The future will be owned by the religious and the

[All-American]

Have any of you noticed how many baptisms per year the church has had during the past five years?

Here are the stats for the last five years (from lds.org, except for the last stat):

2000: 273,973 baptisms; 60,784 missionaries; 4.51 per missionary.
2001: 292,612 baptisms; 60,850 missionaries; 4.80 per missionary.
2002: 283,138 baptisms; 61,638 missionaries; 4.59 per missionary.
2003: 242,923 baptisms; 56,237 missionaries; 4.32 per missionary.
2004: 241,239 baptisms; 51,067 missionaries; 4.72 per missionary.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Meanwhile, within Mormonism there is a great deal of rationalization and dissembling going on about, for example, what the Church once taught or believed about origins of blacks and American aborigines. The upshot is that the Church is less dogmatic than it used to be, more ecumenical in its doctrines, and therefore less distinct. This is one reason why it has a harder time differentiating itself.

Hmmmm.... I can't tell if that's an insult or a compliment.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Are you saying in your third paragraph that more educated Mormons tend to be less observant? If so, I agree with you.

I seem to recall reading a study a while back that showed the opposite.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm sure BYU is still very hard core. I only claimed tiny cracks in the edifice were showing. Needless to say, BYU is not like most other places in the US.

"hard core"? I think your viewpoint is a bit jaded with respect to BYU. (Which is understandable given the fact that you are a dang yewt! :wink In reality, I think BYU (the faculty, that is) is more open-minded than the general church population.

[All-American]

="SeattleUteA decreased emphasis on Joseph Smith has everything to do with what we're talking about. Mormonism is de-emphasizing JS in response to scientific proofs--regarding, for example, the origins of American aborigines--and an increasingly reason-based way of looking at the world among Americans in general and Mormons in particular (do you have another explanation?).

It is?

Here's my explaination. Back in Joseph Smith's day and earlier this century, the concept of Jesus Christ being the source of salvation for the world was a generally understood, if not accepted, notion. The gospel was being preached mostly to Christian nations that already believed in Christ. Several decades later, the understanding of the role of the Savior has declined greatly, such that even Christianity is losing its grasp of essential concepts of the doctrines of salvation. Furthermore, as the church grows into an international entity, it encounters those who are unfamiliar with Christianity. For these people, the message of Jesus Christ is entirely new. Given the outreach to those unfamiliar with Christianity, as well as the deterioration of Christianity within Christianity, the importance of the doctrine of the restoration shifts from who the principle actor in the restoration was to what exatly it is that has been restored.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

conservatives.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...id=3376&page=0

I would like to see SeattleUte's reply to this.

The tendency that I see in the world is for the most powerful people live and behave as if they were a law unto themselves, and for these people, religion doesn't matter very much at all.

Nevertheless, the powerful will continue to preach the value of religion, because it is the 'opiate of the masses.' Religion is a balm to the poor and suffering. The powerful will endorse anything that serves to pacify the potential mob. Thus we see politicians from both parties, going to church, getting blow jobs, going to church, taking bribes, going to church, hunting/riding a motorcycle without a license, going to church, having affairs.

I doubt that the people who actually control everything or going to suddenly exchange of the life of pleasure for a life of devotion. A few will, but not the majority.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Robin

Nevertheless, the powerful will continue to preach the value of religion, because it is the 'opiate of the masses.' Religion is a balm to the poor and suffering. The powerful will endorse anything that serves to pacify the potential mob. Thus we see politicians from both parties, going to church, getting blow jobs, going to church, taking bribes, going to church, hunting/riding a motorcycle without a license, going to church, having affairs.

I doubt that the people who actually control everything or going to suddenly exchange of the life of pleasure for a life of devotion. A few will, but not the majority.

I don't share your cynicism about religious people, though I don't share their (professed?) religious faith. For example, there is much about George W. Bush I find loathsome, and I think he has made some very serious mistakes. But where's your evidnece that he has affairs, gets blow jobs, takes bribes, etc.? Same question with respect to Utah's Mormon governor, senators, etc. You sound like some angry young Bolshevick on a third-world college campus in the 1970's. Your cartoon portrait doesn't quite comport with reality.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't share your cynicism about religious people, though I don't share their (professed?) religious faith. For example, there is much about George W. Bush I find loathsome, and I think he has made some very serious mistakes. But where's your evidnece that he has affairs, gets blow jobs, takes bribes, etc.? Same question with respect to Utah's Mormon governor, senators, etc. You sound like some angry young Bolshevick on a third-world college campus in the 1970's. Your cartoon portrait doesn't quite comport with reality.

I was talking about people with power in general. Dick Chemey hunts without a correct license, kills 70 farm raised quail in one day (the man either has a huge appetite, a huge deep freezer, or an appetite for killing things for fun). Arnold rides a motorcycle without a license. Barbara Streisand keeps public citizens off of public beaches and sues people for coming too close to her beach house (people on the public beach). Bill Clinton gets blow jobs in the white house. Henry Hyde, Gary Condit, Strom Thurmond, Bill O'Reilly, they all preached one thing and did another. Sure it is hypsocrisy. But it is also indicative of something more -- the powerful do what they want.

And Bush... the man does not strike me as a genuine person of deep faith and conviction. He lacks humility. He has lived a life of decadent pleasure, but little besides his moving lips suggest he has actually reformed in a spiritual way. He strikes me as a religious opportunist.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Robin

I was talking about people with power in general. Dick Chemey hunts without a correct license, kills 70 farm raised quail in one day (the man either has a huge appetite, a huge deep freezer, or an appetite for killing things for fun). Arnold rides a motorcycle without a license. Barbara Streisand keeps public citizens off of public beaches and sues people for coming too close to her beach house (people on the public beach). Bill Clinton gets blow jobs in the white house. Henry Hyde, Gary Condit, Strom Thurmond, Bill O'Reilly, they all preached one thing and did another. Sure it is hypsocrisy. But it is also indicative of something more -- the powerful do what they want.

And Bush... the man does not strike me as a genuine person of deep faith and conviction. He lacks humility. He has lived a life of decadent pleasure, but little besides his moving lips suggest he has actually reformed in a spiritual way. He strikes me as a religious opportunist.

That's an impressive list of powerful people and celebrities, and there are a lot of Republicans there. But except for Bush I don't know how religious any of them profess to be, or how dedicated they are to religious causes per se. Anyway, I'm confused about your point. Is it that it turns out to be so fun to sin that no one will ultimately want to be religious? Or that religious people are all secret sinners and their cause will fail because of hypocrisy/bad karma? Or that people who profess to be religious really secretly hate religion because they like sinning, so they will sabotage religion while pretending to be its friend? For what it's worth, I don't agree that any of these explains what I see as religion's waning influence and power in industrialized society.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm confused about your point. Is it that it turns out to be so fun to sin that no one will ultimately want to be religious? Or that religious people are all secret sinners and their cause will fail because of hypocrisy/bad karma? Or that people who profess to be religious really secretly hate religion because they like sinning, so they will sabotage religion while pretending to be its friend? For what it's worth, I don't agree that any of these explains what I see as religion's waning influence and power in industrialized society.

The hypothesis of the subject is that the religious will rule the future. I am simply suggesting that the POWERFUL will rule the future, just as they have ruled the past. It seems that religion, for the powerful, tends to be one tool among many for securing their status. Religious populations might get bigger, but I don't think they will 'own the future.'