jon wrote:I would hazard a guess that it's fifty/fifty
50% really have a testimony 50% have family ties that keep them in
My own guess is that it is more like 75%/testimony, 25% family ties, but from what I can tell there is a large percentage of folks that are only attending because of family ties. I think those ties are so strong that LDS members could stand a lot more "truthful history" without abandoning the LDS Church.
jon wrote:I would hazard a guess that it's fifty/fifty
50% really have a testimony 50% have family ties that keep them in
So for each individual who has a testimony as you say, there is one who feels obligated to attend because of family pressure? Doesn't pressure suggest that it comes from more than one individual? You know like, not just mom beleives but dad too, and they both supply the pressure? I'm just thinking your guess doesn't seem to make much sense. If it were 50/50 then I don't see how the pressure could be that intense.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
For Mromon women: to keep the men they love, men who think they're going to have many wives (including their most beautiful spirit-daughters) in the Celesitial Kingdom.
daheshism wrote:For Mormon men: sex or the hope of sex.
For Mromon women: to keep the men they love, men who think they're going to have many wives (including their most beautiful spirit-daughters) in the Celesitial Kingdom.
Good luck with that Mormon women!
Ugh
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
jon wrote:I would hazard a guess that it's fifty/fifty
50% really have a testimony 50% have family ties that keep them in
So for each individual who has a testimony as you say, there is one who feels obligated to attend because of family pressure? Doesn't pressure suggest that it comes from more than one individual? You know like, not just mom beleives but dad too, and they both supply the pressure? I'm just thinking your guess doesn't seem to make much sense. If it were 50/50 then I don't see how the pressure could be that intense.
Who used the word 'pressure'? I didn't. My guess (and it is a guess) is based on thinking how many people would stop attending Church if their parents, wives, siblings etc weren't attending members. If it was a decision based purely on their testimony how many would continue attending? My guess was fifty percent.
To add challenge or support to my thinking, how many converts who don't have any other family in the Church remain converted longer than 12 months? Just a rough percentage will do...
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
Well then by all means excuse me. Buffalo used it.
My guess (and it is a guess) is based on thinking how many people would stop attending Church if their parents, wives, siblings etc weren't attending members. If it was a decision based purely on their testimony how many would continue attending? My guess was fifty percent.
To add challenge or support to my thinking, how many converts who don't have any other family in the Church remain converted longer than 12 months? Just a rough percentage will do...
I don't know. I don't know how that would support your thinking though.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
BartBurk wrote:My own take is different. I believe it loses members when it treats the members badly if they start talking about the full historical truths. If they would treat these things openly and honestly I don't think they would lose a lot of members because the social ties in the church are what keep most people attending. The RLDS Church probably lost more members because they became socially liberal than they did because they let members discuss their history openly. If the LDS Church remains socially conservative and holds on to a minimum set of beliefs as contained in the Articles of Faith they can get through this without much loss because many members are heavily invested in the church as a social unit more than they are invested in particular doctrines.
Hello bart.
What keeps catholics attending their church? And what would happen if catholics began talking about their own historical truths during coffee hour after mass? Does the catholic church treat things openly? Have you heard open discussion about the abuse scandal during coffee hour or during mass? Or with priests? I know of no church that openly discusses their history with their members. Now with the LDS church there is a three hour block where one can discuss things in sunday school, priesthood and relief society. But where can one discuss things in the catholic church? Why should the Mormon church be different?
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
BartBurk wrote:My own take is different. I believe it loses members when it treats the members badly if they start talking about the full historical truths. If they would treat these things openly and honestly I don't think they would lose a lot of members because the social ties in the church are what keep most people attending. The RLDS Church probably lost more members because they became socially liberal than they did because they let members discuss their history openly. If the LDS Church remains socially conservative and holds on to a minimum set of beliefs as contained in the Articles of Faith they can get through this without much loss because many members are heavily invested in the church as a social unit more than they are invested in particular doctrines.
Hello bart.
What keeps catholics attending their church? And what would happen if catholics began talking about their own historical truths during coffee hour after mass? Does the catholic church treat things openly? Have you heard open discussion about the abuse scandal during coffee hour or during mass? Or with priests? I know of no church that openly discusses their history with their members. Now with the LDS church there is a three hour block where one can discuss things in sunday school, priesthood and relief society. But where can one discuss things in the catholic church? Why should the Mormon church be different?
BartBurk wrote:My own guess is that it is more like 75%/testimony, 25% family ties, but from what I can tell there is a large percentage of folks that are only attending because of family ties. I think those ties are so strong that LDS members could stand a lot more "truthful history" without abandoning the LDS Church.
Can you please provide a reference for your opinion? Most members I believe attend because they believe in it. The LDS church can not survive with half hearted people because the LDS church is a lay church which depends on its members to do a lot of church work on sunday. I don't think that we should be guessing at all.
And what is truthful history? Can you please give me a truthful history of the catholic church? History is open to interpretation. How one interprets the history forms his or her own truth. Such is the way it is.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith