Large numbers of members apostatizing - says Marlin K Jensen

[_Darth J]

I don't post often, but Mr. Jensen's comments were so interesting that I hope you don't mind if I weigh in. A few points:

1. Search engine optimization, focus groups, and consultants: Why does the church's message need to be tested, massaged, and manipulated this way? Isn't the role of the church -- or any other church -- to proclaim what it believes to be true? The church is not responsible for whether people accept its message. That will be determined by the intellectual and spiritual response of the people who hear it.

2. In regard to what Mr. Jensen referred to as the delicate task of upholding the Brethren: This is not the role of a historian. A historian's job is to document, narrate, and attempt to interpret past events in a manner that is consistent with, among other things, good science. A historian is not allowed to cherry pick evidence. That's the propagandist's job.

3. Whether members are leaving in "droves" or not: If the Brethren consider this to be an important subject, they should discuss it with the rest of the church. The Brethren have the numbers, including meeting attendance, temple attendance, tithing, etc. What are they? If the Brethren do not wish to disclose them, why not? I doubt that it is because it just hasn't occurred to anyone to be more transparent about this.

4. The planned new "Answers to Gospel Questions": These answers will be either the same as those already offered by the apologists at FAIR and FARMS, or they will be different. If the same, why is there a special project to offer the same spectacularly unsatisfying arguments at, presumably, some new website? If they are different, why is the church not already proclaiming them?

Any new apologetic initiative must begin with draft arguments. These require a pencil, a piece of paper, and a bit of time to think. The church has a public relations department, fifteen presumed prophets, seers, and revelators, its own university, and nearly two centuries of apologetic tradition. If this task can be done at all, why hasn't it been done already?

This post is getting a bump because, although it is well thought out and makes several excellent points, nobody has commented on it.

I, for one, would like to hear more from folks like Gentile Persuasion on this board.

+1

[_Runtu]

I don't post often, but Mr. Jensen's comments were so interesting that I hope you don't mind if I weigh in. A few points:

1. Search engine optimization, focus groups, and consultants: Why does the church's message need to be tested, massaged, and manipulated this way? Isn't the role of the church -- or any other church -- to proclaim what it believes to be true? The church is not responsible for whether people accept its message. That will be determined by the intellectual and spiritual response of the people who hear it.

2. In regard to what Mr. Jensen referred to as the delicate task of upholding the Brethren: This is not the role of a historian. A historian's job is to document, narrate, and attempt to interpret past events in a manner that is consistent with, among other things, good science. A historian is not allowed to cherry pick evidence. That's the propagandist's job.

3. Whether members are leaving in "droves" or not: If the Brethren consider this to be an important subject, they should discuss it with the rest of the church. The Brethren have the numbers, including meeting attendance, temple attendance, tithing, etc. What are they? If the Brethren do not wish to disclose them, why not? I doubt that it is because it just hasn't occurred to anyone to be more transparent about this.

4. The planned new "Answers to Gospel Questions": These answers will be either the same as those already offered by the apologists at FAIR and FARMS, or they will be different. If the same, why is there a special project to offer the same spectacularly unsatisfying arguments at, presumably, some new website? If they are different, why is the church not already proclaiming them?

Any new apologetic initiative must begin with draft arguments. These require a pencil, a piece of paper, and a bit of time to think. The church has a public relations department, fifteen presumed prophets, seers, and revelators, its own university, and nearly two centuries of apologetic tradition. If this task can be done at all, why hasn't it been done already?

This post is getting a bump because, although it is well thought out and makes several excellent points, nobody has commented on it.

I, for one, would like to hear more from folks like Gentile Persuasion on this board.

Somehow I missed this post, but yes, it's exactly right and well said. The problem isn't the packaging of the message; it's the message itself. There are serious problems with many of Mormonism foundational claims, and there are no good answers, unless of course you find Rube Goldberg-esque mental machinations adequate. Most people don't.

[_moksha]

I cannot discuss the fact that Joseph Smith hid some of his polygamous marriages from Emma with my LDS in-laws the same way I can discuss Aimee Semple McPherson's likely affairs with my evangelical cousins.

Had Aimee been in early Nauvoo do you think they would have hooked up?

[_kairos]

My my wife just came home with a stack of materials related to being a PCD, public communications dir. for her stake. slick powerpoint presentations and a manual a little slimmer than the preach my gospel manual but for PCD's.

everythind PCD is related to 2 items- finding and building relationships and influencing non-lds "opinion makers"- community officials, ambassadors from other countries, hign level officials from other faith traditions(did you see the Mormon times big spread /interview on his heftiness cardinal dolan of ny)-all done to build a trusting relationship with him so at some point dolan will say those Mormons are not so bad, or do something ecumenical like pro-life etc. perfect target for the church because dolan has an ego the size of his waistline , which is north of 60 inches.

the LDS church has targeted in its pcd program groups of opinion makers it wants to influence in every community to assure them Mormons are good solid christian people- and keep the face of the church pure and delightsome.

the second part of the PCD program is to encourage members to not be afraid, in fact be bold about sharing the LDS gospel. unfortunately beyond "I'm Sally and i am a Mormon" campaigns which are to spread to every community, the PCD pubs have no way to help the individual member to answer those tough questions jensen spoke about. and since no guidance is currently given because the chrurch answers and the apologists' answers are UNSAT, members are not engaging much less being bold about spreading/sharing their faith.
guess we will have to wait for the results of the next focus group to come up with answers members can use.

just sayin

[_Gentile Persuasion]

That "opinion maker" business sounds rather creepy. Isn't that a Scientology strategy? Does it say anything about getting Tom Cruise to take the missionary discussions?

