If present trends continue ...

[_KimberlyAnn]

I am accutely aware that you view me in that way, and out of respect for you, I have made a concerted effort to comply with your past request not to address you personally or participate on threads that you have started (with the understanding that you would do the same in return)--though, that is made more difficult for me now that you have, ironically, followed me around by posted several messages to me and about me, particularly on threads that I have started.

Now, I wasn't aware that you were in a position to speak universally for the ex-Mormon community, and if that turns out to be the case (which I think is hightly unlikely given the positive and welcomed interactions I have had with multiple ex-Mormons), then I will be content to, out of respect, stop participate in forums where there are ex-Mormons. Until that is reasonably determined, it may prove useful for you to honor our prior agreement with me--I.e. mind your own business, and not stick your nose into matters that don't concern you, and matters that were intentionally not meant by me to be addressed to you personally.

If, however, my mere presense is somehow a tremendous threat to your personal peace and security, and the same is true for a number of other participants here, then even if not all former members here are adverse to my participating here, I may still consider leaving for your sakes, though I haven't decided that for sure.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, you haven't succeeded in leaving me be, Wade. You inserted yourself into a thread Blixa started and were commenting on me only a week or so ago.

And yes, I posted about you on PostMormon. I believe it's my duty to warn people about you, Wade. There may be a few ex-Mormons interested in talking with you, but they're the vast minority, from what I noticed reading that thread, and I will continue to issue warnings when I feel they're needed. You are disingenuous and a hypocrite. People unfamiliar with you should be made aware of your past interactions with ex-Mormons so they know to view you with the appropriate amount of suspicion.

I couldn't care less if you keep posting or not. Just stick to the topic and drop the McTherapy! You aren't qualified to offer it. It's condescending and so tiresome. You're like a broken record, Wade.

KA

[_Runtu]

You could well be right about this. There was someone at Church actually wondering aloud if the belt tightening was related to the Mall. Of course, the Church doesn't need to take the Mall as a loss if it is commercially unsuccessful - it can always use it for Church purposes, plus it always has the clout to encourage members to shop there.

What further belt tightening do you foresee?

I have no idea. From what I've seen, the biggest expenditures are building construction and maintenance and salaries. Maybe we could expect to see cuts in both of those areas. My friend at the COB tells me that their technology departments are rumored to be the subject of cost-cutting measures.

[_Maxrep]

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

I agree Wade. On the other side of the coin, and I may not be alone in this thought, it has always seemed that there is a great significance placed by the church in being able to report building growth to its members yearly. Tallying dissolved stakes, retention rates, member resignations,etc does not seem to receive much air time. Perhaps the building of ward houses is more a function of enthusiastic optimism at times. This optimism seems to have played itself out with the rapid building of smaller temples. Like Runtu had mentioned, a surge in initial temple attendance was noticed in my local area. Following came a dramatic decline in attendance. Soon after, young married couples were called as temple patrons to help fill near empty sessions. Our local temple has been operating on a much restricted schedule.

You had also mentioned that the church had demonstrated noteworthy growth throughout its history. True. In the last decade I believe there are have been indicators that would show that for practical intents, this growth has stopped. The Cuny report of 2000 seems to show this. Total church membership still increases with strong non U.S. missionary efforts. However, "butts in pews" I believe came to a standstill years ago and may very well be decreasing at this point.

Runtu,

Great opening post. I share many of your views on growth.

If I could have access to any one statistic, it would be the yearly amount of tithes paid by members. I believe that of any single number, tithes offer a general "health of the membership" glimpse. It would be intriguing to compare the previous ten years or so!

[_Gadianton]

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).

You mean, just like Benson's campaign to "flood the earth" with the Book of Mormon was part of an intelligent plan to simply meet future demand expectations based on past trends?

[_Runtu]

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).

You mean, just like Benson's campaign to "flood the earth" with the Book of Mormon was part of an intelligent plan to simply meet future demand expectations based on past trends?

One thing that surprised me during my time at the COB was how many programs started as someone's pet project.

[_wenglund]

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 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 didn't mean to put you on the defensive, John. My comment was meant as a helpful suggestion, not an accusation, and it wasn't a big deal to me, just something to consider. I know you have a good heart and wouldn't intentionally be mean or disrespectful.

By way of clarification (not argumentation), as I understand things, "dehumanization" is not a function of who certain terms are used in reference to, or who is using the terms, but the nature of the terms, themselves. If the term somehow removes or diminishes the inherent humanity, then it is dehumanizing. That is what I view happening when human employees are reduced to non-human "suits". You, of course, are free to view it differently.

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.

We evidently differ as to what is "fact" and what is "opinion"...and that is okay. While I think we may agree that tithes and offerings are intrumental in building the kingdom, to me it is not a "fact" that the mission of the Church is to generate income (which is what you had suggested, and what specifically differed with you about). That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. My comment wasn't intended to accuse you of being disrespectful, but again to voice caution in stating your opinion as an unbeliever about Church motives (in carnal or lucre terms), because it may be vulnerable to being percieved as disrespectful by believers who view the mission of the Church to be salvific in nature (in spiritual terms). That's all. I don't see what is so fascinating about that.

