I thought the retention rate was 25-30%. It's hard to tell because they count you for life once you're baptized. Anyone know of any data on this issue?
It's pretty bad if you baptize a teen without his or her family or anyone without the rest of their immediate family. It's quite a bit better when you baptize whole families or activate a family before you baptize some of it's members which is what our Stake concentrates on. I don't know of a Church-wide statistic for that but in my experience, retention is near 100% in those cases. We do indeed weed out some in the process of activation as we do not hesitate to challenge them to commit to what they say they are on paper.
I mainly see alot of issues with source and character, whether they are founded or not. Rarely do I ever see a discussion among anti-mormons regarding doctrine, which would be the real issue.
The church does make an effort, from what I understand, to create hits to positive church websites so that they get a google hit to the top of the list faster than an anti-site would pop up. (I may have phrased this wrong, please correct me if so)
If there is a large problem among members of the church with the anti-mormon websites, it is simply a seperateing of the wheat from the chaff. Everyone who has a testimony will be sorely tested at some point to see if they will alow their faith to carry them through troubled waters. It is just a shame if the wheat goes out with the chaff before the roots can grow strong.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
why me wrote:But the bottom line in the LDS church is the Book of Mormon. How it came about can be debated but the LDS version still holds up under scruntiny, as the Dale and Dan debate shows on a different thread. And in the end, that is all that should matter to the LDS lurker on the internet.
The LDS account of how the Book of Mormon came to be is ludicrous and full of so many holes I cannot possibly see how you believe it holds up. The Book of Mormon is a train wreck and there is nothing that points to the authenticity of the church's party line.
How can you possibly say that it holds up to scrutinty? Unless im missing what you are saying you are saying it does hold up? I call BS.
Comrade Vegas!
The book is still around and still it hasn't been refuted and the dan and dale internet board show proves just that. However, the critic can certainly give a somewhat credible interpretation of its not so devine orgins by piecing together a scrap here and a scrap there. But in the end, the critics have speculation and the LDS have 11 witnesses and millions of devine personal witnesses when the book is prayed about. The holy ghost has answered many prayers. And the critic has provided no proof that the devine origin is a false one.
Jason Bourne wrote: This good man then bore the testimony said that he had never read anything negative about the Church and never would, not in a book nor on the internet. He then bore his testimony.
I do not mock this man at all by the way. If he is happy and happy about how he approaches things I am happy for him. I have a good friend that is the same way. At times I wish I had stayed like them. And many, many active members are like this. And as long as there are the Church is not in crisis nor are leaders panicking.
I envy those who are not exposed to church history and the "meat." If I could erase what I have learned, I would, but with apologetics, they are likely to encounter it in the future. I find the threat of the internet to be less dangerous than apologetic material. LDS can easily label anything they read on the internet as "anti Mormon" or lies, but when it comes from LDS endorsed books like "Rough Stone Rolling", they are forced to think about uncomfortable topics. Even if these members choose to remain in ignorance and not read anything but church publications, they are likely to encounter other LDS who have read these books. I know several members who recently read this book and discuss it with those who haven't.
The reality is, at some point these active members who will not read anything negative, may stumble upon it. It's still a choice to continue reading and learning, but the nagging questions may stay around. I wasn't seeking to go inactive when I researched some doctrinal concerns. It was quite the opposite. I was seeking to increase my testimony and was hit by a truck in the process. I have yet to meet a former member that desired to leave the church and then sought after material to jusitfy it. I know they exist, but they do not represent the majority of disillusioned members.
I think the church is concerned about inactivity, but not panicking. It will be a crisis when Wards are no longer growing. In my area, they are still growing and splitting.
The devil works in mysterious ways. The negatives that are out there are basically interpretation of events in history. For each negative interpretation there is also a positive interpretation. The critic stresses the negative, the LDS stress the positive. Rough Sone Rolling has a wonderful interpretation of the prophet Joseph Smith. I don't think that the LDS will be shocked by anything that they may read in that book. But they may be surprised. However, the book shows Joseph just not to be a spiritual person but also to be a temporal person and it is here that the book strength is located. The prophet Joseph was not just a prophet but a human being who cared for the poor and for the spiritual wellbeing of the saints. That is a positive from the RSR book.
