LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 12:21 pm**

Yea.....I'd say the time of the gentiles is coming to a close

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 12:36 pm**

nightlight wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 11:58 am The church's reported membership as of December 31, 2018 was 16,313,735. The growth of 1.37% in 2017 was the lowest annual percentage growth since the 0.93% in 1937, and growth of the 1.21% in 2018 was even lower.

And how does that qualify as "sputtering growth"? We've had 200K-plus converts for at least the last decade (I didn't check stats before the year 2000). If you want to say that church growth has slowed, okay--that's a factual statement--but to call the growth "sputtering" seems like quite a stretch given the numbers.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 1:13 pm**

Mike Griffith wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 12:36 pm
nightlight wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 11:58 am The church's reported membership as of December 31, 2018 was 16,313,735. The growth of 1.37% in 2017 was the lowest annual percentage growth since the 0.93% in 1937, and growth of the 1.21% in 2018 was even lower.
And how does that qualify as "sputtering growth"? We've had 200K-plus converts for at least the last decade (I didn't check stats before the year 2000). If you want to say that church growth has slowed, okay--that's a factual statement--but to call the growth "sputtering" seems like quite a stretch given the numbers.

Whether you wanna say slow, or sputter....it makes no difference. There is a downward trend, especially in America.

Church growth in America is extremely alarming. I don't think it's a complete direct reflection of the Church though.
You can only do so much for a persons mind.

The time of the gentiles is ending. We'll continue to slow until the Lord chooses to preach His own sermons of Fire&Lightning.

That being said....we need to move away from the CEO business format that we push the Gospel with, like others have said

This "soft clothes" approach creats soft converts.

Missionaries are all up in their "feelings"....it's off putting to grown men&women.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 1:28 pm**

Are you suggesting that taking care of ones temporal needs is more important than ones spiritual needs? I don’t know of one person getting to heaven because of what food they ate and what clothing they wore? This is something all members should be doing no matter what ( clothing and feeding the poor). I see it being done more than sharing testimony and truly trying to get them to come unto the Savior.

I believe that's exactly what she's suggesting and I agree. Jesus taught this. For what ever reason today's church leaders don't teach or do what Jesus taught regarding those less fortunate.

The Internet with it's access to information is killing church growth. I believe church growth will continue to decline.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 1:36 pm**

Mike Griffith wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 10:33 am
Robin Hood wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 7:21 am
Mike Griffith wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 5:18 am "Church growth sputtering"? In 2018, there were 234,000 convert baptisms and 102,000 new children of record. In 2017, there were 233,000 convert baptisms and 106,000 new children of record. In 2016, there were 240,000 convert baptisms and 109,000 children of record. Many churches would love to have that kind of "sputtering" growth.
I think the point is that these convert baptism figures are broadly similar to 20 or 30 years ago... with a missionary force about a third of the current size.
In 2002, there were 61,638 full-time missionaries and 283,000 convert baptisms. In 2017, there were 67,049 full-time missionaries and 233,000 convert baptisms. Not an enormous difference. At least part of the difference can be explained in the fact that areas where we had been having success, such as parts of Africa, have become politically unstable in recent years. In Russia, where we were seeing steady growth, the government banned proselyting outside of churches in 2016. Another factor is the moral decline that has occurred in most parts of the world over the last 20 years.

200K+ converts per year for the last 20 years is not what I would call "sputtering" growth. If anything, given world conditions over the last several years, it's rather impressive that we've still been converting over 200,000 people per year.

Look at the figures for the 70's and 80's. Same or higher number of converts, around 30,000 missionaries.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 1:46 pm**

It's kind of sad to see the lengths people will go to in order to maintain their paradigm.

This can apply to any of the paradigms, by the way, and usually does.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 1:53 pm**

nightlight wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 1:13 pm
Mike Griffith wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 12:36 pm
nightlight wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 11:58 am The church's reported membership as of December 31, 2018 was 16,313,735. The growth of 1.37% in 2017 was the lowest annual percentage growth since the 0.93% in 1937, and growth of the 1.21% in 2018 was even lower.
And how does that qualify as "sputtering growth"? We've had 200K-plus converts for at least the last decade (I didn't check stats before the year 2000). If you want to say that church growth has slowed, okay--that's a factual statement--but to call the growth "sputtering" seems like quite a stretch given the numbers.
Whether you wanna say slow, or sputter....it makes no difference. There is a downward trend, especially in America.

