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

[Palerider]

It must be wonderful to be so certain about how everything in the universe works. I guess I am just too skeptical to take things so simply.

I would say you're not nearly skeptical enough.

[Avatar4321]

I agree completely with your first sentence.

Then why advocate the opposite?

[Palerider]

These things do not need rationalizing at all. I think that they can be very faith promoting. Let me put it this way: do you think that JS would do anything to jeopardize the fraud? And certainly as a fraudster these things would have caused concern for any fraudster to oringinate. With early mormonism there certainly is a magical element. But then again, relgion should be magical. The peepstones seems like a nice touch of the magical and the temple ritual also. Not to mention the spirits who appeared with the priesthood and early visions. One would need big cajones to think of all this just to bring forth a book.

I would have much less of a problem with the church if they were to use the wonderful approach you have just described when teaching new converts and gospel essentials and gospel doctrine classes.

Let's let it all hang out and air the laundry exactly as you have described it above. You seem to think it's faith promoting so what is the church afraid of?

Tell prospective converts that Joseph used a peepstone to look for buried treasure right from the start (but never found any because it didn't work) and was arrested by some local law enforcement who just didn't like him and wanted to persecute him for whatever reason.

In the second or third lesson you could mention that he did indeed take other men's wives as his own while those men were still alive and that you really don't have a good explanation for that but that magic and mysteries are all part of promoting a faith increasing experience for the new member.

I'd love to see the stats on new convert baptizms after a more honest approach is used in teaching the gospel.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Palerider

[Garden Girl]

I agree. And that is how I have reached my own conclusions regarding the LDS church.

Hello Palerider...

Well, my revelation regarding the Church cancels out your revelation

It is true, PR, I feel just as strongly about my views based on my personal experiences as you do about yours.

from the beach on a truly beautiful sunny day... such a relief from the rain... GG

[Palerider]

Then why advocate the opposite?

I'm not advocating the opposite at all. You have stated. "We can't build an honest, rock solid platform that's based on falsehoods." and yet that is exactly what the church has attempted to do.

Now that the truth is becoming more accessible it is coming back to bite them in the fanny.

[Palerider]

It depends on your tone. It seems that you want to find a church that fits your needs or ego. I wish you good luck. However, since we humans are in a constant flux or change, and unless we are somewhat rooted to some foundation, you may find yourself alone in whatever faith you may want to belong to. Churhes are not there for a human being's ego.

Please allow me to define what I'm looking for in a church rather than taking it upon yourself.

All relationships, whether with individuals or institutions are based first and foremost on trust. If you can't trust someone you have nothing on which to build.

The foundational stories that I was taught and continued to teach as a missionary are not a good representation of what actually occurred in the primary stages of the early church. Some here would say they have been "idealized", Whitewashing seems to be too strong a word for them to stomach. Go ahead and use "idealized if it helps you sleep at night. It's o.k. with me.

When the more accurate history becomes known it gives one pause as to:

1. Why did I have to find this out from some other source. Why didn't the church include it as a part of their curriculum?

2. Is there more that I'm not being told?

3. When I look for answers to the questions that are raised, the answers are weak and unsatisfactory and only raise even more troubling questions.

4. Church leadership and others (members on this site) seem to hold one in derision or see one as faithless for not accepting these weak and troubling answers. Their first inclination is to play doctor and diagnose a questioning individual with some sort of spiritual malady that requires severe repentance and humbling oneself; to throw reason out the window and "just accept on faith what we're telling you and get back in line".

5. If the church won't teach their history honestly aren't they afraid? Are they truly operating out of a position of fear? Who is it that operates on fear? Don't they have enough faith to give a true representation of their foundational stories?

In my heart when someone says, "It' was o.k. for Joseph to be married or sealed to another man's wife while that man was still alive." something inside me says, "And you think I'm out of line?" "Are you really going to buy this Palerider?"

For me the church has what I consider a "terminal crediblity gap".

And it is terribly sad. There is much that I miss about it.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Palerider

[Palerider]

Hello Palerider...

Well, my revelation regarding the Church cancels out your revelation

It is true, PR, I feel just as strongly about my views based on my personal experiences as you do about yours.

from the beach on a truly beautiful sunny day... such a relief from the rain... GG

Or rather mine cancels out yours......good luck!

You can keep the beach....I'll take the mountains of Montana anyday!

Edited February 4, 2012 by Palerider

[why me]

Please allow me to define what I'm looking for in a church rather than taking it upon yourself.

All relationships, whether with individuals or institutions are based first and foremost on trust. If you can't trust someone you have nothing on which to build.

