If present trends continue ...

[_Runtu]

From what I've seen, growth in the church these days seems limited to underdeveloped countries (such as those in Latin America and West Africa) and in the developed world to immigrants and those with little education and low income. The church is not attracting educated people in any areas of the world. It is not attracting the financially secure (and this is probably the most worrisome to the suits). It is not attracting the emotionally and psychologically stable. In short, the missionary program, which has always thrived on attracting people at a vulnerable point in their lives, is attracting the chronically vulnerable. For a church whose mission appears to be growth and income, this is not a healthy trend.

But even the growth areas are deceptive. The retention rate among such people is quite low (less than 20% in many areas of the world). I well remember attending nearly empty chapels in Bolivia. One example: in the southern Bolivian city of Tarija (which had about 50,000 residents), there were 4 small LDS branches, 2 of which met in the recently constructed chapel. Our branch (Rama 3) met in a rented house. The first week I was there, attendance was 5, including us, although there were over 250 members on the records. The other branches averaged between 10 and 20 members a week. As a missionary, it was depressing to attend a church meeting in a gleaming new chapel with half of those in attendance being missionaries. Imagine my surprise when a couple of months later in the mission office, I was informed that the church would be starting an aggressive building campaign: over 50 chapels would be constructed in the next year, including 3 new chapels in Tarija. Even to a 19-year-old missionary, that seemed insane. But looking back on it, it follows a pattern I've seen over and over in the church: build to the numbers on paper. In Bolivia, that meant spending millions in construction money to build chapels that were not needed. I suspect that this practice goes on all over the world. Look at the Conference Center. Given the church's broadcast capabilities, this was a building that serves no purpose whatsoever.

Another similar experience happened in Texas. When we arrived in 2000, members in the Houston area would travel by bus 4 hours north to the Dallas Temple. Our ward had a monthly temple trip that was reasonably well-attended. When the Houston Temple opened, it was fairly busy for a few months. But after that, it was deserted, even on weekends. It was not uncommon to see sessions with 4 or 5 people in them, and they would get temple workers to attend the session so that there would be enough for a prayer circle. Just before we left, the new temple president, ex-GA William Bradford, became so alarmed at temple attendance that he began a program called "Fill the Temple." Wards were assigned a two-day period during which they were responsible for performing all the ordinances (endowments, sealings, baptisms, etc.). Each member was expected to sign up for at least half a day to do ordinances. I just got an email from my old bishop putting the pressure on for us to sign up for our temple "assignment."

The church seems to be operating under the idea that if you build churches, people will come. But that isn't happening, so what you are getting is unnecessary building draining funds. And declining growth rates (and lower income rates for those joining) mean less income from tithing with greater expenditures for welfare. The PEF seems a response to that in that it's designed to increase economic stability for church members in underdeveloped countries, a win-win situation for the church. But at some point they are going to have to look at the return on investment from their building projects. Temples now dot the land, but they aren't generating the levels of activity expected (my friend told me that in his recent visit to Bolivia, the temple in Cochabamba was staffed entirely by American missionary couples).

So, Hinckley's building push has been, in my judgment, a net drain on church finances. The missionary program is dead in the water in the developed world, and construction in the underdeveloped world has drained finances further. Frankly, the church's downtown mall project is an important investment to them. If this project, now estimated at over $2 billion, fails, the church could for the first time since 1959 face real financial problems. My visit to the Gateway complex tells me that the downtown malls project is iffy at best. The Gateway is already entrenched with upscale tenants, whom the church will have to attract for their mall project to succeed.

I think we can see some of the effects of the church's financial stresses already: the firing of church maintenance workers and the subsequent push for members to clean and maintain buildings, the tighter restrictions on budgets, particularly for Scouting and Young Women, the increased reliance on members to house and feed missionaries, and the increased use of broadcasts from the home office instead of GA travel.

None of this is to say that I believe that the church is on the verge of collapse. It's not. But I do suspect that further belt-tightening is coming, and the church is going to have to rely more on its investments if it wants to continue to thrive.

[_Bond...James Bond]

The church seems to be operating under the idea that if you build churches, people will come.

That only works with McDonald's and the Field of Dreams. So unless Ronald McDonald or Shoeless Joe Jackson has converted, the church might be outta luck with this strategy.

[_Runtu]

The church seems to be operating under the idea that if you build churches, people will come.

That only works with McDonald's and the Field of Dreams. So unless Ronald McDonald or Shoeless Joe Jackson has converted, the church might be outta luck with this strategy.

Someone once referred to the church as a business that sells a product that is of absolutely no benefit to the buyer. That's the church's real problem. At least with McDonalds, you know what you're getting when you pay for it.

[_Bond...James Bond]

The church seems to be operating under the idea that if you build churches, people will come.

