What Could The Lds Church Do Now To Attract Apostates Back Into The Fold?

[stemelbow]

Let's be real, some "apostates" do come back. Most probably do not. And, it seems to me, many apostates leave after tons of efforts to reconcile their disbelief with the teachings and history. In most cases, I don't see any change really being effective, except perhaps denial of most of the Church's teachings.

Seth,

A buddy of mine is an athiest in Utah County but teaches priesthood, goes home teaching etc.... He doesn't expect the Church to change but he loves participating.

I once knew of a fella in a similar situation. I personally don't get it. the lessons in classes are all geared towards the existence of God and having a spiritual world. So I asked, "what do you do when the lesson focuses on the existence of God, or other teachings that you don't except". his answer was to basically fake it, but his words were more along the lines of just stickign to what the manual says and gloss over it a bit. I dont' know, maybe its just me, but it seems that if he was interested in participating even if he doesn't believe, then for the sake of honesty and those in his ward he shouldn't be a teacher.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thanks Pa Pa.

Just to clarify: I am, and plan on always being, a member of the LDS Church. I'm proud to be LDS.

Yes I know...this is why I am glad you are here or there.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm glad you are a member, but I'm curious to know what draws you to the LDS Church, while not believing in many of its fundamental truth claims.

Having spoken with him many times...he loves us and his heritage.

[sethpayne]

I'm glad you are a member, but I'm curious to know what draws you to the LDS Church, while not believing in many of its fundamental truth claims.

I'll turn the question around. Why should I walk away from my rich Mormon heritage and the Church that gave me so much over the years?

When it comes right down to it the Church is in the business of making people more capable human beings. It teaches them a sense of morality, a great work ethic, and instills a desire for education. Everything regarding Mormon (and more broadly, Christian) ethics centers on increasing kindness and compassion; creating a desire for moderation. Now, the Church believes there is much more to it that what I have stated. Great. I'm unsure about many things metaphysical. I'm not going to let a disagreement over metaphysics blind me to the fact that the LDS Church and culture are, on the aggregage, forces for good in the world. The overwhelming number of Latter-day Saints I have met over my lifetime have been incredible people. I've met some not-so-nice ones too but that is the exception, and not the rule.

When you have an organization that consistently produces high quality, moral, self-reliant, productive members of society, you must admit that the organization is doing something right.

By no means am I claiming the LDS Church is the only organization to do this; that would be absurd. However, it is the organization I know, the organization of which my family are believing members, and the organization to which I am proud to be a member.

Is the Church perfect? No -- it is a human institution. Nothing run by men and women can be perfect. If I chose to only affiliate with organizations or people who were perfect I would be a very lonely man indeed!

[mfbukowski]

I think people could be like my Bishop. He knows my personal beliefs and, out of what I know is sincere concern and chartity, has expressed that he hopes my "orthodox" beliefs return. Regardless, he puts me to work in the ward! I do home teaching, teach the HP group occassionally, and get involved in service projects. It's great.

I should say I think this is a two way street. Those who have lost their belief should not expect the Church, nor its members, to bend to their new worldview. I think mutual respect is the key -- even when there is a fundamental disagreement. Focus on common ground. Even if you are an ex-Mormon athiest you can recognize the good cultural values the Church promotes (hard work, self reliance, education, etc...) and could benefit from participating in the community. A buddy of mine is an athiest in Utah County but teaches priesthood, goes home teaching etc.... He doesn't expect the Church to change but he loves participating.

I think we both understand where each of us is coming from-

Do you think that if the church made a move toward a more pragmatic/ social constructivist theology- which I think we both agree is not inconsistent with present Mormon theology (insofar as there is such a thing!) do you think that would help?

Edited February 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[sethpayne]

I once knew of a fella in a similar situation. I personally don't get it. the lessons in classes are all geared towards the existence of God and having a spiritual world. So I asked, "what do you do when the lesson focuses on the existence of God, or other teachings that you don't except". his answer was to basically fake it, but his words were more along the lines of just stickign to what the manual says and gloss over it a bit. I dont' know, maybe its just me, but it seems that if he was interested in participating even if he doesn't believe, then for the sake of honesty and those in his ward he shouldn't be a teacher.

