20 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Bruce, I like the overall point you make, but I’d be wary of the “It’s true because it’s growing” mentality. Plenty of smaller restorationist sects are quite comfortable with their small size, recalling Nephi’s prophecy that the church in the last days would be “small”. And our own growth rate seems to be slowing; I seem to recall reading somewhere that as a proportion of the world’s population we’re actually shrinking. |
There is some danger in assuming that “growth = right” but that’s a way to reconcile all the splinter groups I hadn’t thought of. When I told my husband (back when we were first dating) that I was Mormon, I was stunned when he went and looked up some things about our faith and came back asking me which of the 13 sects I belonged to. Say WHAT? I’d heard of the RLDS but that was pretty much it. I must admit I was a bit shaken. |
I’m fully aware of the ‘growth = right’ fallacy (hey, let’s all become Jehovah’s Witnesses!), but that’s not my argument. My point is that there is a profound difference in multiple areas between the LDS Church and all the other Restoration churches despite their common origins — and I’m pretty clear as to why.
Nope. Annual world population growth is around 1.3% (~77 million/year). The Church’s growth rate — even slowed down — is about double that.
Well, actually, this is my second post. |
Amen Bruce. While there are obviously reasons other than growth as JimD said, the point you made about a living prophet, the priesthood and the Holy Ghost rings true! |
Yeah, I like this, too Bruce. I’m in favor of moderation. I’ve been on the receiving end of that “savage mysogyny” and it’s not pretty. So I’m also grateful for those Mormon liberals out there fighting the good fight. |
I had to laugh a couple of years ago when I was in Kirtland, and in the temple tour, some LDS family tour from Utah asked the guide “so when do you plan to give back the temple?” The patient CoC guide made a few points regarding the “Brigham Young faction” leaving it behind. Yes - we’re just another faction who went west. |
a bit of reality here….(?) So, when I see the fruits of religious organizations ‘gone wild’… I see some of the same roots in SLC/COB. |
queuno–my dad is thoroughly convinced the CoC will sell the Kirtland temple to “us” when the price is right. He thinks they don’t care about it. And truly, from the outside, they do seem to go to great pains to distance themselves from our history, but maybe my impression is wrong. I was talking to some CoC sisters a while ago and they were saying that the Priesthood change caused the “conservative half” to leave the church, and it has been all good after that. I must admit that some Sundays, I would have been happy for the conservative half of my branch to be gone–it seems quite appealing, but that lasts for about 2 seconds. Even though they drive me crazy, I’d get lonely without them. They probably don’t feel the same about me, though. nice post, Bruce. |
Guy, You’ve never been in a bishopric meeting, have you? |
ESO - I grew up in the shadow of Kirtland; in fact, one of the stake presidents we had growing up is probably the world’s foremost authority on Kirtland. I would disagree with the assertion that CoC doesn’t care about the Kirtland Temple. The tours now are better than they have been since the 1980s — CoC is now taking college students studying history, museum curatorship, and the like. It’s no longer the disaffected CoC missionaries that would skim over the history. The top story no longer accomodates large groups, but they’ll sing “The Spirit of God” while you’re seated in the bottom floor. It’s pretty cool. Our Church has actually built up now enough of a historical presence in Kirtland that we really don’t care about the temple itself. Historic Kirtland (the old buildings, etc.) has been really well done. And quite frankly — there’s more “spirit” and history in the Newell Whitney store (with the School of the Prophets) than in the old temple. The Church has gone to great lengths to bond with the CoC in Kirtland, which was NOT the case 20 years ago. I am told that when the Church conducts training lectures for our missionaries, we invite CoC to participate. The year escapes me, but some time ago, the Church defended the RLDS Church in court when some other group challenged the ownership in court — our Church submitted briefs defending the CoC’s ownership. And quite honestly - CoC has a point - it’s a symbol of their religion, and they were the faction who didn’t leave. As long as I lived in the area, Kirtland was never considered a “Mormon” town; it was an RLDS (now CoC town). We abandoned it. It’s interesting that our Church will *not* compete financially with CoC in either Kirtland or Nauvoo. If you want to buy a postcard, head to the CoC gift shop; our Church won’t allow you to buy anything (Nauvoo has LDS bookstores up in town, but not in the properties). I used to think in the 80s that we would eventually buy the Kirtland Temple. Now, I think the only way it will happen is if CoC comes to us and offers it to us. And frankly, I can’t ever see that happening. As a church, they are pretty hostile to us in their tours and go to great lengths to point out doctrinal differences. As a “historical” tour, they do a really good job now (not as good as the early 80s, but good enough). The Kirtland Temple is, frankly, the last *symbol* they have to point to their status as one of the restorative religions. They will fight to keep it. They have government court cases on their side. That temple will continue to fall down, and our Church will continue to quietly give them money to keep it propped up, but it stands as a very stark symbol between the health of the two religions, when you compare it vs. Historic Kirtland. |
