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

[mfbukowski]

FWIW, I have had 2 of my kids serve missions in the deep South. Both have had convert baptisms, the majority of whom were Black.

Before they left on missions I was positive that the "Blacks in the Priesthood" issue would be huge. In fact it was virtually a non-issue in both their missions because de facto segregation in Southern churches is still quite prevalent. According to what they have told me, the Southern LDS churches tend to be the most integrated in the areas.

Now I know there are probably Black southern members on this board reading this- and I would love to hear from them to see if that is true in their perception.

The other side of it was that for most Blacks in that area it would have been inconceivable that they would have been in a leadership position in a "white church" anyway, so that to a large extent the priesthood issue was and is non-existent in the South. In other words, discrimination was unfortunately expected and a "normal" fact of life down there.

If your experience was different- go ahead and post- I am not saying I am necessarily right, just that that is what I have heard.

[sethpayne]

FWIW, I have had 2 of my kids serve missions in the deep South. Both have had convert baptisms, the majority of whom were Black.

Before they left on missions I was positive that the "Blacks in the Priesthood" issue would be huge. In fact it was virtually a non-issue in both their missions because de facto segregation in Southern churches is still quite prevalent. According to what they have told me, the Southern LDS churches tend to be the most integrated in the areas.

Now I know there are probably Black southern members on this board reading this- and I would love to hear from them to see if that is true in their perception.

The other side of it was that for most Blacks in that area it would have been inconceivable that they would have been in a leadership position in a "white church" anyway, so that to a large extent the priesthood issue was and is non-existent in the South. In other words, discrimination was unfortunately expected and a "normal" fact of life down there.

If your experience was different- go ahead and post- I am not saying I am necessarily right, just that that is what I have heard.

I lived in Baton Rouge for a while and I can certainly imagine this being the case based on my own experience. Unfortunately, a lot of Churches are still "self segregated" in parts of the South.

In any case, I too would love to hear anyone's experience ....

[Storm Rider]

I do wish that the Church would never create "policies" and implement them as if they were revelations. The policy of blacks in the priesthood is one that in reality has no good explanation other than it was man-made. The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ are men that have been called of God. We expect the very best of them and sometimes they fail BECAUSE they are men. This is the answer that keeps me sane and allows me to explain some things.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ took the Law of Moses and boiled it down to two great commandments. We are meant to live and learn to follow the Second Comforter in all things. Every time, every time, we create a rule we take one step away from Jesus Christ and his Gospel. The Gospel is perfect, the Church is run by man and is necessarily imperfect. To expect perfection is not logical.

We have other policies that have been created without any revelation. I believe all policies will eventually be done away with, but it takes time to turn this huge ship that is our Church. The Brethren are very resistant to change, but they do so in steps. Let us accept them as men, pray for them, and love them in their weakness as we hope to be loved.

[why me]

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

For those of us who have been members for a long time, these are not issues at all. We grew up with it in lds history. It wasn't hidden, especially the blacks and the priesthood because people like me lived through it. It was a nonissue because we understood it. And the church grew by thousands and thousands if not millions during that time. Now however, the critics paint a picture of it that just wasn't true. They spin it like a top. But during that time in the 70's, all knew the ban and still were faithful and active and no one to my knowledge left because of it because we were living through it.

Edited February 2, 2012 by why me

[why me]

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.

I don't think that the lds church believes that homosexuality is a sin but the act is. But then again, the lds church believes that any sexual act outside of marriage is a sin.

We, in the west, have become used to the fact that all values need to be respected and remain unchallenged. But if one goes back a few decades, all religions viewed homosexual acts as a sin. Now that western values have moved on, some faiths have moved along with these changes in western values and have become more liberal with their values. But as god become more liberal? Maybe not but he has become more understanding because of the times we are living in.

[why me]

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?

You will need to listen to the mormonstories podcast with darius gray. Many answers are found in that podcast:

http://mormonstories.org/?p=83

I think that the american people were unprepared to handle it, if one goes back in time. But we also need to remember that african americans were welcome to join the lds faith and sit in the chapels as equals. The priesthood ban did not exclude them from membership as many christian churches did.

