain of this life. In reality, the human being needed to break from this bond and achieve true independence through collective acts of liberation from a social system which was painful for the vast majority of workers and peasants. And not seek solace in a better life after death in heaven. 'Heaven' was to be achieved on earth, at least this is what Marx stood for through human action and concsiousness. And so why down religionists by saying it is an addiction when your own atheism might be understood to be an addiction? A people united can never be defeated...at least that was one slogan chanted in washington during one of many demonstrations that I attended. Rid ourselves of addiction and concentrate on the problems that afflict the human condition: poverty, low wages, lack of affordable health care, budget cuts, unemployment, drug addiction, risk, insecurity, debt, war etc. Liberation comes when we free ourselves from the addictions given to us by the elite of our societies.

Jeff, do you consider yourself to be superior to believers only because you freed yourself from religious belief? Just a curious question...you were right on about alcoholism... :)

[peter_mary]

I suppose the question that needs to be asked P_M is: Are you not also a sheep? I think that you are. It is difficult not to be a sheep today. Most of us support whatever the elite puts on our table. Do we actively protest the decisions of the elite? No I don't think so. Most Americans support the elite and the elitist decisions which are made for them without even a critical thought as to whether it is good or bad for them. And I assume you give such unconditional support too. And if not, I will be the first to take my hat off to you. But before we refer to anyone as sheep we need to look into the mirror and question our own sheepish behavior in society. And we also need to ask: Am I sheep or a human being and then critically look at the answer we may give. Are mormons sheep...no I don't think that all mormons are sheep in their religion. But yes I would also say that if all support the current system of elites, then yes they are sheep, just like most members of this forum.

Oh by the way...do you think that you are no longer a sheep because you broke free from the herd? and if not, do you find yourself adopting an elitist position of: I am better than thou approach to your thinking? I am just curious...P_M.

Well now, why_me, aren't you the stinker today? :p

Actually, good questions. There are levels upon levels of sheepishness, I suppose, and our goal ought to be to shed as many of those sheepish layers as we can.

Truth be told, I'm not so critical of sheep as I am of shepherds, know what I mean? As you point out, we're all sheep in some regard--how could we really be otherwise? There are some degrees of sheepishness that we haven't learned yet to see. Eurocentric thinking, American idealism, patriotism, the belief that I have what I have because I earned it...all of those are no doubt layered with paradigms I, and others, and even you, have not yet learned to see to the degree that we could. As we study and grow, and we learn (hopefully) at times to see some of our sheepish nature, and in so doing, we afford ourselves the opportunity to shed a layer of wool. Sometimes others have learned to see our sheepishness while we remain blind to it, yet we might have learned to see their sheepishness to which they are also blind.

Still, we don't see all of those layers. I doubt we ever can. And so sheep are not the problem.

And it's tempting to then point to people in positions of authority and declare them the "problem shepherds." But I don't think that's accurate, either. I think the shepherds are broader than that. Jesus, for instance, truly is a "shepherd," because as an ideal, he is disembodied from any one practitioner or leader, and exerts an enormous social pressure to conform to some Christian ideal. Regardless of whether you believe him to be the son of God, God himself, a rabbi, teacher, insurgent, myth, whatever, the ideal of Jesus, and of God, weilds "shepherd power."

Mormon authorities are not really the shepherds, either...they are also sheep. The shepherd is the over-arching paradigm of patriarchal authority, and the belief in a restored gospel with all its attendent rites, rituals and priests. There is no individual shepherd...not even Gordon B. Hinkley. He's just a sheep, too, caught up by the pressure to perform and conform by the greater shepherd of the Mormon paradigm.

Likewise, George W. isn't a shepherd. He's a sheep in several folds, including the conservative Republican fold, the conservative Christian fold, the patriotic American fold, the rabid capitalist fold, etc., and the result is a multi-faceted sheep who happens to weild a lot of influence among the flock. But he's IN the flock, not over 'em. There are other sheep who weild important and significant influence over him. The shepherds are disembodied, living in the collective consciousness of those who are members of the same flock. To be sure, the shepherds have their flunkies, George W. being the main American flunky at the moment... :rolleyes: just as Gordon B. is the main Mormon flunky...