I was going to add - it was always funny to me to see how the old Kirtland Temple tour would change. I remember when they would take you to the upper floor and talk about Joseph’s vision of Alvin and how that led to the revelation about heaven. That was the very early 80s. By the mid-80s, they wouldn’t mention it. By the late 80s, they would talk about the symbolism of the architecture, but mention none of Joseph’s revelations, except the experiences at the dedication and being receiving priesthood keys. As a family, we’d go over to Kirtland once a year or so and you could tell how the temple tour would get shorter as they’d cut more out… There seems to be an effort to make it more historical, even if the doctrinal schism between our churches is so great. If anyone goes to Kirtland, I would recommend visiting Historic Kirtland first. You can watch a movie about the temple and then know what to look for when you go. (My parents still live in the area and love to visit it.) |
queuno–I agree that the current CoC tours and their new visitors center there are great. I have been very impressed with their guides and they are generous about the use of the temple–the weekend I was there last year with a womens’ LDS group, we used the temple Saturday night and some of the 12 and area 70s used it for meetings the following Sunday. My impression is that the worldwide CoC does not emphasize history–members in Ghana seem to focus more on Christ than on JS. Well, and what’s so bad about that? So Limoni is important to the CoC members there, Navous to members there, and Kirtland to members there, but members in CA might not care much. Again, this is the impression of the outsider. Also, I live near Palmyra, and of course know of MANY historically significant church sites the church has made no efforts to buy. I was simply reporting my dad’s opinion. |
The model in Kirtland has always been “let’s do our own properties so well that people will flock to them, and then we’ll tell them what to look for when they go to the temple.” I think Joseph Smith still is a key part of their message, at least in Kirtland. I think that CoC actually does a better job of celebrating the life of Hyrum better than we do. It’s good to know you live near Palmyra. We want to visit there in a year or two; maybe you can tell us how to maximize our time there (I haven’t been since I was a teen). |
queuno–I have been working on just such a post (more info than you want, really)–look for it in May. |
I don’t know how the leaders of an organization with millions of members can avoid being management oriented. However, I think, because we are led by God, our leaders are also being guided to be more compassionate. I see it. It’s not coming fast enough for me, I’m bothered, like I said, by the chauvinism and the social jockeying for high position, among other things. Being God’s church doesn’t mean being a perfect church. We’re progressing. |
Excellent. One day, I’ll post my itinerary on “How to see everything worth seeing in Nauvoo in just one day!” (We did this a couple of years ago — started when it opened and stopped when it closed.) We have friends here in Texas who complained that Nauvoo was a 2-3 day affair. My thought was … what, did you stop for a half-hour in EVERY HOUSE? |
I don’t know how the leaders of an organization with millions of members can avoid being management oriented. However, I think, because we are led by God, our leaders are also being guided to be more compassionate. I see it. Many members don’t see it, but the focus on management and data actually is what allows the church to “care for the sheep”, so to speak. The Church spends millions of dollars annually to do things like store addresses and phone numbers and baptismal dates and transfer them between wards, all so that we can then care for people. A “megachurch” may have 20,000 people … but that’s like 3 or 4 stakes. And they just don’t have the same participatory, collaboration-driven worship model that we have. And that’s difficult to do. You have to have sound management to pull off the 3 missions of the Church. |
All I can say/hope to have understood here is that the ppl who thrash out even minor decisions (on a local level) get more growth by learning to work together, accomodate each other’s needs than by having (the most trivial) issues resolved for them. |
A guess- Mennonites? Is your Church the true Church, Guy? |
I’d like to see how the Mennonites would resolve issues of “caring for the flock” if their numbers were in the millions, and in hundreds of countries. Most of the issues in the Church are resolved at the local level. But there is necessarily an aspect of centralized/global decision-making that has to take place. If you’re not willing to understand, you won’t. |