[why me]

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.

We are certainly living in different times now. All perceived inequalities from the past need to be apologized for. But you were not a member back then and you also have no idea what it meant to be a member of the church back then during the priesthood ban. I saw no inequalities as I sat next to african americans at church. There was a nonracist and loving spirit in church for evey race. Listen to the podcast I linked to above by an african american member and see if it helps. Also, you can order the dvd about blacks in mormon history.

http://blackmormonfilm.com/

[Avatar4321]

We need the Priesthood to know D&C 121 in and out and obtain, not just Priesthood Authority, but True Priesthood power. If we do that, than we can preach with power and with the Holy Ghost and we would convince all men, even if they reject it.

[zerinus]

Another thread got me thinking about this idea. Is there anything the LDS Church could do to attract members back. (specifically members that have left over historical or doctrinal issues - not those that have simply faded into inactivity)

The truth is that I don't think there is anything they could do to get me back. That ship has left the dock and I don't see it turning around.

I do think there are some things the LDS Church could do to keep current members from leaving but that is probably a different topic all together.

What about you? Is there something you see that the LDS Church could do differently that would bring back the apostates?

Yes, by persuading them to repent.

Edited February 2, 2012 by zerinus

[LeSellers]

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.

In that regard, the "ban" was always retroactively ineffectual. There was never any restriction on whose Temple work could be done, just on who could stand as proxy for it.

Men of African descent routinely received the Melchizedek Priesthood right along with white men; both sexes received the Endowment along with whites (and all other lineages). There was no space on the forms indicating race: we knew their names, their birth dates, their sexes. and other things about them, but not their race. If we consider that 8~10% of people in USmerica have been Negroid, and that, even though the emphasis has been on ancestors, the use of public records to gather names of individuals for whom to perform Temple ordinances means a fair percentage of those ordinances I participated in before 1978 were for Black men.

Lehi

[Brade]

Call them to repentance.

Regards,

Pahoran

This is sad because it entirely fails to address why a large number of people, like myself, are no longer active. I've explained my position in other threads, but here's a brief summary. I don't believe the epistemologica method taught by the Church is good justification for the relevant sorts of beliefs to which Church authorities want members to assent. The best available historical evidence is not sufficient evidence for belief that the relevant foundational Church claims are true. Telling me to repent doesn't even speak to me. What am I suppose to repent for? How do I repent for the fact that I don't find the epistemological method or best available evidence compelling? Do I repent by finding them compelling? How do I do that?

[The Nehor]

I suppose that "kill them all and let God sort them out" probably violates some laws of God huh?

Hmmmmm..........then no idea.

[Duncan]

I suppose that "kill them all and let God sort them out" probably violates some laws of God huh?

Hmmmmm..........then no idea.

that's the J. Golden Kimball theory for the Southern USA, have them die and then baptize them for the dead

[robuchan]

Question: why would you want to bring apostates back into the fold?

If the question is, how do you get an unbeliever to affiliate and attend church actively, I'm not sure that's desirable. A lot of apostates/unbelievers want to be affiliated and have demands that they want to be heard, but this isn't going to help the church any.

Is the question, what can we do to make apostates believe again? That's probably not going to happen in large numbers.

The better question is, what can we do to stop more members from going apostate.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I lived in Baton Rouge for a while and I can certainly imagine this being the case based on my own experience. Unfortunately, a lot of Churches are still "self segregated" in parts of the South.

In any case, I too would love to hear anyone's experience ....

Martin Luther King, Jr is still the Prophet on this point..."11:00 on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week". It is not until I was LDS that I ever attended Church with someone of a different race...sadly!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I suppose that "kill them all and let God sort them out" probably violates some laws of God huh?

Hmmmmm..........then no idea.

Go figure?