That only works with McDonald's and the Field of Dreams. So unless Ronald McDonald or Shoeless Joe Jackson has converted, the church might be outta luck with this strategy.

Someone once referred to the church as a business that sells a product that is of absolutely no benefit to the buyer. That's the church's real problem. At least with McDonalds, you know what you're getting when you pay for it.

(my bold)

Heck yeah! The church needs to start offering Sausage Muffin's and McGriddle's. Any religion that offers breakfast sandwiches has the Bond stamp of approval.

[_wenglund]

From what I've seen, growth in the church these days seems limited to underdeveloped countries (such as those in Latin America and West Africa) and in the developed world to immigrants and those with little education and low income. The church is not attracting educated people in any areas of the world. It is not attracting the financially secure (and this is probably the most worrisome to the suits). It is not attracting the emotionally and psychologically stable. In short, the missionary program, which has always thrived on attracting people at a vulnerable point in their lives, is attracting the chronically vulnerable. For a church whose mission appears to be growth and income, this is not a healthy trend.

I understand that it may play well to the home team for you to refer to Church leaders as "suites", and I want to see you strengthen the bonds of your friendships here. However, if one is interested in improving relations between believers and unbelievers, I would caution againts using that kind of dehumanizing (mildly in this case) and disrespectful label.

I understand, too, that it may play well to the home team for you to ascribe "income" as the mission of the Church. However, again, if one is interested in improving relations between believers and unbelievers, I would also caution against making this kind of conspiratorial conjecture, particularly when it sharply conflicts with the stated mission of the Church.

In other words, good interfaith relations have a better chance when people are treated respectfully and taken at their word.

As for your expressed concern about what you see as "not a healthy trend" (and I do appreciate your concern for the welfare of the Church), I recall that some of the same sentiments were being expressed by some members and missionaries during my mission to South Texas in the early 70's (where the bulk of conversions were Mexican immigrants). I learned then that that concern had been felt by various members since the early days of the restoration. In fact, if one looks closely at Christ's mortal ministry, it is clear that the membership at that time was not drawn from the educational and economic elite, but those that were spiritually and physically poor, sick, meek and lowly--i.e. the "publicans and sinners".

Yet, to me, in seeming inexplicable defiance of this perpetual concern, the Church has experienced very respectable growth throughout it's history, and its membership has continually risen among religious denominiations and communities world-wide in terms of educational and economic achievements, and can reasonably be said to have thrived.

What I have learned from this, metaphorically speaking, is that the best cakes are often made from scratch rather than from packaged mixes. In other words, the raw materials brought into the mix can be advantageous since they tend to be more easily shaped, combined, developed and fashioned into the desired finished products. As Christ once said, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

I can respect, though, that others may view it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Gadianton]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hinckley a slum lord in his youth? If so, then doesn't it make sense?

Further, John Maynard Keynes was a homosexual. So supply away, people will buy.

[_mormonmistress]

None of this is to say that I believe that the church is on the verge of collapse. It's not. But I do suspect that further belt-tightening is coming, and the church is going to have to rely more on its investments if it wants to continue to thrive.

They have had a Mormon high school in my city here for the longest time. The Temple and Church College are quite the tourist attractions for the city, especially at Christmas with the light display they put on. Anyway, they are closing the school in 2008?, apparently so they can invest their money in less developed nations. The area around the temple is as you would expect, very Mormon and kids from all around NZ are sent to the College. I wonder how much it will weaken the church in this country without the influence of that school on Mormon teenagers. The community seems quite strong and appears to be growing, mainly because they have so many kids and not because of conversions. It will be interesting to see over the coming years what the absence of that school does to their numbers.

[_KimberlyAnn]

From what I've seen, growth in the church these days seems limited to underdeveloped countries (such as those in Latin America and West Africa) and in the developed world to immigrants and those with little education and low income. The church is not attracting educated people in any areas of the world. It is not attracting the financially secure (and this is probably the most worrisome to the suits). It is not attracting the emotionally and psychologically stable. In short, the missionary program, which has always thrived on attracting people at a vulnerable point in their lives, is attracting the chronically vulnerable. For a church whose mission appears to be growth and income, this is not a healthy trend.

I understand that it may play well to the home team for you to refer to Church leaders as "suites", and I want to see you strengthen the bonds of your friendships here. However, if one is interested in improving relations between believers and unbelievers, I would caution againts using that kind of dehumanizing (mildly in this case) and disrespectful label.

I understand, too, that it may play well to the home team for you to ascribe "income" as the mission of the Church. However, again, if one is interested in improving relations between believers and unbelievers, I would also caution against making this kind of conspiratorial conjecture, particularly when it sharply conflicts with the stated mission of the Church.

In other words, good interfaith relations have a better chance when people are treated respectfully and taken at their word.

