Numbers don't support LDS Church's one true church claim

[Blueintheface]

I think it is a valid question. Why wouldn't God want more of his children to enjoy all the blessings that are out there?

Free will...oh...and they're socialist atheists.

[Art Vandelay]

Why is it growing do slowly?

Because we keep kicking out the riff-raff. Go ahead and keep repeating the I left voluntary line SU, we all know you pissed off your college RS president and she had you blackballed out of the church.

[creekster]

I think it is a valid question. Why wouldn't God want more of his children to enjoy all the blessings that are out there?

that is also a very different question. You might ask that about any belief system, as none of them are accepted by everyone.

[Solon]

that is also a very different question. You might ask that about any belief system, as none of them are accepted by everyone.

There is a strong rhetoric in LDS doctrine and belief that the church will cover the entire earth, that the gospel will go to all nations, peoples, and tongues, that no unhallowed hand can stop the progress of this work. The notion of the inevitable, ineluctable, inexorable growth of the LDS movement is one we hear about all the time in both religious (Saturday morning session in conference) and secular (Stark) settings.

Yet, the chosen people of God are supposed to be the elect few who manage to persevere through apostasy, ridicule, and difficult trials.

This is another example of the tension between the inclusive and exclusive ideologies in Mormonism.

[creekster]

There is a strong rhetoric in LDS doctrine and belief that the church will cover the entire earth, that the gospel will go to all nations, peoples, and tongues, that no unhallowed hand can stop the progress of this work. The notion of the inevitable, ineluctable, inexorable growth of the LDS movement is one we hear about all the time in both religious (Saturday morning session in conference) and secular (Stark) settings.

Yet, the chosen people of God are supposed to be the elect few who manage to persevere through apostasy, ridicule, and difficult trials.

This is another example of the tension between the inclusive and exclusive ideologies in Mormonism.

Not exactly. While the work goes forward and cannot be stopped, I am not sure that there is the doctrinal basis to state it will eventually include everyone. To the contrary, as you point out, the doctrine suggests that the numbers of true believers will be few in the last days. I am not sure the tension is doctrinal (spare me the claims fo no doctrine, please SU) as much as it is between doctrine and the desire of members to feel like they are part of a true and successful orgnization as evidenced by its growth. I have suggested here before that we should be neither surprised nor disappoionted if, in fact, the LDS church is NOT the fastest growing. Instead, that is exactly what I would expect.

I am also not sure if I think the notion of inclusive vs. exclusive ideolgies is the same as the idea propsoed here. The fact that we beleive the beleivers weil be few in the last days isnt exclusive, it is descriptive.

WHen you respond and kick my butt, you do not need to rub in my face that I just picked a fight with a DOCTOR. But you could.

[Solon]

Not exactly. While the work goes forward and cannot be stopped, I am not sure that there is the doctrinal basis to state it will eventually include everyone. To the contrary, as you point out, the doctrine suggests that the numbers of true believers will be few in the last days. I am not sure the tension is doctrinal (spare me the claims fo no doctrine, please SU) as much as it is between doctrine and the desire of members to feel like they are part of a true and successful orgnization as evidenced by its growth. I have suggested here before that we should be neither surprised nor disappoionted if, in fact, the LDS church is NOT the fastest growing. Instead, that is exactly what I would expect.

I am also not sure if I think the notion of inclusive vs. exclusive ideolgies is the same as the idea propsoed here. The fact that we beleive the beleivers weil be few in the last days isnt exclusive, it is descriptive.

WHen you respond and kick my butt, you do not need to rub in my face that I just picked a fight with a DOCTOR. But you could.

There's no fight left in this dog. Besides, we're not really disagreeing.

I don't think the number of members of the church really has anything to do with "truthfulness" or whatever we want to call it - I just think that there are competing ideologies in LDS (and other) evangelical faiths where members want to convert as many people as possible but also want to feel elect and chosen. In the LDS church, this is both cultural and doctrinal - but nobody really knows what God has in mind (the "Standard of Truth" quote I referenced above indicates that the gospel will go forth until the plans of God are fulfilled, whatever they may be). Nevertheless, at least where I grew up, the spreading of the gospel into new lands and among more people was always evidence of the divine nature of the message. As you say, the idea that the church will include "everyone" isn't doctrinal (or possible), but the idea that it will include more and more people as the stone cut out of the mountain without hands rolls on is pretty hard to escape. On the other hand, the "chosen people" mentality that permeated early LDS society is really hard to shake.

Mauss has talked about how, as the LDS have gone more mainstream in US religious landscape, some members have tried to regenerate this feeling of exclusivity by making up new rules or adopting stricter interpretations of existing ones.

I see no problem with a religion having both inclusive and exclusive impulses. The beauty of religion is often its ambiguity and paradox.

[creekster]

There's no fight left in this dog. Besides, we're not really disagreeing.