But there is a difference between "slowing" and "sputtering." No one denies that the Church's growth has slowed somewhat, but, again, we've still been baptizing over 200K converts per year for at least the last 19 years. We baptized more converts in 2018 than we did in 2017.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 1:55 pm**

Thinker wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 6:08 pm
johnBob wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 5:43 pm ...Hey what is it about this religion...
That is the $1,000,000 question.

Allow me a slight correction, Thinker, and say this is the $124,000,000,000 question.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 1:59 pm**

When it comes to debating growth, I only care about sacrament meeting attendance numbers. Obviously such doesn't perfectly measure true conversion, but it is better than raw membership count.

I'm not talking about percentage of members that show up. I'm talking about the raw attendance count over time.

And I'd be very interested to see the breakdown by region.

Since sacrament meeting numbers aren't public, I haven't yet come to a conclusion on the current state of growth. But I wouldn't be surprised if attendance is flat in "Western" countries.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 2:03 pm**

Mike Griffith wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 1:53 pm
nightlight wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 1:13 pm
Mike Griffith wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 12:36 pm
nightlight wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 11:58 am The church's reported membership as of December 31, 2018 was 16,313,735. The growth of 1.37% in 2017 was the lowest annual percentage growth since the 0.93% in 1937, and growth of the 1.21% in 2018 was even lower.
And how does that qualify as "sputtering growth"? We've had 200K-plus converts for at least the last decade (I didn't check stats before the year 2000). If you want to say that church growth has slowed, okay--that's a factual statement--but to call the growth "sputtering" seems like quite a stretch given the numbers.
Whether you wanna say slow, or sputter....it makes no difference. There is a downward trend, especially in America.
But there is a difference between "slow" and "sputtering." No one denies that the Church's growth has slowed somewhat, but, again, we've still been baptizing over 200K converts per year for at least the last 19 years. We baptized more converts in 2018 than we did in 2017.

You have to compare it to something. If population growth worldwide is 2% a year and we only grow 1.2% a year then we are in fact shrinking. No one is arguing that the Church is currently shrinking-only that the state of growth is dire and that if something does not change very soon and it continues on it's current path it WILL shrink.

A significant portion of the US membership is found in the older generation-baby boomers+. Those guys are starting to get up in age, when they die in the next 10-20 years there is not going to be enough younger members to replace them. The natural growth will fall.

It's almost inevitable at this point, the Church will almost certainly decline in membership soon, most likely within the next 5 years. The demographics makes it so. It's the reason why the Church is not building any more meetinghouses in the US-they see the demographic drop on the horizon-it's only a matter of time.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 2:08 pm**

A few random thoughts on the topic at hand:

The purpose of missionary work changed a long time ago to stress-testing potential future leaders and teaching them the work ethic to serve in the Church as adults.

Back in the beginning, men were called on short-term missions because many were farmers. They would be home during spring and summer for planting and harvesting. In the winter, they'd go on missions and return in the spring. Only the few who went to far off places like Britain or the Sandwich Islands spent years in the mission field, unless they were General Authorities.

Today, missionaries ought to be called as couples to serve part-time in the areas in which they live. They could serve a few months at a time, or just on weekends. Our stake called some friends of ours on a mission to serve in a branch in the stake. The husband of this couple was still working. They just spent evenings and weekends doing mission work, attending the branch meetings, and helping out. Their experience was welcome in the branch on many levels, not just in proselyting.

One of the things I used to grouse about, when I was a young missionary, that sister missionaries were much more effective than elders. The reason for that was that we went out proselyting looking like IBM computer salesmen, and the sisters looked like regular people, modestly dressed. They didn't have a "uniform" like we did with the white shirts and ties. They could get in doors while people thought we were Kirby vacuum cleaner salesmen.

Of course, the "uniform" and all the stupid mission rules are the result of sending immature young people out who can't function without parents telling them what to do. The "Raising the Bar" effort was still overshadowed by the push to get out as many missionaries as possible in the field.

