The Sorry Condition of Christian Ethics

[temporal1]

I think the reason the main Mormon group is so large in comparison with the others is because
they run their church like an efficient corporation.
One Mormon told me, "How can you argue against us being the true church whenever we are so successful?"

Also they are successful, because they know just when to drop traditional beliefs and practices in favor of more modern ones.
When public opinion forced them to drop polygamy, they got a revelation to do so. When public opinion forced them to drop policies against blacks, they did so. In contrast the traditionalists keep on practicing polygamy because they believe that nobody is allowed to change the scriptures.
The liberals watered down their theology so much that they don't require members to believe the Book of Mormon is inspired.
If you can't trust your texts, you are going to lose anything that makes you stand out as something different.

A third reason they are so succesful is because they have a top notch missionary training program and a robust apologetics department.

Good points, Ernie. i would add a couple:
1) They value traditional families and children;
2) They are able to retain their children in their faith, in spite of gov school experience. (Something i’ve observed in my life that foreign students with non-Christian religions achieve.)

Our daughter was in school with girls from large, robust Mormon families, one of her friends was #13, they added 2 boys before their sweet mother shared with me that she thought #15 was the last. “He was harder to carry to term than the others.” i admired her and their family. Good memories.

No self-loathing, ZPG, and confusing dogs+cats as babies for them! They are in politics.

“Mormon families are America's largest, new study finds”
https://www.deseret.com/2015/5/12/20564 ... tudy-finds

(i’m not sure they included the Amish in their studies.) ^^

Ernie:
Everything you mentioned has great appeal to western/U.S. secular tastes, the love of wealthy corporations and hollywood.
Interesting how they embrace those things AND continue to value traditional family units, values, children.

Other numbers

The 2014 survey interviewed more than 650 people who identified themselves as Mormon or LDS. Again, the plus or minus for LDS data was 4.9 percentage points.

Additional findings included:

• Mormons are among the youngest Christians in America, with a median age among adults of 43, up from 41 in 2007. Only Orthodox Christians are younger, at 40.

• American Mormons are 86 percent white, but racial and ethnic diversity in the church ticked up to 15 percent from 14 percent in 2007.

• Mormons are among the most highly educated Christians, with 33 percent reporting a college degree, surpassed only by Orthodox Christians.

• In 2007, 44 percent of Mormons were men and 56 percent were women. The gap narrowed some in 2014, to 46-54, close to the Christian sample (45-55) and the overall sample (48-52). Non-Christian faiths reported more men (54-46) as did unaffiliated "nones" (57-43).

• Mormons are concentrated in the West (67 percent). In fact, 5 percent of Westerners identify as Latter-day Saints or Mormons.

i know almost nothing about Mormons. i’ve read/paid more attention after learning of some family ancestry with the earliest Mormons and their migration out of the U.S. to (the then Mexican Territory) of Utah. As Ernie describes, much has changed since their early days, when they were hated and fairly run out of Illinois/the U.S.

[Szdfan]

Menno is a fine display of this. We have no unity on any of the issues he raises. Not even among the so called conservatives on here is there a unified position on any of these either. The only unity we have is that we have no unity.

Is that really that surprising? Anabaptism has no central doctrinal authority and puts a heavy emphasis on individual and communal interpretation. Is it any surprise that we are schismatic?

Menno Simons listed one of the marks of the "true church" as being "unadulterated, pure doctrine." Was he wrong about this?

Who determines what "unadulterated, pure doctrine" is? Anabaptist have obviously been unable to agree over the past 500 years.

[joey_the_ox]

Menno Simons listed one of the marks of the "true church" as being "unadulterated, pure doctrine." Was he wrong about this?

Who determines what "unadulterated, pure doctrine" is? Anabaptist have obviously been unable to agree over the past 500 years.

Then it would seem that Menno Simons was wrong in his identification of this as a mark of the true church (certainly a possibility - he was not some infallible prophet).

[Szdfan]

Is that really that surprising? Anabaptism has no central doctrinal authority and puts a heavy emphasis on individual and communal interpretation. Is it any surprise that we are schismatic?

Is there a single religious group that actually is unified? Catholics? nope they have multiple separate groups/orders. Orthodox? Same sort except they have like 5 main groups. Past any of that you have the usual mix of this is liberal Catholic/conservative. They claim unity but there is a reason there is so much variety with them.
What I'm getting at is that a central doctrinal authority doesn't necessarily work. I think the JW's have some claim for unity, and maybe the Sikh... I don't really know of any group that they actually are unified on the doctrines. I'm sure Max would argue but I'm not talking agreeing with overarching things such as the Trinity and the Pope and I'm also talking practice rather then position statements.
Also, there is a stark difference from individuals who I was talking about and groups. For example the the Eastern Mennonites have unity on their core practices between church to church but less so to say the BMA...