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.

Had I taken offense, let alone offense for dispassionate statements of fact, then I would find that strange as well.

But, knowing myself as well as I do, I am quite confident that I didn't take offense, and certainly not for dispassionate statements of fact. I wasn't even offended by your mildly dehumanizing and conjectural opinions about people working in the church office building and the mission of the Church. I figured they were well-intended and meant no harm, though perhaps not completely mindful of how they may come across to a broad range of members. I don't see what is so strange about that.

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.

I don't mind bringing up the Church's salvific mission when I think it applies. But, in terms of the specific point I was addressing immediately above, I don't see that it would (which explains why I didn't mention it, even though I was welcome to do so).

If you were to have addressed what I actually did say, rather than what you have since welcomed me to say, that would have been helpful. ;-)

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.

My partner in our land development business has had extensive experience interacting with the building department of the Church, and from what I gather from him, the Church, at least in terms of its land and building holdings, is not hurting in the least, though the recent housing slump in the US may put a bit of a damper on the rate of transactions.

This latest "sprees" was an attempt by the Church to meet rising demand (rather than an attempt to stimulate demand, as you inferred).

In other words, whatever decline there may be in the rate of building of new church houses, will not likely be a function of "belt-tightening", but diminished demand for church houses in various locations. For example, since there are fewer housing developments being built in California, or Nevada, or Arizona, or Florida (the states that have been hit hardest by the housing slump), there understandably will be less need to build new church houses in those subdivisions.

Does that make sense?

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.

I hope that my clarifications have been of some help in de-mystifying things for you, if not also corrective of your misperceptions of what I thought and meant by what I have said. Again, I am not accusing you of anything (backhanded slams or otherwise). I am simply offering a word of caution about certain terms and phrases that may prove delitarious to improving interfaith relations. As long as you understand this (particularly in the helpful spirit in which it was intended), then there may not be all that much work to be done. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Wade, you didn't offend me, and I'm surprised you thought I was "on the defensive." I just figured you read my post in an improperly negative light, so I meant to clarify.

[_wenglund]

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).

You mean, just like Benson's campaign to "flood the earth" with the Book of Mormon was part of an intelligent plan to simply meet future demand expectations based on past trends?

I suppose that if Church buildings were a catalyst of conversion like the Book of Mormon, then your comparison may make at least some sense.

But, I haven't heard of any instances where people have spoken to members or missionaries and told them they wished to join the Church because they like the church houses and believe the church houses are true. Have you?

Please don't get me wrong. I am not trying to argue with you. I am just trying to better understand and make sense of what you suggest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

But, I haven't heard of any instances where people have spoken to members or missionaries and told them they wished to join the Church because they like the church houses and believe the church houses are true. Have you?

Have you ever read the account of the mass conversions in Huacuyo, Bolivia? They joined specifically because of the church's building program. The article about it is by David Knowlton in Dialogue (either that or Sunstone, can't remember). But the gist of it is that an entire ayllu (tribunal community) joined the church because they had seen the church buildings in La Paz and wanted one of their own. The church was happy to oblige.

[_karl61]

Wady wrote: "By way of clarification (not argumentation), as I understand things, "dehumanization" is not a function of who certain terms are used in reference to, or who is using the terms, but the nature of the terms, themselves. If the term somehow removes or diminishes the inherent humanity, then it is dehumanizing. That is what I view happening when human employees are reduced to non-human "suits". You, of course, are free to view it differently"

Wade if you would get out of your school boy baseball hat and mr. mac suit maybe you would'New Testament see suits as dehumanization or non-human.

Do you know how cool suits are. A nice ivory linen suit, with a white silk shirt, french cuffs and silk-knott cufflinks that match your tie and socks and a white carnation in your lapel . how about a nice dark blue soft gabarbine suit, red white and blue shirt, a red, white and blue and brown bow tie and some brown suede shoes.

The GA's are the one making the suit non-human by looking like a bunch of clones. In the MTC we were told, blue, brown or black suits, white shirts and blacks shoes. That was it!

I DREAM of latter-day saints switching from blue suits to white ones and yes white ones, what ever fabric you want, can be bought now via the internet and sent to you in a week, custom made. It would be great to see general authorites in white. Why only white suits at the temple. Men were made for white suits, spectator shoes, silk-shirts and a carnation in the lapel. everone in white at general conference would be a great sight.

www.mycustomtailor.com go to classic section, then pick suit, then pick the style, then pick the fabric and color.

GET WITH IT!

regards,

thestyleguy

p.s. here's my boy jack - rent chinatown to see him in his white suit. It's at the beginning of the movie.