I can only speak for myself, of course. I am a theist without question so discussing God or the divine is something I relish.

I do not, however, agree with "faking it." Such faking is not honest. I can understand why people may fake it, but I can't accept it as right.

In my case, if I teach a lesson out of the D&C or BOM, I testify of things I *do* believe. I believe in God, in the Christian ethics taught in the Scriptures etc...

Now, I also respect the lesson plan and if the lesson is on the BOM translation process, it is my responsibility -- as someone who was invited and agreed to teach -- to present the as the Church would like it to be presented. Am I going to bring up Spaulding, View of the Hebrews etc.... absolutely not. It's not my place, nor my platform. If I want to talk about those things (I don't), I'll writing something on my blog not over the pulpit or in the church classroom.

EDIT: big difference between "is not" and "is" ...

Edited February 1, 2012 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

I think we both understand where each of us is coming from-

Do you think that if the church made a move toward a more pragmatic/ social constructivist theology- which I think we both agree is not inconsistent with present Mormon theology (insofar as there is such a thing!) do you think that would help?

Howdy Bishop!

I have to be honest, I worry about the Church "losing it's soul" and it's vibrancy so I am very hesitant to suggest any dramatic institutional changes. The Church, after all, is the Church -- because it's the Church.

Having said that, I do think a pragmatic/social constructivist approach is highly appropriate and desirable in a pastoral setting as it helps individuals stay centered and moderate even the face of difficult challenges and shifts in worldview. My Bishop approaches me, and others like me, in this manner and I know that my brother, who has served as Bishop, approaches things in a similar way.

[Sky]

I'll turn the question around. Why should I walk away from my rich Mormon heritage and the Church that gave me so much over the years?

When it comes right down to it the Church is in the business of making people more capable human beings. It teaches them a sense of morality, a great work ethic, and instills a desire for education. Everything regarding Mormon (and more broadly, Christian) ethics centers on increasing kindness and compassion; creating a desire for moderation. Now, the Church believes there is much more to it that what I have stated. Great. I'm unsure about many things metaphysical. I'm not going to let a disagreement over metaphysics blind me to the fact that the LDS Church and culture are, on the aggregage, forces for good in the world. The overwhelming number of Latter-day Saints I have met over my lifetime have been incredible people. I've met some not-so-nice ones too but that is the exception, and not the rule.

When you have an organization that consistently produces high quality, moral, self-reliant, productive members of society, you must admit that the organization is doing something right.

By no means am I claiming the LDS Church is the only organization to do this; that would be absurd. However, it is the organization I know, the organization of which my family are believing members, and the organization to which I am proud to be a member.

Is the Church perfect? No -- it is a human institution. Nothing run by men and women can be perfect. If I chose to only affiliate with organizations or people who were perfect I would be a very lonely man indeed!

Thanks for your response. You have an interesting perspective. And you seem to toe the line to the LDS Church very well in spite of having some serious doubts. I just think this would be hard to continue to do over the long-term, but more power to you. I really don’t want you to leave. Best wishes. –Sky

[mfbukowski]

Howdy Bishop!

I have to be honest, I worry about the Church "losing it's soul" and it's vibrancy so I am very hesitant to suggest any dramatic institutional changes. The Church, after all, is the Church -- because it's the Church.

Having said that, I do think a pragmatic/social constructivist approach is highly appropriate and desirable in a pastoral setting as it helps individuals stay centered and moderate even the face of difficult challenges and shifts in worldview. My Bishop approaches me, and others like me, in this manner and I know that my brother, who has served as Bishop, approaches things in a similar way.

It's how I have raised my kids- it IS the "reality" of the situation I think, and they all understand the church that way- so far we are 4 for 4 in temple recommends, both who are married were sealed, and my one daughter just returned from her mission.

It works for me

The key is not worrying about "what is true"- it is having a correct understanding of what "truth" IS. Then all the alleged "problems" go away.