Unfreakingbelievable! Do you ever stop with the therapy shtick? Here's a clue: You are not a therapist! You are not qualified to offer counseling advice to anyone, particularly ex-Mormons! Give it up, already. Take your Dollar Menu McTherapy to people who want it. Haven't you figured it out yet, Wade? We're not interested!

Good God. McDonald's doesn't chase folks around trying to stuff their nasty Big Mac's down people's throats who don't want them. Do everyone a favor and just stop!

KA

[_wenglund]

The church seems to be operating under the idea that if you build churches, people will come.

That only works with McDonald's and the Field of Dreams. So unless Ronald McDonald or Shoeless Joe Jackson has converted, the church might be outta luck with this strategy.

Someone once referred to the church as a business that sells a product that is of absolutely no benefit to the buyer. That's the church's real problem. At least with McDonalds, you know what you're getting when you pay for it.

I am all for using economic terms in relation to the Church (having done so myself), but I think it helps to understand that economics is intended to provide rational explanations for why people (individually and collectively) make certain choices--though, admittedly, not always are their choices rational from other perspectives. Whereas, what you (and by extention Bond) seem to be doing is just the opposite. What you ascribe to the Church doesn't sound the least bit rational, and so I am curious why you conjecture that the reason the Church is building church houses is to attract membership, rather than...say, as a part of reasonable and intelligent planning (future projections based on past trends). What is the basis, if any, for your conjecture?

I ask, because often in economics, if the hypothesis doesn't prove itself out, it is because the hypothesis is incorrect. In other words, if it doesn't make sense for the Church to build church houses to attract members, it is likely that your hypothesis, to that affect, is incorrect. Do you agree?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
What

[cacheman]

I understand that it may play well to the home team for you to refer to Church leaders as "suites", and I want to see you strengthen the bonds of your friendships here. However, if one is interested in improving relations between believers and unbelievers, I would caution againts using that kind of dehumanizing (mildly in this case) and disrespectful label.

I wasn't talking about church leaders. I was talking about the folks running the Church Office Building. It's interesting that you find my calling church employees "suits" dehumanizing when such was not intended instead of trying to improve relations. Fascinating. I had lunch with my friend at the Church Office Building the other day, and he referred to them as "the suits." That's probably why that was fresh in my mind. Again, interesting that such a term is considered dehumanizing.

I understand, too, that it may play well to the home team for you to ascribe "income" as the mission of the Church. However, again, if one is interested in improving relations between believers and unbelievers, I would also caution against making this kind of conspiratorial conjecture, particularly when it sharply conflicts with the stated mission of the Church.

The bottom line is growth and income. Again, it's fascinating to see you take a rather factual statement and find it disrespectful, going so far as to call it a "conspiratorial conjecture." Wade, the church dies if it doesn't grow and have income.

In other words, good interfaith relations have a better chance when people are treated respectfully and taken at their word.

I heartily agree, which is why I'm finding it so strange that you've taken offense at dispassionate statements of fact.

As for your expressed concern about what you see as "not a healthy trend" (and I do appreciate your concern for the welfare of the Church), I recall that some of the same sentiments were being expressed by some members and missionaries during my mission to South Texas in the early 70's (where the bulk of conversions were Mexican immigrants). I learned then that that concern had been felt by various members since the early days of the restoration. In fact, if one looks closely at Christ's mortal ministry, it is clear that the membership at that time was not drawn from the educational and economic elite, but those that were spiritually and physically poor, sick, meek and lowly--I.e. the "publicans and sinners".

My post was specifically aimed at the church's growth potential, which I see as hampered by overbuilding and lack of sustainable missionary work. If you again wish to turn that into a statement about the church's salvific mission (which I don't dispute), you're more than welcome to do so.

Yet, to me, in seeming inexplicable defiance of this perpetual concern, the Church has experienced very respectable growth throughout it's history, and its membership has continually risen among religious denominiations and communities world-wide in terms of educational and economic achievements, and can reasonably be said to have thrived.

I'm not particularly "concerned." If you read my post, you saw that I suggested "belt tightening," not some sort of apocalyptic collapse. The church has endured similar building sprees (notably in the late 1950s) that affected its bottom line. I suspect this particular one isn't going to prove fatal.

What I have learned from this, metaphorically speaking, is that the best cakes are often made from scratch rather than from packaged mixes. In other words, the raw materials brought into the mix can be advantageous since they tend to be more easily shaped, combined, developed and fashioned into the desired finished products. As Christ once said, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

I can respect, though, that others may view it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This exchange shows me that we still have a lot of work to do. Wade is often accused of backhanded slams in his posts and expresses surprise. In this case, Wade finds my descriptions offensive and disrespectful, and I likewise am mystified.