And yes, I'm a sheep...baaaa, baaaa. I am not too proud to acknowledge it. It just happens that I have learned to see the fence posts of the MORMON pen, at least some of them. And I've left the fold. I actively look for fences of the other pens I'm confined by, and welcome ways to break them down. I've recently been reading about the fold of American history to which I have been confined for 42 years, and am beginning to see those fence posts now, too.

I like to think of myself as a sheep with a flamethrower...when I find a fence, I'm gonna burn it down and march out. But I've been around long enough to realize I'll run out of fuel long before I run out of fences.

That help?

Peter_Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

Is not atheism also an addiction? You seem to look down on people who have faith in god. At least it seems this way from your post. But then again what is religion? Perhaps religion is a belief system in which a person sees creation as something outside of himself or herself. Maybe an atheist sees creation as emanating from within himself or herself. Both however can form an addiction but can they form an alliance of connection in making this world a more moral and ethical place to live? Perhaps this is the key to human advancement: To form a bond...a common bond based in principles which uplift the human condition to achieve true creative independence.

You seem to be of the opinion that people can't form the kinds of collective bonds you speak of unless they have a religious belief to bind them. I don't share that same opinion. There are many, many examples in the world where religion has been the cause of social ills, not the cure. I therefore think that the world can do just fine, and even much better, without religion. I realize that not everyone share my opinion.


Marx stated that religion was an opiate designed to give the poor masses a drug to numb the pain of this life. In reality, the human being needed to break from this bond and achieve true independence through collective acts of liberation from a social system which was painful for the vast majority of workers and peasants. And not seek solace in a better life after death in heaven. 'Heaven' was to be achieved on earth, at least this is what Marx stood for through human action and consciousness. And so why down religionists by saying it is an addiction when your own atheism might be understood to be an addiction? A people united can never be defeated...at least that was one slogan chanted in washington during one of many demonstrations that I attended. Rid ourselves of addiction and concentrate on the problems that afflict the human condition: poverty, low wages, lack of affordable health care, budget cuts, unemployment, drug addiction, risk, insecurity, debt, war etc. Liberation comes when we free ourselves from the addictions given to us by the elite of our societies.

Jeff, do you consider yourself to be superior to believers only because you freed yourself from religious belief? Just a curious question...you were right on about alcoholism... :)
Is a sheep that has found his way out of the pen superior to the sheep in the pen? No. He's still a sheep. The difference is he's just more free. Using the same analogy, I would describe those addicted to religion as those who see the open door but don't want to walk through it because they need the security of the sheep pen.

Freedom comes at a price that's for sure. Not everyone wants to pay it. The price is taking full responsibly for yourself and your actions.. Some people aren't ready to do that and that's just fine. But some people are. That doesn't make them any better than others, it just makes them more free.

By the way Why Me, I thought your post was well stated--I would even say eloquent in a place or two.

Jeff

[mormonstories]

For those of you who haven't seen it, you may find my mission experience in Guatemala interesting as it relates to this thread.

http://mormonstories.org/OaksLetter.html

I also have done a podcast telling this story, if you're interested in listening to the audio version.

http://www.archive.org/download/MormonStoriesMormonStories001KiddieBapsMyMissionin Guatemala_2/Mormon_Stories__001__Kiddie_Bap.mp3


It turns out that Elder Holland has closed over 30 stakes in Chile alone, at least in part because of over-zealous, low-quality baptisms. I know that Brazil and Mexico and the Philippines are in the same boat. My hope is that the practice of Bogus is openly addressed and stopped within the missionary program.

John

[Born Free]

For those of you who haven't seen it, you may find my mission experience in Guatemala interesting as it relates to this thread.

http://mormonstories.org/OaksLetter.html

I also have done a podcast telling this story, if you're interested in listening to the audio version.

http://www.archive.org/download/MormonStoriesMormonStories001KiddieBapsMyMissionin Guatemala_2/Mormon_Stories__001__Kiddie_Bap.mp3


It turns out that Elder Holland has closed over 30 stakes in Chile alone, at least in part because of over-zealous, low-quality baptisms. I know that Brazil and Mexico and the Philippines are in the same boat. My hope is that the practice of Bogus is openly addressed and stopped within the missionary program.

John

What a disgusting story. And the GAs wonder why Church growth is faltering. :duh

They back neanderthals (sp?) like that for short term gains, and then wonder why the Church's name is so on the nose that, for decades literally, the Church is regarded with scorn and derision.

As yer sow, so shall ye reap!

But the rationalisation is that they are all doing this out of the love of Christ and his important message for the world. I wonder how many missionaries, once returned home, and at a distance from those abusive and pervasive practices came to seriously question a religion that should engage in such practices, promote such leaders, and justify such abuse.

I have to ask, what sort of head space does someone have to be in to self-justify such activity, and having deluded yourself to that extent once, how do you step off that treatmill? Most are locked into The Beast and cannot let go/get away for life. They will go on to other and more senior positions of leadership (???) with that level of dissociation running. Little wonder they are as empathic to abused members! :duh

Daryl

[cactus jack]

Actully Why Me, it was for this thread, I just got off on some bizarre tangent. Heh! Go figure! The thing is that I'm attacking organized churches. The forced babysitter crap. And that is, I feel, the reason for the decreased membership. I recall sometime back I heard that they counted everybody they had record of. Once you're in their records, you're in. You may be ex'd or maybe had your name withdrawn, but you're still in their numbers.

Sadly this has caused some grief with the developmentally disadvantaged (aka retarded). Kids/people that are retarded and under someone else's care is supposedly considered "in the church" even if they havn't gone or them or their families are of a different faith. Law suits have beenthreatened, though I have no knowledge of what came of the issues. This is not second hand knowledge like the missionaries disappearing in Russia bit I wrote. I worked with the retarded and one of the advocacy rights groups for several years.

Peole are standing up. They are using their freedom of choice. They want to live their lives, not the LDS live it for them.

My input on the declining membership numbers, anyhow.

[Born Free]

Actully Why Me, it was for this thread, I just got off on some bizarre tangent. Heh! Go figure! The thing is that I'm attacking organized churches. The forced babysitter crap. And that is, I feel, the reason for the decreased membership. I recall sometime back I heard that they counted everybody they had record of. Once you're in their records, you're in. You may be ex'd or maybe had your name withdrawn, but you're still in their numbers.

Sadly this has caused some grief with the developmentally disadvantaged (aka retarded). Kids/people that are retarded and under someone else's care is supposedly considered "in the church" even if they havn't gone or them or their families are of a different faith. Law suits have beenthreatened, though I have no knowledge of what came of the issues. This is not second hand knowledge like the missionaries disappearing in Russia bit I wrote. I worked with the retarded and one of the advocacy rights groups for several years.

Peole are standing up. They are using their freedom of choice. They want to live their lives, not the LDS live it for them.

My input on the declining membership numbers, anyhow.

Does the Mormon Church engage in a form of identity theft?

If they can grab my deceased ancestors name off the record, and perform a range of ordinances for him/her, without permission, are they being abusive; are they they guilty of violating that person by tampering with, lets say their dead Anglican status, to make them optionally Mormon ?

I know they (Mos) would argue that if the person does not want the ordinance, than it is null and void, so no harm done. BUT, I would argue that, if you believe in a spiritual dimension, as Mormonism does, than an unwanted and uninvited religious ordinance by a religion with which you disagree, is an act of abuse.

People can't come into my house, whip my clothes off, dress me in cricket whites, and haul me off to a font and dunk me and make me a member of their faith. We would be outraged if we heard of such behaviour.

But, let me step into the Mo spiritual world paradigm. My spiritual me is sitting cross-legged doing yoga or a Buddhist meditation (or watching the alarming developments in the Autralia-Britain Cricket Test Series which surely would be a priority activity in the spiritual world), when suddenly my spirit is summonsed to be involentarily dunked to become a Mormon, in case, I should later see the errror of my ways, and decide I need it. As if that is not bad enough, I am stand in the cue behind Hitler, who keeps rambling something about the German people not being good enough for him.

Now I figure I would really need some serious yoga after such a spiritual violation to calm myself down.

Use your imagination. Get right into the Mormon paradigm, and take it for a test run, but keep following it to some of its alternate conclusions, not just the desired Mormon one, and see how invasive/abusive it could be for the 99% of people who have no interest in the religion.

This is just another example of how Mormons can only see the world and others from their own perspective. They frequently severely lack the empathy to do that.

I have discussed possible origins of such lack of empathy before on this site.

Daryl

PS: PM and Dogzilla, consider that story line for a Peepstone. Might make a sister-story to that brilliant one about sending Jews who were 'ordinanced' without authorisation through the unordinance process. I loved that one (and still want to know where the pic of the person in the carwash dryer came from!)

[peter_mary]

For those of you who haven't seen it, you may find my mission experience in Guatemala interesting as it relates to this thread.

http://mormonstories.org/OaksLetter.html

John
Wow...this was quite a story. These are not the "best two years of my life" kind of stories you typically hear at a homecoming. :(

Thanks for sharing, John.

Peter_Mary

[why me]

Well now, why_me, aren't you the stinker today? :p

Actually, good questions. There are levels upon levels of sheepishness, I suppose, and our goal ought to be to shed as many of those sheepish layers as we can.

Truth be told, I'm not so critical of sheep as I am of shepherds, know what I mean? As you point out, we're all sheep in some regard--how could we really be otherwise? There are some degrees of sheepishness that we haven't learned yet to see. Eurocentric thinking, American idealism, patriotism, the belief that I have what I have because I earned it...all of those are no doubt layered with paradigms I, and others, and even you, have not yet learned to see to the degree that we could. As we study and grow, and we learn (hopefully) at times to see some of our sheepish nature, and in so doing, we afford ourselves the opportunity to shed a layer of wool. Sometimes others have learned to see our sheepishness while we remain blind to it, yet we might have learned to see their sheepishness to which they are also blind.

Still, we don't see all of those layers. I doubt we ever can. And so sheep are not the problem.

And it's tempting to then point to people in positions of authority and declare them the "problem shepherds." But I don't think that's accurate, either. I think the shepherds are broader than that. Jesus, for instance, truly is a "shepherd," because as an ideal, he is disembodied from any one practitioner or leader, and exerts an enormous social pressure to conform to some Christian ideal. Regardless of whether you believe him to be the son of God, God himself, a rabbi, teacher, insurgent, myth, whatever, the ideal of Jesus, and of God, weilds "shepherd power."

Mormon authorities are not really the shepherds, either...they are also sheep. The shepherd is the over-arching paradigm of patriarchal authority, and the belief in a restored gospel with all its attendent rites, rituals and priests. There is no individual shepherd...not even Gordon B. Hinkley. He's just a sheep, too, caught up by the pressure to perform and conform by the greater shepherd of the Mormon paradigm.

Likewise, George W. isn't a shepherd. He's a sheep in several folds, including the conservative Republican fold, the conservative Christian fold, the patriotic American fold, the rabid capitalist fold, etc., and the result is a multi-faceted sheep who happens to weild a lot of influence among the flock. But he's IN the flock, not over 'em. There are other sheep who weild important and significant influence over him. The shepherds are disembodied, living in the collective consciousness of those who are members of the same flock. To be sure, the shepherds have their flunkies, George W. being the main American flunky at the moment... :rolleyes: just as Gordon B. is the main Mormon flunky...

And yes, I'm a sheep...baaaa, baaaa. I am not too proud to acknowledge it. It just happens that I have learned to see the fence posts of the MORMON pen, at least some of them. And I've left the fold. I actively look for fences of the other pens I'm confined by, and welcome ways to break them down. I've recently been reading about the fold of American history to which I have been confined for 42 years, and am beginning to see those fence posts now, too.

I like to think of myself as a sheep with a flamethrower...when I find a fence, I'm gonna burn it down and march out. But I've been around long enough to realize I'll run out of fuel long before I run out of fences.

That help?

Peter_Mary
Yea I suppose that I was a stinker yesterday. I actually was taking Born Free's advice and not sound so whimpish in my posts. He didn't like my usual 'what do I know kind of statement' found in many of my posts these days. (Are you proud of me Born Free? :D ) I did just want to point out that sheep can be found anywhere and everywhere and you made that clear now. I suppose that I also wanted you to admit that you were a sheep in a different flock.
But P_M you may have a flamethrower but you know and I know that you will not destroy a fence that you enjoy being in..only the ones you feel that are expendable will be torched...such is a sheepish life, I suppose. Take care...and a good baaaa to you too.... :)

[why me]

You seem to be of the opinion that people can't form the kinds of collective bonds you speak of unless they have a religious belief to bind them. I don't share that same opinion. There are many, many examples in the world where religion has been the cause of social ills, not the cure. I therefore think that the world can do just fine, and even much better, without religion. I realize that not everyone share my opinion.


Is a sheep that has found his way out of the pen superior to the sheep in the pen? No. He's still a sheep. The difference is he's just more free. Using the same analogy, I would describe those addicted to religion as those who see the open door but don't want to walk through it because they need the security of the sheep pen.

Freedom comes at a price that's for sure. Not everyone wants to pay it. The price is taking full responsibly for yourself and your actions.. Some people aren't ready to do that and that's just fine. But some people are. That doesn't make them any better than others, it just makes them more free.

By the way Why Me, I thought your post was well stated--I would even say eloquent in a place or two.

Jeff
Thanks Jeff, for the compliment at the end of your post. I am not sure if I agree that the sheep outside the pen is more free only because he left the pen. Sheep seem to latch onto other sheep that agree with stated goals and aims. I am sure that you have found a new pen to baaa in. And that is okay of course. After all the human animal is a herd animal...we are also a social animal and need to feel the comfort of the pack. Mormonism offer a pack to feel comfortable in. But atheists have their own pack formed in ethical socities and humanist societies. We are need the herd and flock to get us through the day. No man or woman is an island...right?...we just seek comfort in like-mided people such as on postmo.org. In fact one reason why I have gotten into trouble here on postmo.org was because I didn' seem to fit the flock or herd that I was now in. The flock can be very protective of the other cattle or sheep in the pen. :)

[miss taken]

For those of you who haven't seen it, you may find my mission experience in Guatemala interesting as it relates to this thread.

http://mormonstories.org/OaksLetter.html

I also have done a podcast telling this story, if you're interested in listening to the audio version.

http://www.archive.org/download/MormonStoriesMormonStories001KiddieBapsMyMissionin Guatemala_2/Mormon_Stories__001__Kiddie_Bap.mp3


It turns out that Elder Holland has closed over 30 stakes in Chile alone, at least in part because of over-zealous, low-quality baptisms. I know that Brazil and Mexico and the Philippines are in the same boat. My hope is that the practice of Bogus is openly addressed and stopped within the missionary program.

John

Mormon Stories, I have to tell you that what you describe pretty well matches my experience in my own mission. I have to say that the 2nd Mission President did try to hone down the 'baptize, baptize, baptize' mentality. On that particular issue (not on many others), I found my mission to be disturbing, and I also wrestled with it. At the time I was a reluctant sheep, and didn't have the courage to rise above the very deep and entrenched peer pressure from other missionaries and missionary leadership such as ZL's and DL's and AP's.
I wish I had had the courage of my convictions.
Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

Thanks Jeff, for the compliment at the end of your post. I am not sure if I agree that the sheep outside the pen is more free only because he left the pen. Sheep seem to latch onto other sheep that agree with stated goals and aims. I am sure that you have found a new pen to baaa in. And that is okay of course. After all the human animal is a herd animal...we are also a social animal and need to feel the comfort of the pack. Mormonism offer a pack to feel comfortable in. But atheists have their own pack formed in ethical socities and humanist societies. We are need the herd and flock to get us through the day. No man or woman is an island...right?...we just seek comfort in like-mided people such as on postmo.org. In fact one reason why I have gotten into trouble here on postmo.org was because I didn' seem to fit the flock or herd that I was now in. The flock can be very protective of the other cattle or sheep in the pen. :)
I can't say that I disagree with anything you said. This could be a first!! :D

Jeff

EDIT: On second thought, I have to say that while it may be impossible to escape ALL sheep pens, the more one leaves behind the more free she/he is. In other words, the sheep that found his way out of a sheep pen is relatively more free than the sheep still in it, even though the sheep might find itself still inside a another (but more broad) one.

[helemon]

Is a sheep that has found his way out of the pen superior to the sheep in the pen? No. He's still a sheep.

I always thought that a sheep unquestionably followed the voice of its shepard, whomever that shepard may be. Therefore a sheep cannot leave the pen or the voice of its master without rejecting its former master at which point the person ceases to be a sheep. Now it is possible I suppose that a person could simply trade one master for another and so remain sheep like, but to be able to make that break seems to me to require something beyond a sheeplike mentality.

[why me]

I always thought that a sheep unquestionably followed the voice of its shepard, whomever that shepard may be. Therefore a sheep cannot leave the pen or the voice of its master without rejecting its former master at which point the person ceases to be a sheep. Now it is possible I suppose that a person could simply trade one master for another and so remain sheep like, but to be able to make that break seems to me to require something beyond a sheeplike mentality.
True enough! But you need to remember that a human being can never actually be a sheep...only a sheep in human clothing...our pea-sized brains can never resemble a sheep's brain...we can only see some of our actions as being sheepish...

[why me]

I can't say that I disagree with anything you said. This could be a first!! :D

Jeff

EDIT: On second thought, I have to say that while it may be impossible to escape ALL sheep pens, the more one leaves behind the more free she/he is. In other words, the sheep that found his way out of a sheep pen is relatively more free than the sheep still in it, even though the sheep might find itself still inside a another (but more broad) one.
Great Jeff...I am glad to see that we finally agree. Does this mean that you are now a communist? The Party card is now in the mail...it should arrive any day...you will just need to pay a monthly dues to the Party club in salt lake city...we do have a small cell there...it will only be a few bucks a month and you will receive a monthly bulletin from Party headquarters in NYC. Glad to have you as a comrade...or am I overreacting? :)

The Party also needs an organizer in Logan. We think that you will be great for the job. It does not pay but the work will be very rewarding. You will just need to give up a couple nights a week for Party organizing. We hope to organize the low wage earners into a union...and we think that you are the man to do the job. You will just need to be interviewed by the general secretary in NYC. Welcome to the Party Jeff...and take care....I will get you the bank number to pay your Party dues in my next post... :)

I just read your second thought in red ink...I love red ink...this is why I want to welcome you into the Party...it is a new pen to inhabit but you will definitely feel more free there for sure...the Party is very board and internationalist.... [smiling alot]

[helemon]

Bateman is arguing that this downward trend is just demographics caused by members having fewer children and they knew this was coming for 9 years and that the trend will reverse in under 10 years.

Also he is denying that the church leaders ever touted the idea that it was the fastest growing church on the planet.

Bateman is saying that the church is not interested in the numbers but is focused on the individual.

Bateman says people continue to have oppotunities to accept gospel in the next life even if they reject it in life.

Spencer is countering Batemans statement that the church is not about numbers says his mission in Chile was all about numbers and mission meetings were pep rallies for conversion and that there was considerable pressure to baptize a lot of people.

Bateman says people in all the kingdoms will still have a relationship with God. I thought that only those in the CK would be able to be in God's presence.

Bateman: Number of resignations not an important statistic and they don't want others to misuse that information.

By adding people who are moving out of UT then there are 70% of the people in UT are mormons. I assume this mean 8% of members in UT are students?

Doug asked Bateman if the church withholds information about the church in order to protect members testimonies.
Bateman: "We don't believe that you protect people by withholding information that they need." Bwahahahaha

Caller talks about soccer baptisms, baseball baptisms, cheesburger baptisms, and graveyard baptisms.

Bateman says the current approach prevents such baptisms from occurring.

Bateman says the church is not about growth.

He is quoting scriptures about how there would be few that would find the truth. What happened to the stone cut out from the mountain without hand that would cover the entire face of the earth?

Bateman says that the number of members leaving the church is dropping not increasing. More people coming in and staying than leaving according to Bateman.

People stay because they feel that they are in the Lords church and have an inner peace.

Most of the callers have been pretty tame.

Email asks why the church is treated so badly in SLC.

[mormonstories]

That was me who called in about the soccer baptisms, etc.

[peter_mary]

This part caught my eye, because it speaks to the power of careful language:



Doug asked Bateman if the church withholds information about the church in order to protect members testimonies.
Bateman: "We don't believe that you protect people by withholding information that they need." Bwahahahaha


See, here he has masterfully, and I mean MASTERFULLY sidestepped one of the biggest criticisms folks like us have regarding the Church. The members of the Church will hear one of their leaders state emphatically that they can trust the Church to divulge information. What he IMPLIES (so he doesn't perjure himself) is that the Church will decide what it is people "need." And therein lies the brilliance.

Damnit, but I wish I were that smart... I just come right out and say stuff. Gets me into trouble all the time.

Peter_Mary

[helemon]

That was me who called in about the soccer baptisms, etc.

Cool! Can any recently returned missionaries confirm Batemans statement that the church has instructed them to stop pulling such shenanigans, and to focus on the individual to make sure they fully understand the commitment they are making and are prepared to be active members? Some how I suspect that there is still an incredible emphasis on the quantity over the quality.

[helemon]

This part caught my eye, because it speaks to the power of careful language:



See, here he has masterfully, and I mean MASTERFULLY sidestepped one of the biggest criticisms folks like us have regarding the Church. The members of the Church will hear one of their leaders state emphatically that they can trust the Church to divulge information. What he IMPLIES (so he doesn't perjure himself) is that the Church will decide what it is people "need." And therein lies the brilliance.

Damnit, but I wish I were that smart... I just come right out and say stuff. Gets me into trouble all the time.

Peter_Mary

Yep, that was definitely the stand out quote of the interview. Next would be his statement that the church doesn't reveal how many people have resigned from the church because that information could be misused. Seems to back up what you are getting at.

My favorite part was the member woman who called in to say that Mormons believe that even if someone totally rejects the gospel they will still be in one of the lower kingdoms. She left out the part about the people in these other heavens having their genitals removed. I also thought it was interesting that Bateman tried to jump in and stop the woman from providing her elaborate discussion about the three degrees of glory but she just kept talking and talking. Bateman was probably worried that she would pop off some statement about members in the CK becoming Gods and creating spirit children.

[capt_jack]

On the Chile Santiago West Mission's bulletin board, someone asked how many baptisms the mission was averaging these days.

A recently returned missionary said between 800 and 1,200--per month. (click here to see the thread) (http://www.mission.net/chile/santiago/west/forum/view.php?id=109&id_reply=118&lang=)

Doesn't sound like much has changed.

[Jeff_Ricks]

For those of you who haven't seen it, you may find my mission experience in Guatemala interesting as it relates to this thread.

http://mormonstories.org/OaksLetter.html

I also have done a podcast telling this story, if you're interested in listening to the audio version.

http://www.archive.org/download/MormonStoriesMormonStories001KiddieBapsMyMissionin Guatemala_2/Mormon_Stories__001__Kiddie_Bap.mp3


It turns out that Elder Holland has closed over 30 stakes in Chile alone, at least in part because of over-zealous, low-quality baptisms. I know that Brazil and Mexico and the Philippines are in the same boat. My hope is that the practice of Bogus is openly addressed and stopped within the missionary program.

John
I overheard a conversation at work today where a guy was telling about his son's mission in the Philippines and said that they haven't baptized any adults yet--they're all children. I assume he's speaking of his son and his son's companion only. I couldn't help but think of your post John when I heard it.

Jeff

[miss taken]

My friend just sent me this on Europe.

I think it is from the EXmo boards.

http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/download_thread.php?site=exmobb&bn=exmobb_recovery&thread=1125420283#N1125467482

Subject: The LDS Church is losing members in Europe faster than they can baptize new ones...
Date: Aug 30 12:44
Author: Craig Paxton
Mail Address:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A very reliable source inside the COB has recently revealed that the church is losing 3 current members for every 1 new member baptized into the church... The prospects for any growth in Europe are looking very very dim. If the current trend continues...the church will have minimal to no active members in Europe with in 10-15 years.

Has anyone else heard this information? Can anyone else confirm this trend?
I think it is kind of sad really. I don't know if it reflects on the LDS church, or the increasing secularism of society. I know the C of E is facing the same dilemna, if it loses members the way it is now, then it will have very few members in 20 years time.

Churches need to do something, I just don't know what.

(I feel a sarcastic comment coming from Helemon there...!!!!)

[cactus jack]

Born free, it's not identity theft. It's declaring people as members and even holders of the priesthood based on their mental retardation.