[Damien the Leper]

I'll turn the question around. Why should I walk away from my rich Mormon heritage and the Church that gave me so much over the years?

I agree with this. Just because you don't believe like an orthodox member, does not mean that you dishonor the faith and heritage.

Many LDS want to deductively reason their own and others' faith. While that may work with some, it doesn't work for me (and you if I am understanding you correctly).

[Bob Oliverio]

As a convert who has, admittedly, and perhaps unfortunately for various reasons, began reading about the past, I think the Church needs to come out officially and denounce this abomination of blacks and the priesthood. It's a huge and inexplicable anchor around the neck of our future.

Polygamy would probably next on the list

[Deborah]

As a convert who has, admittedly, and perhaps unfortunately for various reasons, began reading about the past, I think the Church needs to come out officially and denounce this abomination of blacks and the priesthood.

I guess you ought to take it up with God since the ban wasn't lifted until revelation was received.

[Sky]

As a convert who has, admittedly, and perhaps unfortunately for various reasons, began reading about the past, I think the Church needs to come out officially and denounce this abomination of blacks and the priesthood. It's a huge and inexplicable anchor around the neck of our future.

Polygamy would probably next on the list

These things may appear to us as abominations, but it is important to remember that we have a limited understanding and that God may have a reason for these things that we simply cannot understand right now. I am a firm believer that God speaks to living prophets, so therefore, I have to put these things on the shelf and maybe come back to them later. Perhaps we will never have the full reasons on this side of the veil. But I refuse to let this interfere with my belief that this is the true church of Jesus Christ and that we are led by a living prophet.

[Libs]

I don't really expect the church to change, for me. I think you either believe in it, or you don't. I thought, for awhile, that I would probably end up going back, at some point, but I think I have too many issues, now, some of which are issues I have with most fundamentalist churches, like the belief that homosexuality is a sin.

As much as I loved the church and the people (and still do), I finally had to find a place of worship that was closer to my true beliefs, and leave the LDS Church alone. I still get sad about it, sometimes, but I think it was the right decision.

[Bob Oliverio]

These things may appear to us as abominations, but it is important to remember that we have a limited understanding and that God may have a reason for these things that we simply cannot understand right now. I am a firm believer that God speaks to living prophets, so therefore, I have to put these things on the shelf and maybe come back to them later. Perhaps we will never have the full reasons on this side of the veil. But I refuse to let this interfere with my belief that this is the true church of Jesus Christ and that we are led by a living prophet.

But when we have no scriptural nor revelatory nor Christian basis to do what the Church did, it's time to make an apology and just chalk it up to the error of man.  This one is so obvious and the longer the Church hides behind pride or mistakes of past Prophets, the longer it will suffer in attracting new members of color and sympathy from the public.

And my fear is that it is bound to come to the forefront this year.

[cinepro]

As a convert who has, admittedly, and perhaps unfortunately for various reasons, began reading about the past, I think the Church needs to come out officially and denounce this abomination of blacks and the priesthood. It's a huge and inexplicable anchor around the neck of our future.

Polygamy would probably next on the list

This statement (and rhetorical question) from President Hinckley is probably as close as we'll get in our generation:

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

The Need For Greater Kindness

(emphasis added)

Since the question applies to "any" man, it must include the men of the past as well as the present. The answer to the question would of course be "Because they thought God wanted them to", but the asking of the question implies this answer may not be acceptable.

Edited February 2, 2012 by cinepro

[Damien the Leper]

I guess you ought to take it up with God since the ban wasn't lifted until revelation was received.

Then why were blacks ordained prior to JS death and then ordinations stopped? Was JS wrong? Were we, as a church, unable to 'handle it'?

What did this mean for some Saints who owned slaves?

[Pahoran]

This statement (and rhetorical question) from President Hinckley is probably as close as we'll get in our generation:

Since the question applies to "any" man, it must include the men of the past as well as the present.

That's a non sequitur, sorry.

It is ridiculous to imagine that President Hinckley was scolding dead people.