I don't think the number of members of the church really has anything to do with "truthfulness" or whatever we want to call it - I just think that there are competing ideologies in LDS (and other) evangelical faiths where members want to convert as many people as possible but also want to feel elect and chosen. In the LDS church, this is both cultural and doctrinal - but nobody really knows what God has in mind (the "Standard of Truth" quote I referenced above indicates that the gospel will go forth until the plans of God are fulfilled, whatever they may be). Nevertheless, at least where I grew up, the spreading of the gospel into new lands and among more people was always evidence of the divine nature of the message. As you say, the idea that the church will include "everyone" isn't doctrinal (or possible), but the idea that it will include more and more people as the stone cut out of the mountain without hands rolls on is pretty hard to escape. On the other hand, the "chosen people" mentality that permeated early LDS society is really hard to shake.

Mauss has talked about how, as the LDS have gone more mainstream in US religious landscape, some members have tried to regenerate this feeling of exclusivity by making up new rules or adopting stricter interpretations of existing ones.

I see no problem with a religion having both inclusive and exclusive impulses. The beauty of religion is often its ambiguity and paradox.

Is that really the only correct understandiong of the Daniel prohpecy? THat is not how I understood it. That the truth would roll forward filling the earth means in terms of access to me, but not in terms of acceptance. A stanbdard by which judgement can be made, but not the result of misisonary work. Perhaps I am way off here.

[Solon]

Is that really the only correct understandiong of the Daniel prohpecy? THat is not how I understood it. That the truth would roll forward filling the earth means in terms of access to me, but not in terms of acceptance. A stanbdard by which judgement can be made, but not the result of misisonary work. Perhaps I am way off here.

No way you're way off. I think that's part of the dilemma - the only way for more and more people to get access is for more and more people to accept it. But, at the same time, more and more people reject it because the world has to be super-wicked at the end.

Your interpretation is as good as any other.

[LA Ute]

There is a strong rhetoric in LDS doctrine and belief that the church will cover the entire earth, that the gospel will go to all nations, peoples, and tongues, that no unhallowed hand can stop the progress of this work. The notion of the inevitable, ineluctable, inexorable growth of the LDS movement is one we hear about all the time in both religious (Saturday morning session in conference) and secular (Stark) settings.

Yet, the chosen people of God are supposed to be the elect few who manage to persevere through apostasy, ridicule, and difficult trials.

This is another example of the tension between the inclusive and exclusive ideologies in Mormonism.

Well . . . there's nothing in those scriptures about actual pre-Millennial numbers. I like to think that lots of us (including me) will be surprised to see how things eventually work out. [DIGRESSION ALERT] Speaking of surprises, one of my pet thoughts is that after we get to see the Savior again we may well laugh at the difference between what we thought he looked like while we were mortals and his actual physical appearance. (Although the biggest surprise may be what Pres. Benson suggested - how familiar the Savior's face actually is to us and how well we know him.)

Is that really the only correct understandiong of the Daniel prohpecy? THat is not how I understood it. That the truth would roll forward filling the earth means in terms of access to me, but not in terms of acceptance. A stanbdard by which judgement can be made, but not the result of misisonary work. Perhaps I am way off here.

If you are way off, then you and I are way off together.

Sorry, I can't accept that the one true church should be anything other than inexorably taking over the whole world. We're in the latter days?! Speaking of which, how much time has to pass before that name itself becomes an indictment?

And if the LDS church simply started "inexorably taking over the whole world," you'd come rushing back to it, right?

[OrangeUte]

i've always wondered about the use of the word "filled" in Nebuchadnezer's dream. IIRC, that was just used in Daniels recitation back to the King about the dream, but it is not used in the interpretation of the dream... in fact, i don't think the word is actually used in Daniel's interpretation of the dream.

assuming i'm right, is it possible that too much is made out of the word "filled". the symbolism of the stone becoming a great mountain and "filling" the earth seems to indicate that it is a pervasive and nearly all-encompassing "filling" rather than just a presence everywhere...

still, the symbolism of an actual mountain filling the earth does seems to indicate much more than just a presence but an overwhelming citizenry of the whole world.

[OrangeUte]

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/2

here's the link. it does look like the word filled is only used in daniel's recitation, and not much at all is said about the interpretation of the stone... maybe it's contained elsewhere, but not much about it in this chapter.

[woot]

We used to recite the "Standard of Truth" along with DC 4 at all the zone conferences in my mission. While neither explicitly refers to large numbers of people joining the church, the clear purpose of having missionaries recite them is exactly that interpretation of them. It is odd how the growth of the church has slowed so much in recent years. I wonder if the easy accessibility of information is the culprit.

[Viking]

Shoot, if I believed all I had to do to be saved was accept that Jesus is my savior and move on with my life, I'd probably join up, too.

I think that's what Jesus was about.

[fusnik]

Shoot, if I believed all I had to do to be saved was accept that Jesus is my savior and move on with my life, I'd probably join up, too.

Pretty demeaning.

So cavalier about the belief system of so many of your brothers and sisters.

[pellegrino]

I think it is a valid question. Why wouldn't God want more of his children to enjoy all the blessings that are out there?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we believe that all of God's children will be able to enjoy the blessings of the gospel? If the gospel is the good news of Christ's atonement and resurrection then everyone who is born into this world will benefit from it. I think in our zealousness to distinguish ourselves as "particular" and "chosen" we forget the universalist aspects of salvation that are essential to our world view. Yet another manifestation of the tension between the exclusive and inclusive nature Solon referenced.