We were never part of the people we served. The "Ammon Model" they used to get missionaries involved in service was a good idea that was never developed. In the scriptures, Ammon did not tell King Lamoni that he was sent out to preach to the people for two years and then go home. He told him he came to stay. If you want to build up Zion, you have to plant experienced people who can be leaders in the places you want to build it. You can't send them for two years. You have to do like the "Hole-in-the-Rock" saints and send them to "colonize" an area. Brother Brigham understood that.

Missionary work needs to be "decentralized." Using Ammon again as the model, did not have anyone from headquarters bugging him for his stats or telling him he needed to be in bed by 10 pm. There was no policy that kept him from carrying a sword. Missionaries need to be allowed to use their talents as they see fit. Decades ago, a couple was sent to the area near the Hill Cumorah and they were told to set down roots and become a part of the community, establish good will, and see if they could someday purchase the land the Hill Cumorah was on from whoever owned it. The guy was a good amateur boxer. Anti-Mormonism was strong in the area so he invited challengers to amateur boxing matches. The community loved it. He kept winning matches and winning the hearts of the people. He used his talents to build goodwill and seem like a "normal" person. I would have welcomed the chance to play guitar on my mission--but the rules prohibited it. We had several musicians in the mission and we asked for permission to put together a group to perform at public events. Permission was denied. I was a Judo athlete. Judo was HUGE in the nation where I served (2nd largest outside Japan) and I could have made good connections with members of that community, but I was prohibited from engaging in Judo due to mission rules. One of my companions, a BYU football player, started training with a French rugby team. He made lots of friendships and they put his picture in the paper, mentioning the Church in a positive way. The members saw it, alerted the mission president, and the missionary was quickly transferred out of the area.

Last of all, nobody I know of is looking for a "Church," in the sense of joining a massive, authoritarian hierarchy. For most people, their "church" is their congregation. Their church becomes their community. It will endure for years or decades. Their children will grow up in it. For us LDS folks, if the church grows, they'll divide the stake, put our friends in different boundaries, and even split up families. Nobody wants to join a church like that. Nobody wants to invite their friends to join a church like that. I have had co-workers who became interested in the Church, but they lived on the other side of town, or in a different nearby town. Even if they got a testimony and joined the Church, they'd be in a different ward or stake. It kind of turns them off. It's like you're recruiting them into your "downline" in a multi-level marketing scam.

I love the gospel, but I can see why people have reservations about joining. I converted 40-plus years ago and things were different then. Even then, I didn't see the big picture. I joined because the Spirit told me Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon was true. Nowadays, I often feel like a stranger in Church. Very rarely is Joseph Smith mentioned. The message of the First Vision is rarely spoken. Don't say anything that would offend people and especially, don't get political. Don't say anything that might be considered homophobic or that might upset the woke feminists. If missionary work is losing strength, we might do better going back to the messages of the First Vision: (1) This is my Beloved Son, hear him, (2) the man-made creeds are abominations and their professors are corrupt, and (3) go not after them.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 2:12 pm**

Mahalanobis Distance wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 1:59 pm When it comes to debating growth, I only care about sacrament meeting attendance numbers. Obviously such doesn't perfectly measure true conversion, but it is better than raw membership count.

I'm not talking about percentage of members that show up. I'm talking about the raw attendance count over time.

And I'd be very interested to see the breakdown by region.

Since sacrament meeting numbers aren't public, I haven't yet come to a conclusion on the current state of growth. But I wouldn't be surprised if attendance is flat in "Western" countries.

The best measure of growth that is relatively constant over time is ward and stake growth. The Church has specific metrics that must be met to create a new Stake (number of Priesthood holder, # of tithepayers, etc.). That has stayed relatively constant over time. In general Stakes today are the same size they were 50 years ago in the US, same with wards. Wards in the US are roughly 100-300 attending Church on Sunday.

I think very soon however this metric is going to be obsolete. I think it's highly likely you will see an explosion of wards/stakes. This is because the amount of people required to operate a ward and stake has been dramatically reduced (essentially 1/3rd). Wards no longer need to be as big because it doesn't require as many people to staff them, same with stakes.