The answer to the question would of course be "Because they thought God wanted them to", but the asking of the question implies this answer may not be acceptable.

But that's the whole point. Post June 1978, nobody has any valid reason to believe that; before that time, people not only had reason to believe that, but nobody actually had any right to do anything else. When Douglas Wallace inflicted a sham ordination upon a non-member of the Church, he did not confer any priesthood at all; he merely cut himself off from the Church.

The Priesthood is delegated authority and cannot be validly conferred upon anyone without consent of those who hold the keys.

Only one man at a time holds and can exercise all of the keys of the Priesthood.

Prior to June 1978, any Priesthood holder was free to wonder about the Priesthood ban, but he had no right to act contrary to the existing guidelines.

Thus, it would be both ridiculous and uncharitable for President Hinckley to criticise people for not doing what they had no right or authority to do.

And President Hinckley was neither ridiculous nor uncharitable.

So your smug misinterpretation of his statement fails.

He was criticising only those who, 28 years post-1978, were not only without excuse, but who were exceeding their authority every bit as much as "Lord" Wallace did.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Then why were blacks ordained prior to JS death and then ordinations stopped? Was JS wrong? Were we, as a church, unable to 'handle it'?

It's an interesting historical question to which I don't believe there is a simple, sound-bite answer. The important and relevant point is that the ban has been lifted, and because of the ongoing work for the dead, the lifting of the ban is retroactive.

What did this mean for some Saints who owned slaves?

While I don't know for sure, and I've seen arguments to the contrary, I still suspect that slavery had something to do with the origin of the ban.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Oliverio]

I guess you ought to take it up with God since the ban wasn't lifted until revelation was received.

Deborah,

The real question is, if you really want to get down to revelation, when did we get revelation to deny priesthood to blacks in the first place?  It never happened! And it simply can't be supported nor defended from my research. If it could be, we would have seen an official statement from the Church.

But Deborah,

Can we really stand or support this ban or discrimination of past against blacks any more?   Is there any Christian doctrine allowing it?  We know the Church won't, why should members?

[Duncan]

Deborah,

The real question is, if you really want to get down to revelation, when did we get revelation to deny priesthood to blacks in the first place? It never happened! And it simply can't be supported nor defended from my research. If it could be, we would have seen an official statement from the Church.

But Deborah,

Can we really stand or support this ban or discrimination of past against blacks any more? Is there any Christian doctrine allowing it? We know the Church won't, why should members?

wasn't there a First Presidency statement or at least a statement made by Pres. Clark in 1949 saying it was a commandment or something to that effect?

[Pahoran]

Deborah,

The real question is, if you really want to get down to revelation, when did we get revelation to deny priesthood to blacks in the first place? It never happened!

That's an extraordinarily dogmatic assertion to make. The only argument that follows from silence is silence. We don't know that "it never happened," we only know that no record of it has survived.

The two things are not the same. To assume that they are sounds oddly like a kind of superstitious quasi-Protestant "all-sufficiency" notion that Latter-day Saints reject.

And it simply can't be supported nor defended from my research. If it could be, we would have seen an official statement from the Church.

But Deborah,

Can we really stand or support this ban or discrimination of past against blacks any more? Is there any Christian doctrine allowing it? We know the Church won't, why should members?

Nobody is trying to "stand or support this ban or discrimination of past against blacks any more." I have at last found Mister Reed a valid target for one of his cliche-ridden "Don Quixote" speeches. You are whining about something that no longer exists.

The Priesthood ban was ended 33½ years ago, all over the world and on a single day. The ordinations literally followed the sun around the earth, so that by the time that Sunday ended, the ban had ended with it. That was a miraculous achievement that no other church on earth could ever hope to match. If you want to keep on living in the past, we won't stop you; but kindly stop whinging at us about it. It has absolutely no impact upon anyone now living, unless you define "impact" to mean something like "choosing to take offence over an historical footnote."

It's over, Bob.

So I suggest you do two things: (1) build a bridge, and (2) get over it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Oliverio]

Mr. Pahoran,

I must admit I think you are either a bit paranoid or a bit out of tune with facts.