Closest big group is probably the Mormons who are pretty unified as a church but have lots of individual dissidents. But to my knowledge they have very few if any dissident churches. Unless you count the fringe polygamist Mormons who broke off from the mainstream church over a century ago.

There's also what used to be called the Reorganized LDS, now known as the Community of Christ. They were a split from the group lead by Bringham Young and repudiated the doctrine of plural marriage.

[Szdfan]

Menno Simons listed one of the marks of the "true church" as being "unadulterated, pure doctrine." Was he wrong about this?

Who determines what "unadulterated, pure doctrine" is? Anabaptist have obviously been unable to agree over the past 500 years.

Then it would seem that Menno Simons was wrong in his identification of this as a mark of the true church (certainly a possibility - he was not some infallible prophet).

I don't know.

I think that people (and groups of people) are a lot more complicated than our doctrinal or theological impulses think they are. I think that we anticipate some sort of mechanicalistic process where right belief will automatically create the right kind of church. I'm not sure it works that way -- a church can have all the "right" beliefs, but still have a toxic and dysfunctional group dynamic.

[Josh]

I don’t think the sign of a good church is adulterated, impure doctrine.

[Szdfan]

Menno is a fine display of this. We have no unity on any of the issues he raises. Not even among the so called conservatives on here is there a unified position on any of these either. The only unity we have is that we have no unity.

Is that really that surprising? Anabaptism has no central doctrinal authority and puts a heavy emphasis on individual and communal interpretation. Is it any surprise that we are schismatic?

Is there a single religious group that actually is unified? Catholics? nope they have multiple separate groups/orders. Orthodox? Same sort except they have like 5 main groups. Past any of that you have the usual mix of this is liberal Catholic/conservative. They claim unity but there is a reason there is so much variety with them.
What I'm getting at is that a central doctrinal authority doesn't necessarily work. I think the JW's have some claim for unity, and maybe the Sikh... I don't really know of any group that they actually are unified on the doctrines. I'm sure Max would argue but I'm not talking agreeing with overarching things such as the Trinity and the Pope and I'm also talking practice rather then position statements.
Also, there is a stark difference from individuals who I was talking about and groups. For example the the Eastern Mennonites have unity on their core practices between church to church but less so to say the BMA...

Whenever people talk about church unity, I think about this joke from Emo Philips (which I think is one of the funniest jokes about religion):

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

[temporal1]

I don’t think the sign of a good church is adulterated, impure doctrine.

i agree, and i don’t believe anyone posting here would disagree.

Ernie did a good job with identifying “reasons why” Mormons thrive (according to the world’s standards) esp:

.. they run their church like an efficient corporation. ..

“the world” is a fickle judge.
years ago, when i was first learning about Mennonites, MCUSA was large+growing, all indications were for a “bright future.”
as an outsider, this has not held. not even in the short term.

when Ernie says, “an efficient” corporation, well, “efficient” is the operative word. corporations can fail, some drastically. sometimes outward labels are maintained, but little else remains. labels can have values, all their own. i understand the motivation for claiming popular or valuable labels. i believe there is often real deceit in doing so. it can be legal, not necessarily moral.

it’s not unusual for thriving businesses to be left to incompetent or corrupt heirs, what once thrived is lost.

TRUTH remains. After all is “said+done,” God’s Truth remains. Truth is the pursuit of wise men.
God owns it. We may pursue it. Hope is, to humbly pursue God’s everlasting Truth.

[Pelerin]

I think we’re missing the point here somewhat. It isn’t about having a centralized authority or even agreeing on everything. Mormonism has a strong central authority, but I don’t think it’s ever really had much of a moral center, as some of Ernie’s examples show.

So for example, the one value that probably defines Anabaptists is peace. From conservative to liberal, there’s a wide range of opinions about whether and when to call the police, whether it’s appropriate to serve in military noncombat positions, at what level it’s appropriate for advocate peace at the government level, whether it’s appropriate to pay or avoid the war tax, etc. Anabaptists can disagree on the right applications, but if you think another Anabaptist is wrong, you can appeal to them from the same shared values in a way you couldn’t with, say, your average Baptist.

[Pelerin]

All that said, I don’t know if the Anabaptist moral center actually holds. Those that reject Anabaptist values usually just stop being “Anabaptists” or “Mennonites” and end up as some kind of mainstream evangelical. (Though there’s a part of evangelicalism interested in Anabaptism too.) But maybe that level of honesty is what Roger Olsen was looking for in the first place.