Additionally, you now have a significant number of people who in wards don't have any callings now or who are underutilized.

In the past 2 years you now have no YM presidency, no Scout leaders, a SS teacher will only teach once a month (b/c you generally have 2). The work required for most people in the Church is now dramatically reduced.

The logical conclusion of that is to have smaller wards/stakes. Why? Because people actually do want to be used in Church-they want to feel needed, useful as they are contributing to the larger group. If the Church doesn't start to reduce the size of wards and stakes they will be forced to do so as more people simply just leave b/c they don't feel needed.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 2:16 pm**

LDSAnon wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 2:08 pm A few random thoughts on the topic at hand:

The purpose of missionary work changed a long time ago to stress-testing potential future leaders and teaching them the work ethic to serve in the Church as adults.

Back in the beginning, men were called on short-term missions because many were farmers. They would be home during spring and summer for planting and harvesting. In the winter, they'd go on missions and return in the spring. Only the few who went to far off places like Britain or the Sandwich Islands spent years in the mission field, unless they were General Authorities.

Today, missionaries ought to be called as couples to serve part-time in the areas in which they live. They could serve a few months at a time, or just on weekends. Our stake called some friends of ours on a mission to serve in a branch in the stake. The husband of this couple was still working. They just spent evenings and weekends doing mission work, attending the branch meetings, and helping out. Their experience was welcome in the branch on many levels, not just in proselyting.

One of the things I used to grouse about, when I was a young missionary, that sister missionaries were much more effective than elders. The reason for that was that we went out proselyting looking like IBM computer salesmen, and the sisters looked like regular people, modestly dressed. They didn't have a "uniform" like we did with the white shirts and ties. They could get in doors while people thought we were Kirby vacuum cleaner salesmen.

Of course, the "uniform" and all the stupid mission rules are the result of sending immature young people out who can't function without parents telling them what to do. The "Raising the Bar" effort was still overshadowed by the push to get out as many missionaries as possible in the field.

We were never part of the people we served. The "Ammon Model" they used to get missionaries involved in service was a good idea that was never developed. In the scriptures, Ammon did not tell King Lamoni that he was sent out to preach to the people for two years and then go home. He told him he came to stay. If you want to build up Zion, you have to plant experienced people who can be leaders in the places you want to build it. You can't send them for two years. You have to do like the "Hole-in-the-Rock" saints and send them to "colonize" an area. Brother Brigham understood that.

Missionary work needs to be "decentralized." Using Ammon again as the model, did not have anyone from headquarters bugging him for his stats or telling him he needed to be in bed by 10 pm. There was no policy that kept him from carrying a sword. Missionaries need to be allowed to use their talents as they see fit. Decades ago, a couple was sent to the area near the Hill Cumorah and they were told to set down roots and become a part of the community, establish good will, and see if they could someday purchase the land the Hill Cumorah was on from whoever owned it. The guy was a good amateur boxer. Anti-Mormonism was strong in the area so he invited challengers to amateur boxing matches. The community loved it. He kept winning matches and winning the hearts of the people. He used his talents to build goodwill and seem like a "normal" person. I would have welcomed the chance to play guitar on my mission--but the rules prohibited it. We had several musicians in the mission and we asked for permission to put together a group to perform at public events. Permission was denied. I was a Judo athlete. Judo was HUGE in the nation where I served (2nd largest outside Japan) and I could have made good connections with members of that community, but I was prohibited from engaging in Judo due to mission rules. One of my companions, a BYU football player, started training with a French rugby team. He made lots of friendships and they put his picture in the paper, mentioning the Church in a positive way. The members saw it, alerted the mission president, and the missionary was quickly transferred out of the area.

Last of all, nobody I know of is looking for a "Church," in the sense of joining a massive, authoritarian hierarchy. For most people, their "church" is their congregation. Their church becomes their community. It will endure for years or decades. Their children will grow up in it. For us LDS folks, if the church grows, they'll divide the stake, put our friends in different boundaries, and even split up families. Nobody wants to join a church like that. Nobody wants to invite their friends to join a church like that. I have had co-workers who became interested in the Church, but they lived on the other side of town, or in a different nearby town. Even if they got a testimony and joined the Church, they'd be in a different ward or stake. It kind of turns them off. It's like you're recruiting them into your "downline" in a multi-level marketing scam.

I love the gospel, but I can see why people have reservations about joining. I converted 40-plus years ago and things were different then. Even then, I didn't see the big picture. I joined because the Spirit told me Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon was true. Nowadays, I often feel like a stranger in Church. Very rarely is Joseph Smith mentioned. The message of the First Vision is rarely spoken. Don't say anything that would offend people and especially, don't get political. Don't say anything that might be considered homophobic or that might upset the woke feminists. If missionary work is losing strength, we might do better going back to the messages of the First Vision: (1) This is my Beloved Son, hear him, (2) the man-made creeds are abominations and their professors are corrupt, and (3) go not after them.

Awesome comment.

Yeah the JW method of missionary work would be interesting

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 2:17 pm**

Mike Griffith wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 1:53 pm
nightlight wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 1:13 pm
Mike Griffith wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 12:36 pm
nightlight wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 11:58 am The church's reported membership as of December 31, 2018 was 16,313,735. The growth of 1.37% in 2017 was the lowest annual percentage growth since the 0.93% in 1937, and growth of the 1.21% in 2018 was even lower.
And how does that qualify as "sputtering growth"? We've had 200K-plus converts for at least the last decade (I didn't check stats before the year 2000). If you want to say that church growth has slowed, okay--that's a factual statement--but to call the growth "sputtering" seems like quite a stretch given the numbers.
Whether you wanna say slow, or sputter....it makes no difference. There is a downward trend, especially in America.
But there is a difference between "slowing" and "sputtering." No one denies that the Church's growth has slowed somewhat, but, again, we've still been baptizing over 200K converts per year for at least the last 19 years. We baptized more converts in 2018 than we did in 2017.

We are sputtering in America. But then again....religion is sputtering in the west world regardless

It's easier to covert 3rd world poor people, their hearts are prepped, like the people Alma&Amulek taught.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 2:20 pm**

Mike Griffith wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 1:53 pm But there is a difference between "slowing" and "sputtering." No one denies that the Church's growth has slowed somewhat, but, again, we've still been baptizing over 200K converts per year for at least the last 19 years.

It is impressive to convert +200,000!!

Still, the numbers of active members is much lower than the total number baptized. Is that not important? I imagine that the rate of activity has gone more drastically down, & that along with slight decreases in members, makes one wonder about the future. Sure, the church has lots of money, but without subjects, what is a king?

I like the ideas some have mentioned about basically loving and serving where you are. And that is good - yet there are still a lot of people suffering way outside “Mormon circles.” So I think there also needs to be expanded consideration and compassion.

Again, the focus of missionary work ought to be humanitarian work. Let actions bare testimony - actions speak louder.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 2:24 pm**

If you’ve ever read the book “the other side of heaven”, all of the missionary work was done by members as couple missionaries. It was basically all done by the wards. The Tongan islands would only allow a few American missionaries in the country at a time, so the American missionaries would oversee the work and the members would do the work.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 2:29 pm**

nightlight wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 2:17 pm
Mike Griffith wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 1:53 pm
nightlight wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 1:13 pm
Mike Griffith wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 12:36 pm

And how does that qualify as "sputtering growth"? We've had 200K-plus converts for at least the last decade (I didn't check stats before the year 2000). If you want to say that church growth has slowed, okay--that's a factual statement--but to call the growth "sputtering" seems like quite a stretch given the numbers.
Whether you wanna say slow, or sputter....it makes no difference. There is a downward trend, especially in America.
But there is a difference between "slowing" and "sputtering." No one denies that the Church's growth has slowed somewhat, but, again, we've still been baptizing over 200K converts per year for at least the last 19 years. We baptized more converts in 2018 than we did in 2017.
We are sputtering in America. But then again....religion is sputtering in the west world regardless

It's easier to covert 3rd world poor people, their hearts are prepped, like the people Alma&Amulek taught.

Which might end up saving a portion of the Church like the African converts to the UMC has saved some portion of Methodism.

