LookingHard wrote: ↑
17 Mar 2017, 16:11
I don't know if the church "would not survive" but it would be a TINY fraction of what it is.
Yes. And that wouldn't be conducive to "filling the whole earth," so we'd be failing to fulfill prophecy.
Are we really the Horatio Alger of religions if we've had to compromise on what we'd previous claimed was God's will (at least several times) in order to stay viable and keep increasing in membership? Why would God want us to do certain things only
until we reach a point in time at which continuing to do them threatens church growth?
Protestants criticize us for flip-flopping and changing our rules like we do, but I feel like they are no less guilty. Visiting a few Protestant churches gave me the impression that many of the pastors (though certainly not all) were like circus clowns or cheap motivational speakers, trying to sell the Gospel like a used car salesman, knowing that the more people they can win over, the more $$$, and the more their pride will be boosted. LDS bishops, in my experience, never come across as used car salesmen, and I can think of several reasons for that, including that our bishops get no salary.
So I'm trying to find some way around what looks to me like two versions of the same problem: both Mormons and Protestants appear to feel that the highest priority is increasing membership, and that end justifies what appear to be less-than-pure means. Maybe it does? Maybe it's so important to bring people to Christ that it's okay if we are a bit like lawyers in our methods?