So I posted on FB one of the articles about church membership rapidly declining and a TBM responded, "this has already been foretold by the prophets. Even the elect shall fall away. We already know the playbook. My testimony is strengthened seeing this prophecy come to pass. The rest of us just have to remain strong and endure to the end."
Yes, have started hearing this one a lot by TBM's. If the church is growing then it proves the church is true. If the opposite is happening then it means it was foretold and that even the elect will fall a way and that its the end times, etc.
Except that "the church is the fastest growing church" argument keeps on going years after there is zero justification for it. But argue it they continue to do.
This new argument-that the losses are merely the prophesied "elect shall fall" bs- will likely have a lot more "legs", and will prolly actually be true for the foreseeable future. Hah!
If they really believe that a diminished church size shows how "true" it is, then they should stop all missionairy activity and make the church "more true".
"The Mormon Church is the FASTEST GROWING CHURCH IN THE WORLD. That proves that we must have the true gospel!"
"The Mormon Church is losing members in record numbers. This fulfills a prophecy about even the very elect falling away. This proves that we must have the true gospel!"
As usual, the Mormons play both sides of the fence.
Quite clever to prophesy two opposing things: That the rock that was cut without hands will go forth and fill the whole earth. AND that even the very elect will be deceived when there is a falling away.
Those who want to believe have a prophecy to fuel their faith no matter what.
But both prophesies actually fail miserably. Less than 1% of the world's population is Mormon. And the "very elect" that leave the church? The aren't deceived. The ones who STAY are deceived.
The two opposing prophesies remind of many things in the scriptures and doctrine. It is RARELY consistent, but people pick what appeals to them at the moment and ignore the discrepancy. Example: Book of Mormon condemns polygamy, and then the D & C requires it. Or the old faith vs. works dilemma in the NT. People just focus on what they WANT to believe.
so what distinguishes an elect from a non elect member???$$$$$???? race, size of family, tbm royalty???? gender? I would like an GA explanation on these
Exactly. It just goes to show how the hardcore believers will protect their testimony, no matter what.
This is why I'm learning that there's no point in ever engaging them in a discussion when they're in that mode.
Church is growing = the Church is true.
Church is declining is, "Oh my gosh! That was prophesied" = the Church is true.
It's the way they think.
They give a blessing, the person lives = "It's a miracle. The Church is true!"
They give a blessing and the person dies = "We're being taught to be humble and to accept God's will, so the Church is true."
They give a blessing, and the person is still alive, but is really struggling = "God will have a tried and a tested people. Our time is not God's time. Patience is a virtue. The Church is true!"
No matter what the issue, their God wins every time. It's a totally fail-safe system.
But wasn't this prophesy applied in the 1800's when the early members of the church genuinely believed that they were living in the last days and that the second coming was imminent? Certainly many members (including apostles) did fall away at that time.
In fact didn't the early Christians believe that Jesus would return imminently?
It's like telling every rising generation of youth that they are the very elect. They grow up and then their children are told the very same thing, and on and on.... Seems like TSCC likes to spin 'prophecies' multiple times whenever it's convenient to suit themselves.
I think what the rank and file members will never understand, is that Marlin Jensen IS one of the elect. Those above him are corrupt. Jensen was my stake president when I was a young adult. He is a sincere true believer. I think he actually believes that the church can withstand the scrutiny of opening itself to questions about its doctrine and history. He believes that the church can expand enough to be compassionate to gay members. I think those above him saw him as a "yes" man and a lawyer, a perfect choice for church historian. He didn't give this the spin they thought he would. Retired at 70? Puh-leez! In the gerontocracy he's on the young end.
This has always been the apologetic tactic: opposites are not contradictory to them.
Several years ago there was an article in Dialogue about the church in Latin America, written by a Mormon.
He documented that many wards and stakes had been eliminated. He said they had been "consolidated" and cited that as evidence that the church in Latin America is "growing."