It's easier to baptize 3rd world poor people, but the percentage of those who then form meaningful connections to the religion is still TBD. In South American countries it's not unusual to have 500-600 people on the rolls and only have 50 show up-that generally doesn't happen in the US.

The other problem with baptizing 3rd world is that we end up socializing the costs. We have all this wealth where the US/Western members are paying for grandiose buildings full of gold, silver, chandeliers and fancy things. Without the corresponding sacrifice required to build those buildings it will not mean as much.

Part of the reason why the religion is having such massive problems is specifically because as a people we are little children relying upon our parents for everything-we rely upon Salt Lake for everything from buildings, to policy, to telling us we can't bring weapons into our own congregations . ..b/c we are little children.

Until we as a people start learning to grow up and take responsibility for our own salvation and exaltation with God we won't ever be able to produce a true conversion. At some point the transfer of wealth/responsibility from stronger to weaker areas without a growth in strength in the weaker areas will topple the stronger areas.

How many talks do you hear in sacrament meetings which are simply a regurgitation from a General Conference talk? Waaaay too many.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 3:21 pm**

johnBob wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 5:40 pm
MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 5:35 pm
johnBob wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 4:55 pm Compete overhaul. Go back to the old days.

Start calling church fathers and church elders to preach the word instead of little children who have the title of Elder but are utter babes.

Start requiring some real sacrifice.
Every member deals with non members in their daily life. If members could be good examples and unashamed of the gospel then we have numerous contacts every day by most every person. Way more effective than the expense of traveling missionaries. Then those who are interested can receive the lessons and further assistance at the church house where there are those who are called to do such a thing. In areas there are no members then traveling there would still be needed.

We don’t need to send out married men who leave their wife and children, our world doesn’t work in a way to accommodate this without the wife needing to work and leave her children.
Wrong it did work when they sent the elders out in the 1800s without purse or script. And look at the results from then-real dedication.

Who provided for the women then?

The community of the church.

You'd just rather not give up your husband to the church. That's not terribly strong faith.

Would you give up your wife to the church? No hesitation? You, as a man, can make it all work at home without her?

Don’t judge me please. We have plenty of men young and old who do not have kids at home or a wife...send them.

Saying a husband and father is needed and wanted at home is quite a compliment these days, yet you just needed to tell me I have weaker faith....I will never understand some people.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 4:13 pm**

johnBob wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 2:16 pm
Awesome comment.

Yeah the JW method of missionary work would be interesting

In my mission in Europe, the Jehovah's Witnesses had lots of success going door-to-door. We had almost no success doing the same thing. I lamented to my companion one day this fact and he pointed out that it was local JWs doing the missionary work--they were doing "member-missionary work." He laughed and said that God was blessing them because they were living a true principle.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 4:24 pm**

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 3:21 pm
johnBob wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 5:40 pm
MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 5:35 pm
johnBob wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 4:55 pm Compete overhaul. Go back to the old days.

Start calling church fathers and church elders to preach the word instead of little children who have the title of Elder but are utter babes.

Start requiring some real sacrifice.
Every member deals with non members in their daily life. If members could be good examples and unashamed of the gospel then we have numerous contacts every day by most every person. Way more effective than the expense of traveling missionaries. Then those who are interested can receive the lessons and further assistance at the church house where there are those who are called to do such a thing. In areas there are no members then traveling there would still be needed.

We don’t need to send out married men who leave their wife and children, our world doesn’t work in a way to accommodate this without the wife needing to work and leave her children.
Wrong it did work when they sent the elders out in the 1800s without purse or script. And look at the results from then-real dedication.

Who provided for the women then?

The community of the church.

You'd just rather not give up your husband to the church. That's not terribly strong faith.
Would you give up your wife to the church? No hesitation? You, as a man, can make it all work at home without her?

Don’t judge me please. We have plenty of men young and old who do not have kids at home or a wife...send them.

Saying a husband and father is needed and wanted at home is quite a compliment these days, yet you just needed to tell me I have weaker faith....I will never understand some people.

For Christ, yes absolutely.

It is what He commands us that we do-be willing to sacrifice all that we have for Him. If the Church-which should be the Body of Christ here on the Earth, required married men to leave their families in order to preach the Gospel-then yes I would absolutely be willing to do so. The reward for that faith should be that the Church provides or at least ensures that my family is taken care of so she should not have to work.

You have generalized where I have not-you have made the claim that I said a husband and a father is not needed at home-false. I have merely said that we should practice as we did not but 150 years ago and send mature men on missions rather than little children. Those men are not gone for the entire time of the upbringing of their children-but only for a time, a year maybe, maybe a little less maybe a little more.

Husbands do this for their families all the time-except for another god-money. Husbands go on business trips during the week, they may only be home every weekend or maybe only for 2 hours an evening.

Which god is more important, mammon or God?

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 4:29 pm**

johnBob wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 2:29 pm ...Part of the reason why the religion is having such massive problems is specifically because as a people we are little children relying upon our parents for everything-we rely upon Salt Lake for everything from buildings, to policy, to telling us we can't bring weapons into our own congregations . ..b/c we are little children.

Until we as a people start learning to grow up and take responsibility for our own salvation and exaltation with God we won't ever be able to produce a true conversion...

How many talks do you hear in sacrament meetings which are simply a regurgitation from a General Conference talk? Waaaay too many.

I’m speechless. Seriously, that is so right on the money (all $124 Billion+

), that I don’t know what else to say!

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 4:47 pm**

johnBob wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 4:24 pm
MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 3:21 pm
johnBob wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 5:40 pm
MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 5:35 pm

Every member deals with non members in their daily life. If members could be good examples and unashamed of the gospel then we have numerous contacts every day by most every person. Way more effective than the expense of traveling missionaries. Then those who are interested can receive the lessons and further assistance at the church house where there are those who are called to do such a thing. In areas there are no members then traveling there would still be needed.

We don’t need to send out married men who leave their wife and children, our world doesn’t work in a way to accommodate this without the wife needing to work and leave her children.
Wrong it did work when they sent the elders out in the 1800s without purse or script. And look at the results from then-real dedication.

Who provided for the women then?

The community of the church.

You'd just rather not give up your husband to the church. That's not terribly strong faith.
Would you give up your wife to the church? No hesitation? You, as a man, can make it all work at home without her?

Don’t judge me please. We have plenty of men young and old who do not have kids at home or a wife...send them.

Saying a husband and father is needed and wanted at home is quite a compliment these days, yet you just needed to tell me I have weaker faith....I will never understand some people.
For Christ, yes absolutely.

It is what He commands us that we do-be willing to sacrifice all that we have for Him. If the Church-which should be the Body of Christ here on the Earth, required married men to leave their families in order to preach the Gospel-then yes I would absolutely be willing to do so. The reward for that faith should be that the Church provides or at least ensures that my family is taken care of so she should not have to work.

You have generalized where I have not-you have made the claim that I said a husband and a father is not needed at home-false. I have merely said that we should practice as we did not but 150 years ago and send mature men on missions rather than little children. Those men are not gone for the entire time of the upbringing of their children-but only for a time, a year maybe, maybe a little less maybe a little more.

Husbands do this for their families all the time-except for another god-money. Husbands go on business trips during the week, they may only be home every weekend or maybe only for 2 hours an evening.

Which god is more important, mammon or God?

Since the church has stated somewhat recently that men should try to avoid living and working away from their family then there is something to it.

FYI, my husband does stuff with the church that doesn’t involve me so I already do as you assume I lack the faith to.

You also have generalized.

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 4:59 pm**

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 4:47 pm
johnBob wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 4:24 pm
MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 3:21 pm
johnBob wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 5:40 pm
Wrong it did work when they sent the elders out in the 1800s without purse or script. And look at the results from then-real dedication.

Who provided for the women then?

The community of the church.

You'd just rather not give up your husband to the church. That's not terribly strong faith.
Would you give up your wife to the church? No hesitation? You, as a man, can make it all work at home without her?

Don’t judge me please. We have plenty of men young and old who do not have kids at home or a wife...send them.

Saying a husband and father is needed and wanted at home is quite a compliment these days, yet you just needed to tell me I have weaker faith....I will never understand some people.
For Christ, yes absolutely.