[Maestrophil]

this isn't a scholarly opinion, just my $.02

I always wondered if the Lord inspired church leaders to not ordain blacks (not a "ban" per se, but a protective policy to which there could be, and were, exeptions) because the young church could not handle yet another "scandal" of that magnitude. They were seen as heretics for many other reasons, but the outside world at the time would have leapt at the oppotunity to bring down a church that sympathized openly with the "negro".

After that, perhaprs the church leaders with their human (and sometimes racist) views were slow to ask the Lord if it was prudent to ordain blacks for many years. When the civil rights movement etc. changed the public climate about race and the personal opinions of the prophets were more receptive to the idea, the Lord was able to declare the time for prudent selectivity with regards to ordination was over.

As far as many members and leaders in the past, and maybe present, holding racist views... humans are humans and they are all subject to erroneous beliefs - even prophets.

I am just glad my lifetime saw a change in this policy, and I can only control ME as a member, and I embrace cultural diversity and hope to see more in the chruch in coming years.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Maestrophil

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

this isn't a scholarly opinion, just my $.02

Adjusted for inflation?

[Maestrophil]

probably over-inflated!

[Palerider]

I'm surprised by the willful naivety reflected in many of the responses given here. I would love to see the church honestly address it's issues and cleanly acknowledge the 800lb gorilla that meets with the general authorities in their weekly temple get-together. They've been ignoring,avoiding,attempting to sweep it under the rug much too long.

I could give full hearted service/membership back to the church if the following were implemented:

1. Acknowledge that Joseph Smith and all of his successors although good men were not prophets of God in the Biblical sense of that word.

2. Recognize that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are not historical and they and all following "new scripture" are the work of man.

3. Relinquish all claims to restored priesthood.

This would obviously be disruptive to the body of the church, but wouldn't it be better to have an honest, rock solid platform from which to rebuild rather than a house built on sand?

Edited February 2, 2012 by Palerider

[Palerider]

This is sad because it entirely fails to address why a large number of people, like myself, are no longer active. I've explained my position in other threads, but here's a brief summary. I don't believe the epistemologica method taught by the Church is good justification for the relevant sorts of beliefs to which Church authorities want members to assent. The best available historical evidence is not sufficient evidence for belief that the relevant foundational Church claims are true. Telling me to repent doesn't even speak to me. What am I suppose to repent for? How do I repent for the fact that I don't find the epistemological method or best available evidence compelling? Do I repent by finding them compelling? How do I do that?

Couldn't agree more.......

[JDave]

I could give full hearted service/membership back to the church if the following were implemented:

1. Acknowledge that Joseph Smith and all of his successors although good men were not prophets of God in the Biblical sense of that word.

2. Recognize that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are not historical and they and all following "new scripture" are the work of man.

3. Relinquish all claims to restored priesthood.

If these changes were implemented, what would be desirable about the church in comparison to any other Christian church?

[Senator]

If these changes were implemented, what would be desirable about the church in comparison to any other Christian church?

There's one 'ell of a mall!!

[Deborah]

I could give full hearted service/membership back to the church if the following were implemented:

You of course are being facetious. I love the phrase 800 pound gorilla in the room. However, you are obviously one of the few who sees it. People who currently give full hearted service to the church do so because they have received a testimony of the prophets since Joseph Smith, that latter-day scripture is from God and the Priesthood has been restored.

[robuchan]

I'm surprised by the willful naivety reflected in many of the responses given here. I would love to see the church honestly address it's issues and cleanly acknowledge the 800lb gorilla that meets with the general authorities in their weekly temple get-together. They've been ignoring,avoiding,attempting to sweep it under the rug much too long.

I could give full hearted service/membership back to the church if the following were implemented:

1. Acknowledge that Joseph Smith and all of his successors although good men were not prophets of God in the Biblical sense of that word.

2. Recognize that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are not historical and they and all following "new scripture" are the work of man.

3. Relinquish all claims to restored priesthood.

This would obviously disruptive to the body of the church, but wouldn't it be better to have an honest, rock solid platform from which to rebuild rather than a house built on sand?

I'm curious what your beliefs are. Do you believe any mortal man ever was a prophet of God in the Biblical sense of that word?