Here is where we can take tips from the Mormons. They do have a high retention rate. I think it’s due to the sense of community and strong family involvement in their church. To leave Mormonism is tantamount to leaving their family, so they stay.According to pew research center:
60% of Mormon children stay
44% of cradle-Catholics stay Catholic.
41% of Protestants stay in their specific Protestant faith
30% of JW children stay
Could you provide a citation for this please. Your values disagree with the Pew data from last year:According to pew research center:
60% of Mormon children stay
44% of cradle-Catholics stay Catholic.
41% of Protestants stay in their specific Protestant faith
30% of JW children stay
Good for the Catholic Church, but bad for your argument that the LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not considered Christian “in a scholarly way …] at all”. The Catholic Church does not determine the sociological definition of a Christian.No, “in a scholarly way” they are not considered Christian at all. In fact, the Catholic Church has officially declared that the LDS doctrines are so foreign to Christianity that it must be considered a different religion altogether. For this reason the Church does not accept Mormon Baptism - because it is not Christian.
Meltzerboy is Jewish, so I’m doubting that what you said is going to have any weight.Jesus Christ changed all that and gave us HIS TRUTHS to live by. all others should conform to HIS Will and not ours. God Bless, Memaw
Exactly! especially the Jews, because of course Christianity sprang from Judaism. I can imagine devout Jews looking at this motley group of men and women practicing strange rituals that were somewhat Jewish in nature, and trying to convert them all. ‘Messiah indeed! What in the world are you thinking?’This would be how Jews and Pagans and Buddhists, etc, would have felt about Christianity when it was new.
.
Well, not so much according to the Hindus, or the Buddhists, or the Jews, etc.Jesus Christ changed all that and gave us HIS TRUTHS to live by. all others should conform to HIS Will and not ours.
Agree totally. it gets a bit old.Good for the Catholic Church, but bad for your argument that the LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not considered Christian “in a scholarly way …] at all”. The Catholic Church does not determine the sociological definition of a Christian.
I’ve said it before on these boards and I’ll say it again: this bickering about what constitutes a “legitimate Christian” and who gets to wear the label is an incredibly silly waste of time after which neither side of the debate will be convinced that their own definition is wrong. Even if you actually succeed in convincing a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness that they are in fact not a “Christian”, to what end have you succeeded? Does pointing out the lack of a particularly central Christian dogma (according to your communion) in a person’s supposedly non-Christian faith advance that person’s understanding that their belief is actually wrong?
The word ‘Christian’ is a made up word, just like all words. Like all words its definition has morphed over the ages, and today there’s no reason we can’t just cease with pointing out all these obviously not Scottish people and accept the fact that in a descriptive sense there may just be more than one valid definition of a ‘Christian’ depending on context and audience.
I get so tired of the concept of the Mormons having “strong family values”. I’ve lived in predominately LDS communities and the “strong family value” are no better than the strong family values in the Catholic Church, the Methodist church, the Lutheran church, or any other church.Here is where we can take tips from the Mormons. They do have a high retention rate. I think it’s due to the sense of community and strong family involvement in their church. To leave Mormonism is tantamount to leaving their family, so they stay.
No, they don’t. I live in Utah and many people I know are not active Mormons but have not had their names removed, so they might be counted as members.Here is where we can take tips from the Mormons. They do have a high retention rate. I think it’s due to the sense of community and strong family involvement in their church. To leave Mormonism is tantamount to leaving their family, so they stay.
I agree. They have a high divorce rate, drug abuse problems and every other problem experienced by families in this country.I get so tired of the concept of the Mormons having “strong family values”. I’ve lived in predominately LDS communities and the “strong family value” are no better than the strong family values in the Catholic Church, the Methodist church, the Lutheran church, or any other church.
In fact, in my observation of Catholic marriage and LDS marriage, the Catholic marriage is far stronger and healthier.
And who is more qualified to make that determination?Good for the Catholic Church, but bad for your argument that the LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not considered Christian “in a scholarly way …] at all”. The Catholic Church does not determine the sociological definition of a Christian.
It seems to me that defining words, and terms, for the purpose of communication, is not a silly waste of time at all. Well defined terms are the basis for all communication. If we are uncertain of the meaning of a word we can never be certain of the meaning of the message being conveyed through use of that word. Poorly defined words result in confusion. This is one of the greatest obstacles to communication between Mormons and everyone else; the co-opting of like sounding terms with completely different meanings.I’ve said it before on these boards and I’ll say it again: this bickering about what constitutes a “legitimate Christian” and who gets to wear the label is an incredibly silly waste of time after which neither side of the debate will be convinced that their own definition is wrong.
I’m more concerned with the lurker on this board who may not know the difference. I am under no delusion as far as changing the belief of either LDS or JW’s is concerned. Not my intention at all. That doesn’t change the fact that I think definitions are important and when we muddy the waters with ambiguity we do no one a service.Even if you actually succeed in convincing a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness that they are in fact not a “Christian”, to what end have you succeeded? Does pointing out the lack of a particularly central Christian dogma (according to your communion) in a person’s supposedly non-Christian faith advance that person’s understanding that their belief is actually wrong?
A made up word? It was a word given to describe those who belonged to the Church founded by Christ upon the Apostles. That would be the Catholic Church (a term used in the first century as well). So a “Christian” was one who held the teachings and the Catholic Church. It is also applied to those who divided from the Church during the reformation who retained, at least, Christian Baptism.The word ‘Christian’ is a made up word, just like all words. Like all words its definition has morphed over the ages, and today there’s no reason we can’t just cease with pointing out all these obviously not Scottish people and accept the fact that in a descriptive sense there may just be more than one valid definition of a ‘Christian’ depending on context and audience.
As in the Catholic Church there is great good and there has been great evil.I don’t feel any worse for Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses than any protestant, Jew, other faith or atheists. Pray for the conversion of all.
I have known evil in all these groups and I have known great goodness. Only God knows how He will judge each in the end
Here are a couple of links that show more favorable LDS demographic trends.No, they don’t. I live in Utah and many people I know are not active Mormons but have not had their names removed, so they might be counted as members.
lifeafter.org/lds-church-membership-activity-rates-and-retention/
Activity *and Retention Rates
According toCumorah.comthe Church’s activity rate is dismal at best. They reported that only “22% of U.S. members born to active LDS families remain active lifelong, whereas 44% returned after inactivity of at least a year or more”. Children born into inactive families remained inactive themselves if they even affiliated themselves with the Church.
Cumorah.com also reported a survey done by USA Today in 2002 that showed similar stats. According to the news magazine almost every state showed lower numbers of people claiming to be Mormon than what the Church claimed.* Cumorah’s studies show that between “2000 – 2010 the average branch or ward increased by only one member” even though almost a million joined Mormonism and the Church busied itself with adding over 2,000 congregations. The average number of members per congregation remained stagnant at 0.3% for the same time frame. They believe this suggests a “declining convert retention rate”.
TodayCumorah’ssite reports that less than half of those 15 million people actually claim to be Mormon. *Additionally the number of people who are active is always lower than the number of people who claim to be Mormon. In reality there’s never any LDS congregation that sees more than 30% attendance and that number is more likely to be in the high twenties.
If that wasn’t bad enough for the Church “data from Latin America, the Philippines, and other international areas demonstrate that three quarters of converts are entirely lost to the church within a year after baptism”.
Thestatsalso show that while over 80% of the yearly converts take place outside of the U.S., only 25% of those converts remain active longer than a year.
“Attendance at sacrament meeting varies substantially. Canada, the South Pacific, and the United States average between 40 percent and 50 percent. Europe and Africa average about 35 percent. Asia and Latin America have weekly attendance rates of about 25 percent.”
“For clarity, Dr. Heaton cites data as representing the average attendance at sacrament meeting as a percentage of membership. These figures do not appear to include “lost address file members,” as sacrament meeting attendance rates are calculated based on total congregational membership, whereas lost address file members are not included in congregational rolls. When “lost address file” members are included in the denominator of total membership, weekly attendance rates as a percentage of total membership would be further diluted by our conservative estimate of the lost address file comprising 10% of total North American membership and 30% of membership in the developing world.”
This means that of the 6.3 million members theChurchclaims for North America only 630,000 people show up for Church. **
Who is right, Jesus or all the others?? God Bless, MemawWell, not so much according to the Hindus, or the Buddhists, or the Jews, etc.
That depends on your perspective and faith, as well as the kind of religious forum on which we are discussing these issues.Who is right, Jesus or all the others?? God Bless, Memaw
Agree. And here on the Non-Catholic Religions thread, it seems more than appropriate to honor the perspective and faith of the ‘other’.That depends on your perspective and faith, as well as the kind of religious forum on which we are discussing these issues.
Thank you for posting this.And who is more qualified to make that determination?
It seems to me that defining words, and terms, for the purpose of communication, is not a silly waste of time at all. Well defined terms are the basis for all communication. If we are uncertain of the meaning of a word we can never be certain of the meaning of the message being conveyed through use of that word. Poorly defined words result in confusion. This is one of the greatest obstacles to communication between Mormons and everyone else; the co-opting of like sounding terms with completely different meanings.
Nevertheless, it is the height of arrogance for an organization who saw the light of day barely 150 years ago, which espouses doctrines completely foreign to 2000 years of Christianity (very well defined Christianity) to simply step in and claim the name for themselves while rejecting almost everything Christianity holds as true.
I’m more concerned with the lurker on this board who may not know the difference. I am under no delusion as far as changing the belief of either LDS or JW’s is concerned. Not my intention at all. That doesn’t change the fact that I think definitions are important and when we muddy the waters with ambiguity we do no one a service.
A made up word? It was a word given to describe those who belonged to the Church founded by Christ upon the Apostles. That would be the Catholic Church (a term used in the first century as well). So a “Christian” was one who held the teachings and the Catholic Church. It is also applied to those who divided from the Church during the reformation who retained, at least, Christian Baptism.
So it comes down to this, Brandon. What Christianity means by “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is not what the LDS mean by “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. What most of the world means by “Christianity” is not what the LDS mean by “Christianity”. It is simply inaccurate, IMO, for the LDS to claim the title “Christian”. Inaccurate, confusing and misleading to one who may not know the difference.
Peace.
Steve
If we’re still talking about a sociological, or a more broad scholarly definition of religious groups, then I’d think those who actually study such things. The Catholic Church (and all other Christian churches for that matter) are more than free to come up with their own functional definitions of “Christian” and to use them in their own purposes. Let’s remember that I’m arguing for a diversity of definitions and you’re insisting on a single, set in stone definition. Furthermore even the Catholic Church seems to play fast and loose with the word “Christian”. As I understand it, the Catholic Church considers “Christian initiation” to involve a valid Trinitarian baptism. I also understand the Catholic Church to consider individual people “Christians” who may or may not even be baptized! Let’s add to the confusion even more: The Catholic Church considered Arian baptisms valid despite their lack of trinitarian belief. Historically speaking the Church did in fact consider Arians Christians! Heretical ones howbeit.And who is more qualified to make that determination?
In general, yes this is true. This doesn’t mean that all words must contain one and only one definition and that they all must be agreed to prior to fruitful conversation ensuing, however. In most cases in these discussions here on CAF who is and isn’t a “Christian” is quite irrelevant to the actual topic at hand, and too often quite interesting threads get bogged down by pages and pages of the same players arguing back and forth over a label.It seems to me that defining words, and terms, for the purpose of communication, is not a silly waste of time at all.
I’m sympathetic to your position. I too believe that the very foundation of Mormonism is built on arrogance. This is quite irrelevant though when considering if Mormonism properly fits under a sociological definition of Christianity. There are good arguments for and against such, none of which will involve citing the Catholic Catechism, or a directive from the Vatican deeming LDS baptisms invalid, or from a website from an Evangelical anti-cult ministry, or any other religious source. The most we can conclude from such is that Catholics and Evangelicals do not consider Mormons Christians.Nevertheless, it is the height of arrogance
That’s fair enough. And in looking back on the thread I see you didn’t just pick this fight with a Mormon or JW, but you did call into question jas84173’s statement that a scholarly definition of “Christian” is necessarily broader than the Catholic definition thereof. This is what I was taking issue with. I’m not too concerned if the Catholic Church considers such quasi-Christian groups non-Christian, anti-Christian, heretics, or what have you (and given that I’m leaning toward conversion to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy I’m actually inclined to agree!)I’m more concerned with the lurker on this board who may not know the difference.
Yes. A made up word. It was a word made up by detractors of Christianity at Antioch which was eventually embraced by Christians themselves. All of Christendom could actually dispense with calling themselves Christian tomorrow and pick an entirely new word and it wouldn’t change a single tittle of the Gospel message, would it?A made up word?
I agree. This is probably why labels like “Trinitarian Christianity” and “non-Trinitarian Christianity” have arisen. In a theological sense you and I may consider this distinction silly. But if we’re trying to objectively classify groups into nice little overarching umbrella terms without using one side over another as the benchmark then this will not do.So it comes down to this, Brandon. What Christianity means by “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is not what the LDS mean by “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”.