Fortigurn wrote:What's the turnover rate like within the LDS church?
Round 95 percent fall away within the first year
I thought the retention rate was 25-30%. It's hard to tell because they count you for life once you're baptized. Anyone know of any data on this issue?
Probably about 30% world wide. it varies from area to area. In my US ward and stake it is about 80% retention.
why me wrote:The devil works in mysterious ways. The negatives that are out there are basically interpretation of events in history. For each negative interpretation there is also a positive interpretation. The critic stresses the negative, the LDS stress the positive. Rough Sone Rolling has a wonderful interpretation of the prophet Joseph Smith. I don't think that the LDS will be shocked by anything that they may read in that book. But they may be surprised. However, the book shows Joseph just not to be a spiritual person but also to be a temporal person and it is here that the book strength is located. The prophet Joseph was not just a prophet but a human being who cared for the poor and for the spiritual wellbeing of the saints. That is a positive from the RSR book.
I know some that read the book recently and were not troubled by anything in it, so I agree that some people will enjoy the positive interpretation. My guess is that these same people really wouldn't have anything bother them. I also know some that won't even discuss the book. You can see that they were troubled by what they learned and don't want to go there.
Whether the majority of LDS would buy into the "spin" Bushman puts on history that should be disturbing is yet to be seen since most people probably won't read the book.
I disagree that the negatives are only the critical interpretations of history. There are negatives in history because Joseph Smith and other Prophets made some big mistakes. You can spin it however you want, but a married man sleeping with teenage girls wouldn't sit well with most people, despite the "angel with the flaming sword" story. The racism to our African brothers and sisters is another topic you can't spin positively. There are many more. I think Bushman's take on Joseph's treasure hunting preparing him for his future is the funniest part of the book.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence... That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith
Gazelam wrote:I mainly see alot of issues with source and character, whether they are founded or not. Rarely do I ever see a discussion among anti-mormons regarding doctrine, which would be the real issue.
Baloney. How does doctrine relate to such nonsense as "only one pair of earrings" at all? Which scripture is it that condemns "teased hair", and how is a doctrinal discussion on this topic merited in any way, shape, or form?
Gazelam wrote:I mainly see alot of issues with source and character, whether they are founded or not. Rarely do I ever see a discussion among anti-mormons regarding doctrine, which would be the real issue.
Baloney. How does doctrine relate to such nonsense as "only one pair of earrings" at all? Which scripture is it that condemns "teased hair", and how is a doctrinal discussion on this topic merited in any way, shape, or form?
You yourself are a prime example of exactly what I'm talking about. You criticise me regarding one of my posts, claiming I don't understand doctrine, and them proceed to attack the form of the post, never stateing anything about whether what I said was right or not. Congratulations on becoming a sterotype.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
bcspace wrote: there are people like me who have arisen to ferret out all the mistakes and false logic to such an extent that it simply is the same as it always was as per Matthew 13:1-23.
All it takes is for someone like me (and there are usually about a half-dozen per ward) to be there during the discussions or when questions are raised in class. The frauds are quickly outted and the congregation is further innoculated. We don't even have to delve into all questions. All we have to do is show a few errors on your part and your credibility is destroyed.
Perhaps this is the response although it is through "non-official" channels, the church hopes that members like bcspace will fill the gap with enough rhetoric to give a sense of well being to the majority of the members. If that works, I guess it's fine, as most members only want something to point so and say "See this issue has been dealt with, I rest my case."
I think another response, although this too is "non-official" is, Rough Stone Rolling. There was no choice but to acknowledge the more sordid details of church history, so we have people who "pull back the curtain" and still manage to put a positive, even faith promoting spin on it. The upcoming book on MMM is more of the same.