Why did we need a revelation to allow blacks the priesthood if, under the ordination of Joseph Smith, the priesthood was allowed, and then it was needed in 1978 to restore that which was never taken away?

When did our heavenly Father take away that which he needed to restore?

If new converts can see the obvious trouble with all this, what is it you find difficult to distinguish?

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Pahoran,

I must admit I think you are either a bit paranoid or a bit out of tune with facts.

Why did we need a revelation to allow blacks the priesthood if, under the ordination of Joseph Smith, the priesthood was allowed, and then it was needed in 1978 to restore that which was never taken away?

When did our heavenly Father take away that which he needed to restore?

If new converts can see the obvious trouble with all this, what is it you find difficult to distinguish?

So now you are complaining that there WAS a revelation?

You would have been happier if the revelation never happened?

[sethpayne]

Nobody is trying to "stand or support this ban or discrimination of past against blacks any more." I have at last found Mister Reed a valid target for one of his cliche-ridden "Don Quixote" speeches. You are whining about something that no longer exists.

What Pahoran fails to grasp is that no one is claiming the ban is still around. Everyone knows this. What does still exist, however, is a set of cultural teachings that are offensive to some members and unfortunately, are considered by some -- both inside and outside the Church -- as *true* Church doctrine. Top Church leaders, in particular JFS, BRM, and MP, were HUGE proponents of the "cursed because of the pre-existence" nonsense.

I can only speak to my experience only but I am in my mid-30s and growing up I was taught that the ban existed because people from africa were not valiant in the pre-existence and were thus sent to earth as part of Cain's lineage. When teaching some families on my mission I asked my Mission Pres. how to respond and he essentially confirmed what had been taught to me by my parents, sunday school teachers, seminary teachers, etc... Indeed, it wasn't until my Sr. year at BYU before I even knew there were academic/historical papers that had debunked the ban a long time ago (Lester Bush, Armand Mauss). I'm a late bloomer, I suppose.

There are several times I have seen the Church come out and condemn certain rougue/fad teachings. I believe the frustration is that these offensive teachings are still out there, some (if not a lot) of LDS Church members have been taught these things and believe them, but the Church hasn't deemed them offensive enough to condemn these teachings.

It condemns Adam-God -- why not the priesthood ban? Same man, same absurd invention of doctrine.

The Priesthood ban was ended 33½ years ago, all over the world and on a single day. The ordinations literally followed the sun around the earth, so that by the time that Sunday ended, the ban had ended with it.

Mega huge CFR on that one. I'm not doubting you but you are making a strong point and I would love to see how you have come to that conclusion. From what I have heard anecdotely (so unreliable at best) there were some wards/branches in the southern US who had some trouble with the lift of the ban. I would love to have evidence to prove this was not the case.

That was a miraculous achievement that no other church on earth could ever hope to match. If you want to keep on living in the past, we won't stop you; but kindly stop whinging at us about it.

Wait, what was the achievement, exactly?

It's over, Bob.

So I suggest you do two things: (1) build a bridge, and (2) get over it.

Interesting way to speak to a convert to the Church who expresses a sincere concern/question.

Your boundless Christ-like love is a wonder to behold! Amen!

1. Let us oft speak kind words to each other

At home or where’er we may be;

Like the warblings of birds on the heather,

The tones will be welcome and free.

They’ll gladden the heart that’s repining,

Give courage and hope from above,

And where the dark clouds hide the shining,

Let in the bright sunlight of love.

[Chorus]

Oh, the kind words we give shall in memory live

And sunshine forever impart.

Let us oft speak kind words to each other;

Kind words are sweet tones of the heart.

2. Like the sunbeams of morn on the mountains,

The soul they awake to good cheer;

Like the murmur of cool, pleasant fountains,

They fall in sweet cadences near.

Let’s oft, then, in kindly toned voices,

Our mutual friendship renew,

Till heart meets with heart and rejoices

In friendship that ever is true.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=c4db8ceb1ec20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD