Church membership numbers not good.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: Church membership numbers not good.

Post by Morley »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2022 5:11 pm
doubtingthomas wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2022 4:47 pm


Conservatives don't value liberty at all.
Oh my. This is what we’re up against?

Folks, this has been fun. Again, it’s time for me to take another break. I’m flying back East tomorrow to help my son and his wife for a couple weeks in setting up some rental properties.

Until later.

Take care.

Regards,
MG
To sum up: MG comes, pulls the subject off-topic, spews some hate, is challenged, says he doesn't have time to answer, and then leaves with a flounce.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5213
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Church membership numbers not good.

Post by drumdude »

I find MG's argument illuminating. He offers as evidence of Christian persecution, a poll of Christians saying they feel persecuted.


Facts don't care about your feelings. I think I heard that from a certain conservative once.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Church membership numbers not good.

Post by MG 2.0 »

Morley wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2022 5:47 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2022 5:11 pm


Oh my. This is what we’re up against?

Folks, this has been fun. Again, it’s time for me to take another break. I’m flying back East tomorrow to help my son and his wife for a couple weeks in setting up some rental properties.

Until later.

Take care.

Regards,
MG
To sum up: MG comes, pulls the subject off-topic, spews some hate, is challenged, says he doesn't have time to answer, and then leaves.
Hi Morley, just a quick pop in. I had an inkling you would do this. To set the record straight, Morley is twisting things, and in a sense…lying…to bring his OWN closure to our conversation so as to leave a certain ‘taste’ in everyone’s mouth, so to speak. It will probably work for some.

My hope is that there are some unbiased folks around here who are actually open to looking at more than one point of view at a time and give equal credence to alternative ways of seeing the world and Mormonism besides the ‘woke’ view prevalent among those that have tossed religion and God into the backwaters of ancient superstition.

And yes, I know the meaning of ‘woke’ and ‘cancel’. You WERE virtue signaling to those that are of like minded progressive values. And I also know that we are in a culture war in the United States and that you and I are probably on opposite sides of the battle lines.

It is what it is.

OK. Morley, or someone else, you now have the last word. 🙂

So long until another day. And no, I’m not running away. Sheesh. I have a LOT going on for the next couple of weeks. No time to ‘play’ on this board. Leaving now to visit my dad before leaving and then packing.

NOT running from anything. You have not entertained or brought up any significant argument that has been of any consequence on this thread. Surely you don’t think I’m trying to get away from your overwhelmingly persuasive arguments? 🙂😉

Anyway, carry on. I know I’ll be missed. Ha ha. 😄

Spewing hate. No. I care about the welfare/well being of everyone. I simply take issue with those that spew forth incomplete or false information/accusations about the church and its members/leaders.

Off topic? No. I think temples enter into the picture. Woke ideologies play a part in decreasing church activity.

C’mon Morley. Get it straight. Tell the truth. Calling you an apostate doesn’t mean I hate you.

Good day.

Now I’m off.

Regards,
MG
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Church membership numbers not good.

Post by canpakes »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2022 4:06 pm
Dr Exiled wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2022 3:56 pm
…a little competition from secularists is probably good. It shows the weakness of religious belief. It shows that religious base their beliefs on mere hope of what some self-proclaimed holy person claims to have experienced or heard. It puts religious belief in the proper place, diminished to the point of being irrelevant to decision-making.
Wow.

This is where ‘woke’ mentality leads. It’s real.

Regards,
MG

MG, Dr. Ex’s full comments overall aren’t off the mark.

As for the claimed decline of the Nation into the supposed Subversions of Wokeism, I’d point out the following recent legislative events:

- More states enacting stricter or outright bans on abortion, including some that don’t allow exceptions for rape or incest,

- More states enacting stricter voting laws,

- More states enacting ‘permitless carry’ laws,

- More states enacting laws that can impose legal and/or financial consequences of discussing ‘sensitive’ subjects that may offend the religious sensibilities of others,

- Two additional states that have attempted, post-Obergefell, to enact constitutional bans on same-sex marriage,

- Increased legislative efforts aimed at denying transgender youth the ability to compete in sports or use certain restroom facilities.

All of these examples seem more conservative than woke, so I’m not sure that I’m seeing a rapid descent into Subversive Wokeism really grabbing hold.

Anyhow - to point out something interesting about Idaho’s new abortion legislation - Governor Brad Little said that he had “significant concerns with the unintended consequences this legislation will have on victims of sexual assault,” noting that “this legislation risks retraumatizing victims by affording monetary incentives to wrongdoers and family members of rapists.” (he signed it into law anyway, but it’s now stalled from court action …) Yes, under the technicalities of the new law, certain members of a rapist’s family can sue a doctor for performing an abortion on the rape or incest victim. I don’t necessarily see that as a victory for either Liberty, or Judeo-Christian values.

To each his own, I suppose.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Church membership numbers not good.

Post by huckelberry »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2022 4:56 pm
huckelberry wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2022 4:22 pm
…by religious liberty you mean your right to dictate to others and have those others just fallow along.
Well, not quite. Let’s let the experts weigh in:

....'

Today, it is increasingly evident that there is a close connection between America's deepest social ills and the weakening of religious participation and the abandonment of traditional moral norms taught by religion. Rebuilding a post-welfare state society demands the return of religion and faith-based institutions to their central role in the nation's civic and public life. To attain this, Americans must abandon the interpretation, maintained by the Supreme Court, that religion is in conflict with freedom and that any 'endorsement' of religion creates an unconstitutional religious establishment. That interpretation prevents government from recognizing or advancing religious faith generally.

.........

https://www.heritage.org/political-proc ... us-liberty


I think in any discussion on religious liberty the Founding Fathers ought to be looked to for guidance.

Would I be mistaken in saying that, generally speaking, the small ‘woke’ segment of society might disagree?

Regards,
MG
The founding fathers did some good thinking. They had a variety of points of view however. Which views get to be what the founding fathers said? John Adams? Thomas Jefferson? Benjamin Franklin? Perhaps Thomas Paine or maybe Jonathan Edwards?

I am woke enough to say these people supported slavery so are hardly moral paragons nor are their ideas beyond criticism. I am conservative enough to say some good ideals were put in motion and a workable government established. The success should be viewed with respect.

/////
about the link, I think to say America's deepest social ills are mainly a matter weakening religious participation is shallow.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: Church membership numbers not good.

Post by Morley »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:22 pm
C’mon Morley. Get it straight. Tell the truth. Calling you an apostate doesn’t mean I hate you.
You're right. But, as you know, that's not what we were talking about.


Posting this, is hate. Assigning your repulsive views to church members and Christians at large, is hate.

Image

Tell me. If the names of the Twelve and the First Presidency were substituted for those you've decided are burning Liberty at the stake, would you consider it okay? Or would it be crossing the line?

We know how you'd react. Hell, you even considered it a bridge too far when doubtingthomas suggested conservatives might not care about liberty.

But since you're not getting it, again let me say just what it is that I'm objecting to: When you assign your repulsive views to church members and Christians at large, it is hateful.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Church membership numbers not good.

Post by huckelberry »

Somehow I found it reassuring to see Max Beckman looking in upon this thread.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: Church membership numbers not good.

Post by Morley »

huckelberry wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2022 7:16 pm
Somehow I found it reassuring to see Max Beckman looking in upon this thread.
Ha!
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Church membership numbers not good.

Post by Marcus »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:22 pm
Morley wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2022 5:47 pm

To sum up: MG comes, pulls the subject off-topic, spews some hate, is challenged, says he doesn't have time to answer, and then leaves.
Hi Morley, just a quick pop in. I had an inkling you would do this. To set the record straight, Morley is twisting things, and in a sense…lying…to bring his OWN closure to our conversation so as to leave a certain ‘taste’ in everyone’s mouth, so to speak.
:lol: No, he’s not lying and not twisting. And your reputation for ‘flouncing’ is long and distinguished.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:04 am
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Dec 11, 2021 3:14 am
You could have just stopped at the second sentence… ;)
He often does when he gets pinned down. We’re at the flouncing away stage in the MG posting cycle.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:09 am
MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:28 pm
Done with you on this discussion.
Arrogant bastard.
LOL. At least he stuck the flounce.
honorentheos wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:45 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:46 am
<flouncing snipped>
The language doesn't matter to me. What I lack patience with, and it is an ongoing issue over numerous threads, actually years at this point, is the pattern that goes like this:

1) You read, hear, see, otherwise consume something that seems to you to be an issue for secularism/criticism of Mormonism/other stuff.

2) Post a link... What it won't contain is a summary of the key arguments in the source. You may quote a bit, but not always.

3) If a counter-source is provided, expect the person posting it to summarize it or otherwise explain to you how it addresses the source you initially shared. This is either ignorant or lazy.

4) If the original source is summarized and the counter-argument presented, fall back to everyone having different capacities for faith so if some don't agree that's to be expected. This is a back-handed insult rather than an informed response.

5) Engage in tit-for-tats until your emotions are triggered enough you let the mask of civility drop. Usually when this happens it's almost cartoonish. You admit to being here fighting secular and liberal evils and attempting to halt their spread like a modern-day crusader. Or, as in this thread, you flounce out in a huff.

6) Repeat…
mentalgymnast, today wrote: Good day.
Now I’m [flouncing] off.

Regards,
MG
:roll:
toon
CTR B
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:23 pm

Re: Church membership numbers not good.

Post by toon »

Moksha wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2022 5:25 pm
Won't most of the new constructions be mini-Temples?
I would assume so, even though I’m not sure what constitutes a mini temple. Is it a separate and distinct structure? Or is it the dedication of a few rooms in an already existing stake center for ordinance purposes?

There’s a temple planned for Vienna. I believe the temple district would consist of Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia, and perhaps the Czechia — perhaps 7,000 members. How many are active, or even of age and eligible to attend the temple has to be somewhat less.

If the goal is to provide those few individuals easier access, as opposed to traveling to Germany, than a mini or smaller temple would work. If they end up building something greater, then I’d likely assume that the purpose is something else.
Post Reply