It is what He commands us that we do-be willing to sacrifice all that we have for Him. If the Church-which should be the Body of Christ here on the Earth, required married men to leave their families in order to preach the Gospel-then yes I would absolutely be willing to do so. The reward for that faith should be that the Church provides or at least ensures that my family is taken care of so she should not have to work.

You have generalized where I have not-you have made the claim that I said a husband and a father is not needed at home-false. I have merely said that we should practice as we did not but 150 years ago and send mature men on missions rather than little children. Those men are not gone for the entire time of the upbringing of their children-but only for a time, a year maybe, maybe a little less maybe a little more.

Husbands do this for their families all the time-except for another god-money. Husbands go on business trips during the week, they may only be home every weekend or maybe only for 2 hours an evening.

Which god is more important, mammon or God?
Since the church has stated somewhat recently that men should try to avoid living and working away from their family then there is something to it.

FYI, my husband does stuff with the church that doesn’t involve me so I already do as you assume I lack the faith to.

You also have generalized.

You know you are a really hard person to have a conversation with-you and Sarah both. Just as an FYI, it is REALLY hard to actually communicate with you-and I do try.

I'm not going to claim that if the time ACTUALLY came where I would be required to give up family that I would do it-but I recognize that it is what Christ actually commands us. It's what we covenant to in the Temple. So I recognize that I at least need to be willing to say yes-which I am.

Saying you lack the faith necessary is simply a statement of FACT-not a statement of "you are such a horrible person". If you state (which you did) you are not willing to give up your husband for him to go on a mission then you are by your very words stating you do not have faith (Temple Covenants!)

I really don't understand why any type of conversation with you (or Sarah) about men and women ends up being a battle? Are you trying to prove something? I really don't get it.

Why is it that holding you accountable to your own words which come from you is so hard? Why do you esteem me as an enemy instead of as a fellow Saint?

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 5:01 pm**

Thinker wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 4:29 pm
johnBob wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 2:29 pm ...Part of the reason why the religion is having such massive problems is specifically because as a people we are little children relying upon our parents for everything-we rely upon Salt Lake for everything from buildings, to policy, to telling us we can't bring weapons into our own congregations . ..b/c we are little children.

Until we as a people start learning to grow up and take responsibility for our own salvation and exaltation with God we won't ever be able to produce a true conversion...

How many talks do you hear in sacrament meetings which are simply a regurgitation from a General Conference talk? Waaaay too many.
I’m speechless. Seriously, that is so right on the money (all $124 Billion+ ), that I don’t know what else to say!

I see what you did there

Posted: **January 19th, 2020, 5:14 pm**

Many have mentioned the symptoms, but the root cause is because we've allowed ourselves to get soft with sin. We're soft in general, but what God is holding us accountable for is being soft on sin. The general conference talks ARE indeed pleasant and soothing, but that should not be mistaken for love. The church is being soft with and pandering to the homosexual movement. Nothing good can come of that. Even abortion is getting a pass now if it was done out of rape or incest. Sorry but don't we believe that the innocent should not be made to suffer with the guilty? That baby did nothing wrong, though that's one incident where the mother should be given the utmost in gentle treatment and support.
But I'd give a lot to be able to ask just one person in the general presidency when did love begin to involve JUST making people feel good all the time?

There's another possibility for the decline in membership, and it may have something to do with the reason the overall worldwide birthrate is dropping. Maybe we really ARE entering the final months of this dispensation and that there are simply fewer souls left that are coming across the veil?

Just for fun, I've been listening to this guy on youtube who claims to have these spirit boxes. He goes by the name huff paranormal on his channel, and while I'm deeply skeptical, they are still intriguing to listen too. Several "spirits" have already said that the world will end in 2020. Again, I don't take that seriously, but what got my attention was the reactions by other viewers. Time and time again, they said the same thing. That being that they've been having odd feelings that something was about to happen. They commented about how Christmas this year wasn't the same, and they just overall had eerie feelings about the future. THAT is what is very telling to me that the spirit world may be running out of souls to send here.

LDS Freedom Forum

With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?

Re: With church growth sputtering, does the Latter-day Saint missionary program need a tuneup or an overhaul?