Boston Herald article on Mormonism

[MikeWaters]

Pretty good except for a couple of things

1) I don't know that "requires" is the right word for tithing. We dont' kick people out if they don't follow this commandment.

2) cold drinks with caffeine. whatever this means. If they are referring to soft drinks, they are not specifically prohibited.

http://news.bostonherald.com/politic...ticleid=171825

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Pretty good except for a couple of things

1) I don't know that "requires" is the right word for tithing. We dont' kick people out if they don't follow this commandment.

2) cold drinks with caffeine. whatever this means. If they are referring to soft drinks, they are not specifically prohibited.

http://news.bostonherald.com/politic...ticleid=171825

If you don't pay tithing no TR and you go to the Mormon hell. That's not "requires"? What other leverage does a religion have (these days) than the promise of eternal damnation?

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If you don't pay tithing no TR and you go to the Mormon hell. That's not "requires"? What other leverage does a religion have (these days) than the promise of eternal damnation?

The Terrestrial Kingdom is the Mormon hell? I always thought the Mormon hell was outer darkness and that very few will actually end up there.

[BigFatMeanie]

The article states that Mormons oppose "gay relationships". I'm not sure what the definition of "gay relationships" is. If the article means gay sexual relationships, then yes, I think it's safe to say that Mormons in general oppose them.

If gay relationships means government sanctioned gay marriage or some other type of government sanctioned union, then I think it's safe to say that leadership of the Mormon church opposes them but the degree of opposition varies among the membership body of the Mormon church.

If gay relationships means one individual having homosexual feelings for another individual but they aren't in a government sanctioned marriage/union and aren't having sexual relationships then I'm not so sure that Mormons oppose that type of gay relationship. If fact, as far as I can tell, that type of gay relationship is perfectly valid within Mormonism.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If you don't pay tithing no TR and you go to the Mormon hell. That's not "requires"? What other leverage does a religion have (these days) than the promise of eternal damnation?

When I think "requirement", I'm thinking what you have to do to retain membership in the church.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Pretty good except for a couple of things

1) I don't know that "requires" is the right word for tithing. We dont' kick people out if they don't follow this commandment.

Church, no, but temple, yes. So unless you want to be considered inactive, barred from your own childrens' weddings, etc, then its a requirement.

It seems to be considered quite important in that there is an annual tithing settlement meeting and a question specifically about it for the Temple Recommend.

If the LDS Church is spending $2B on commercial development in downtown SLC alone, I would guess their estimate of the LDS Church's wealth is low by an order of magnitude or two.

[MikeWaters]

Let's estimate that only 40% of adult members actually attend church. Then less than half of those pay a full tithe.

When 80% of members don't pay a full tithe, it's hard to think of it as a requirement of membership.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Let's estimate that only 40% of adult members actually attend church. Then less than half of those pay a full tithe.

When 80% of members don't pay a full tithe, it's hard to think of it as a requirement of membership.

Its a required that you obey the speed limit, that 20% of drivers actually do doesn't make it any less of a requirement.

So there is a compliance problem, actually there is a retention problem because for all the claimed growth of "one of the fastest growing churches" the actual number of practicing members doesn't seem to be increasing (2% of the US for the last 15 years).

[MikeWaters]

where do you get your figures on practicing members? "2% of the US" does not make sense. Are you trying to say that the number of LDS members practicing has only increased by 2% in the last 15 years? Pelagius, please set this man straight about statistics.

Requirement to be a driver to follow speed limit? Nope. Requirement for what?

Is a requirement to not swear in the LDS church? Requirement for what?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

where do you get your figures on practicing members? "2% of the US" does not make sense. Are you trying to say that the number of LDS members practicing has only increased by 2% in the last 15 years? Pelagius, please set this man straight about statistics.

Requirement to be a driver to follow speed limit? Nope. Requirement for what?

Is a requirement to not swear in the LDS church? Requirement for what?

Sorry, Mike there just not a lot of good data to answer the question. I do think that growth in the number of stakes in probably a pretty good proxy for what Hyrum is looking for in terms of growth among "practicing mormons" since stake growth has to be fueled by those who are actual active.

1991: 1837
2005: 2701

That's an arithmetic average of about 3.1% and a geometric average of about 2.5%. I am not sure where Hyrum came up with 2% but it looks like it is in the ballpark.

Notes:

(1) Clearly doing a stake level analysis only makes sense if the "definition" of what comprises a stake has stayed relatively constant.

(2) To me a better question is "what's the growth rate among people who self-identify themeselves as Mormon?" Data is hard to come by on that question as well.

(3) Hyrum may have gotten his number from the Salt Lake Tribune's series on church growth this summer.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2890645