It also represents some negative things.

But money is how so many things are expressed, it would be irresponsible for the Church not to spend in on taking care of its members and others. Dedication of funds is an essential communication from the Church that certain things matter.

Of course the Church is buying us off (at least a little bit). Money talks. It has immediate credibility with people, because of what it represents. People want assurance that our Church cares about them. Money is one very good way of demonstrating that compassion.

So yes, I think the Church is buying people off. And no, I don’t have any problem with that whatsoever.

I wish there were more that could be done for those that get left behind- or for those that never had anyone else there in the first place. This lack of support happens to be another criticism leveled against new Christian churches in Central Asia and especially in Mongolia where there is significantly more Christian activity. But if the missionaries leave or were never there, who else is there to support those members besides each other? Sometimes that’s enough (like I’ve said before, I’ve been impressed with the members in Kyrgyzstan in this regard), but sometimes it’s not.

I know it would only be a partial solution to a big problem, but I do wish more LDS families would live overseas and actually be involved with the local members. Certainly not to run things or to be in any kind of leadership position, but simply to give some much-needed support.

The focus in this thread has been on members being “bought”. But there are of course also many genuine converts. I would like to draw the attention on the immense responsibility we have, as Church leaders, members, missionaries, when we bring people into the Church in such areas. Religiously we do our duty in trying to convert people. But if we break up families, if we cannot provide these converts enough protection, if we cannot guarantee, at least minimally, their happiness, are our efforts ethical? It’s something I have been struggling with. Of course, our Church history shows those problems and tensions have always existed in missionary work, but in times past we encouraged and effectively helped all our converts emigrate to the U.S. This is not the case any more. Moreover, the missionaries have an efficient exit-plan if things go sour, but what about those we leave behind?

So, yes, the question is whether the negatives outweigh the positives. The trouble is that all Christians get lumped together and the negative effects from one church get applied to all churches. The positives don’t seem to get so nicely distributed.

Christian, if that were the standard, then there would certainly be fewer world religions. But the cultural connection to a religion is important in identifying what a person is. Even if there is little belief, much less practice, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. have all played a major role in the world. I’m more inclined to say a religion’s worldwide effect is more important than the number of adherents or their personal level of commitment.

For some weird reason I cannot justify or rationalize—perhaps I’m simply parroting it from somewhere—the time when a majority of adherents of (insert religion here) are culturally (insert religion here) without being religiously (insert religion here) strikes me as a sign that (insert religion here) has reached “world religion” status.