[_Fence Sitter]

I don't post often, but Mr. Jensen's comments were so interesting that I hope you don't mind if I weigh in. A few points:

1. Search engine optimization, focus groups, and consultants: Why does the church's message need to be tested, massaged, and manipulated this way? Isn't the role of the church -- or any other church -- to proclaim what it believes to be true? The church is not responsible for whether people accept its message. That will be determined by the intellectual and spiritual response of the people who hear it.

This is part of Jensen's point. Since some of the Church's message is verifiable history (1st Vision, Book of Mormon archeology, Book of Abraham etc) the internet makes verifying these claims instantaneous. It is not enough to just proclaim the message, they have to provide evidence to back it up, otherwise they will loose the internet savvy believers. Moroni's challenge fails the Google test.

2. In regard to what Mr. Jensen referred to as the delicate task of upholding the Brethren: This is not the role of a historian. A historian's job is to document, narrate, and attempt to interpret past events in a manner that is consistent with, among other things, good science. A historian is not allowed to cherry pick evidence. That's the propagandist's job.

LDS believe that one cannot fully and accurately understand religious history outside the faithful lens. Any historian that does not include that lens is cherry picking his evidence to preclude it. (Not my opinion by the way.)

3. Whether members are leaving in "droves" or not: If the Brethren consider this to be an important subject, they should discuss it with the rest of the church. The Brethren have the numbers, including meeting attendance, temple attendance, tithing, etc. What are they? If the Brethren do not wish to disclose them, why not? I doubt that it is because it just hasn't occurred to anyone to be more transparent about this.

The Church is afraid how their own membership will react to negative information. This approached worked somewhat before Google. I wonder if Bushman waited to publish RSR until most of the information was readily available on the internet to avoid censure from the Church.

4. The planned new "Answers to Gospel Questions": These answers will be either the same as those already offered by the apologists at FAIR and FARMS, or they will be different. If the same, why is there a special project to offer the same spectacularly unsatisfying arguments at, presumably, some new website? If they are different, why is the church not already proclaiming them?

Maybe the Brethren do not see eye to eye with the apologist and are merely using the apologist as weather vanes to gauge what the Church should actually publish?

Any new apologetic initiative must begin with draft arguments. These require a pencil, a piece of paper, and a bit of time to think. The church has a public relations department, fifteen presumed prophets, seers, and revelators, its own university, and nearly two centuries of apologetic tradition. If this task can be done at all, why hasn't it been done already?

Science and public education have a tendency to make dogmatic statements look foolish. Better to leave any claims of doctrine and history to unnamed newsroom sources that can be discounted later on. The most significant prophetic statement in years is . . . "I don't know that we teach that anymore.."

[_bcspace]

Better to leave any claims of doctrine and history to unnamed newsroom sources that can be discounted later on.

Not going to happen as the Church's definition of doctrine has been around for decades.

The most significant prophetic statement in years is . . . "I don't know that we teach that anymore.."

It's actually one of the most cherry-picked as you've chosen not to quote all of what he said which would drastically change the meaning.

[_Fence Sitter]

Better to leave any claims of doctrine and history to unnamed newsroom sources that can be discounted later on.

Not going to happen as the Church's definition of doctrine has been around for decades.

The most significant prophetic statement in years is . . . "I don't know that we teach that anymore.."

It's actually one of the most cherry-picked as you've chosen not to quote all of what he said which would drastically change the meaning.

I have improved my cherry picking techniques by reading your posts.

[_RockSlider]

That "opinion maker" business sounds rather creepy. Isn't that a Scientology strategy? Does it say anything about getting Tom Cruise to take the missionary discussions?

x2 --- And a Stake Level calling at that!

I have never heard of this calling before and asked my wife who held this position in our Stake. Her reply did not surprise me. A previous Stake President of our stake, a well known business man in the community, long history of activity in local politics. Very highly respected man in the community. And a Deeply devoted TBM.

All in the name of missionary work I suppose. But I cannot image new baggage being placed upon shelves for this good man (indeed a very good man).

[_malkie]

That "opinion maker" business sounds rather creepy. Isn't that a Scientology strategy? Does it say anything about getting Tom Cruise to take the missionary discussions?

x2 --- And a Stake Level calling at that!

I have never heard of this calling before and asked my wife who held this position in our Stake. Her reply did not surprise me. A previous Stake President of our stake, a well known business man in the community, long history of activity in local politics. Very highly respected man in the community. And a Deeply devoted TBM.

All in the name of missionary work I suppose. But I cannot image new baggage being placed upon shelves for this good man (indeed a very good man).

I held that position in my District in Scotland in the 1970s.

The main function at that time was getting local newspapers to print articles about what the local members were doing.


Slightly Old Testament:
Of course, sometimes members got in the news without any help from the PCD. A few years after I left Scotland I heard that one of the Scottish newspapers printed an article about a couple of men who were involved in a drunken brawl in the street: they were the Elders Quorum President and the Young Men's President.