Honestly I saw insincerity when I read the OP.

When the S.L. Tribune reports on this issue I'll call it a lagit issue.

One of my biggest pet peeves is when somebody devises blatant lies for attention.

Did you expect anything more than a lie?

They've been lying for 182 years and they're good at it.

Neither of those claims is even close to being proven

...Seriously though, 9,000 members on the books? So, like 4500 active?...

In your narrow view they have not.

To these Swedes, it appears to be enough.

Seriously though, 9,000 members on the books? So, like 4500 active? Why does LDS Inc even care?

They must have been paying huge amounts of tithing each.

Fame and fortune to the first poster to make a Mormon-related IKEA joke.

Skratta!

\m/

'The Rescue' is Monson's last desperate attempt at etching his name into the history of Mormonism and as a response to the question "tell me what you did as Prophet" he expects to get from Jesus.

Wow. Jensen is one I still had a smidgen of respect for. No more. He's a liar like all the rest. I doubt this "program" he outlines will be effective with the Swedes, who after all are generally well educated and satisfied with a secular life. To be a Mormon in Sweden must be even more of an alienating and marginalizing thing than to be Mormon in America outside the Mormon Corridor.

They must have been paying huge amounts of tithing each.

Apostasy is running rampant in Sweden with many prominent LDS families and leaders recently leaving the church over historical problems of the church that are becoming well-known there. In order to help these struggling members in Sweden, the LDS Church issued a document to the local leadership called 'The Swedish Rescue'.

These documents are circulating on the Internet on various Swedish Internet groups. Someone who knows Swedish translated it and sent it to MormonThink to share with other members who might find it of interest.

http://www.mormonthink.com/swedish-rescue.htm

Decades ago, I attended a gathering where the late Stanley Kimball, a professor of history at Southern Illinois University and president of the Mormon History Association, spoke. His remarks have stuck in my mind ever since. (If anybody out there knows where a written version of the speech can be found, I would be delighted to see it.)

Kimball explained what he called the "three levels" of Mormon history, which he termed Levels A, B, and C….

Level A, he said, is the Sunday School version of the church and its history. Virtually everything connected with the church on Level A is obviously good and true and harmonious. Members occasionally make mistakes, perhaps, but leaders seldom, if ever, do. It's difficult for somebody on Level A to imagine why everybody out there doesn't immediately recognize the obvious truth of the gospel, and opposition to the church seems flatly satanic.

Level B…is perhaps most clearly seen in anti-Mormon versions of church history. According to many hostile commentators, everything that Level A says is good and true and harmonious turns out actually to be evil and false and chaotic. Leaders are deceitful and evil, the church's account of its own story is a lie, and, some extreme anti-Mormons say, even the general membership often (typically?) misbehaves very badly.

But one doesn't need to read anti-Mormon propaganda in order to be exposed to elements of Level B that can't quite be squared with an idealized portrait of the Restoration. Whether new converts or born in the covenant, maturing members of the church will inevitably discover, sooner or later, that other Saints, including leaders, are fallible and sometimes even disappointing mortals. There are areas of ambiguity, even unresolved problems, in church history; there have been disagreements about certain doctrines; some questions don't have immediately satisfying answers….

Kimball remarked that the church isn't eager to expose its members to such problems. Why? Because souls can be and are lost on Level B. And, anyway, the church isn't some sort of floating seminar in historiography. Regrettably, perhaps, most Latter-day Saints — many of them far better people than I — aren't deeply interested in history, and, more importantly, many other very important priorities demand attention, including training the youth and giving service. Were he in a leadership position, Kimball said, he would probably make the same decision.

But he argued that once members of the church have been exposed to Level B, their best hope is to press on to the richer but more complicated version of history (or to the more realistic view of humanity) that is to be found on Level C. Very importantly, he contended (and I agree) that Level C...turns out to be essentially, and profoundly, like Level A. The gospel is, in fact, true. Church leaders at all levels have, overwhelmingly, been good and sincere people, doing the best that they can with imperfect human materials (including themselves) under often very difficult circumstances.

But charity and context are all-important. Life would be much easier if we could find a church composed of perfect leaders and flawless members. Unfortunately, at least in my case, the glaringly obvious problem is that such a church would never admit me to membership.

"Church-lesson-level." Everything is in harmony, good and true.

[T]he Sunday School version of the church and its history. Virtually everything connected with the church on Level A is obviously good and true and harmonious.

"Anti-Mormon level." Everything we thought was harmonious, good and true appears instead to be evil, false and chaotic.

In order to sort out their dilemma, one can choose to:

1) manage their frustration and integrate the new information in their mind and testimony
2) abandon their faith
3) continue to the more intellectually demanding level C.

Level B…is perhaps most clearly seen in anti-Mormon versions of church history. According to many hostile commentators, everything that Level A says is good and true and harmonious turns out actually to be evil and false and chaotic.

"Academic-scientific level." Not everyone has to penetrate to this level, but for some it may be necessary. There may be those that continue to suffer from Level B or who think that the A-level is inadequate in some way. This level describes a multi-faceted and more complex story to relate to.

At Level C is required including that we study deeply and is willing to take up new frames of reference and knowledge. Many have heard about the BYU professor Hugh Nibley, but few have read his works. Many have heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Scriptures, but few know research.

One challenge is that most of the level B is not sufficiently familiarizing themselves with the scientific research available on level C.

"To meet the intellectual arguments [for example, at level B *] are required even sharper counter-argument [from level C *]." Apostle Henry B. Eyring.

Most members live on Level A, all his life. They do not get to level B and C. It is enough for one's salvation to be at Level A.

Kimball remarked that the church isn't eager to expose its members to such problems. Why? Because souls can be and are lost on Level B. And, anyway, the church isn't some sort of floating seminar in historiography. Regrettably, perhaps, most Latter-day Saints — many of them far better people than I — aren't deeply interested in history, and, more importantly, many other very important priorities demand attention, including training the youth and giving service. Were he in a leadership position, Kimball said, he would probably make the same decision.

But he argued that once members of the church have been exposed to Level B, their best hope is to press on to the richer but more complicated version of history (or to the more realistic view of humanity) that is to be found on Level C. Very importantly, he contended (and I agree) that Level C…turns out to be essentially, and profoundly, like Level A.