The foundational stories that I was taught and continued to teach as a missionary are not a good representation of what actually occurred in the primary stages of the early church. Some here would say they have been "idealized", Whitewashing seems to be too strong a word for them to stomach. Go ahead and use "idealized if it helps you sleep at night. It's o.k. with me.

When the more accurate history becomes known it gives one pause as to:

1. Why did I have to find this out from some other source. Why didn't the church include it as a part of their curriculum?

.

You must have missed this account in the ensign by gordon b. hinckley.

I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/10/god-hath-not-given-us-the-spirit-of-fear?lang=eng

Edited February 4, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Please allow me to define what I'm looking for in a church rather than taking it upon yourself.

All relationships, whether with individuals or institutions are based first and foremost on trust. If you can't trust someone you have nothing on which to build.

The foundational stories that I was taught and continued to teach as a missionary are not a good representation of what actually occurred in the primary stages of the early church. Some here would say they have been "idealized", Whitewashing seems to be too strong a word for them to stomach. Go ahead and use "idealized if it helps you sleep at night. It's o.k. with me.

When the more accurate history becomes known it gives one pause as to:

1. Why did I have to find this out from some other source. Why didn't the church include it as a part of their curriculum?

Like that of the original Apostles, Joseph’s experience with Deity was direct and personal. There was no need for the opinion of others or the deliberations of a council to define what he saw or what it came to mean to him. Joseph’s vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.

http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=aec2515e04f5e110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

[why me]

5. If the church won't teach their history honestly aren't they afraid? Are they truly operating out of a position of fear? Who is it that operates on fear? Don't they have enough faith to give a true representation of their foundational stories?

And it is terribly sad. There is much that I miss about it.

This is why you should read gordon b. hinckley's article I linked above

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/10/god-hath-not-given-us-the-spirit-of-fear?lang=eng

It has to do with fear.

[Palerider]

You must have missed this account in the ensign by gordon b. hinckley.

I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life.

http://www.lds.org/e...f-fear?lang=eng

This is terrible logic......

Obviously we would anticipate 4 different people to have slightly differing accounts of their experience as long as the general facts of the story were intact.

But the police look very poorly on a single witness whose story keeps changing. Lots of skepticism here! A defense attorney would tear such a persons testimony to shreads.

I feel sorry for Hinkley that he was either incapable of realizing the fallacy of his logic or worse, he actually thought someone would buy it...........

[Palerider]

Like that of the original Apostles, Joseph’s experience with Deity was direct and personal. There was no need for the opinion of others or the deliberations of a council to define what he saw or what it came to mean to him. Joseph’s vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.

http://classic.lds.o...0004d82620aRCRD

This statement in no way addresses any of the questions or points I have raised. If you have anything pertinent to say I will gladly try to address it.

[why me]

This is terrible logic......

Obviously we would anticipate 4 different people to have slightly differing accounts of their experience as long as the general facts of the story were intact.

But the police look very poorly on a single witness whose story keeps changing. Lots of skepticism here! A defense attorney would tear such a persons testimony to shreads.

I feel sorry for Hinkley that he was either incapable of realizing the fallacy of his logic or worse, he actually thought someone would buy it...........

You claimed that the church hid this aspect of its history. I just proved that it didn't. That gordon b. hinckley mentioned it and it was in the ensign. So, now you moved the goal post. He mentions the differing accounts of the first vision. Nothing is hidden there.

[why me]

This statement in no way addresses any of the questions or points I have raised. If you have anything pertinent to say I will gladly try to address it.

The hinckley piece does mention it: the differing accounts. So, what is your problem now?

I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time.

Edited February 4, 2012 by why me

[Palerider]

This is why you should read gordon b. hinckley's article I linked above

http://www.lds.org/e...f-fear?lang=eng

It has to do with fear.

This article ( I imagine, no personal experience here) is like taking a little hit of some sort of an opiate.

All is well....you don't have to worry about those things that you hear about the church. They're bad people who say such things. They have bad motives, they're EVIL! Go back to sleep...........

Why not actually take up the challenge instead of speaking in platitudes?

Why not stand up and say, "Yes, I know Joseph took other mens wives to wife and I'm proud of it. It was the right thing to do. Look at all the Biblical precedent there is for such a thing. Scripture after scripture supports it. Here's what Paul has to say about it. Here's what Peter has to say about it, and John, and James..........and King David,,,,,,,,Whoops! Scratch that one.

[Palerider]

You claimed that the church hid this aspect of its history. I just proved that it didn't. That gordon b. hinckley mentioned it and it was in the ensign. So, now you moved the goal post. He mentions the differing accounts of the first vision. Nothing is hidden there.

Sorry, I didn't claim the church "hid" this part of it's history. But without doubt it does avoid it. Hinkley is being reactive not proactive. He brings the issue up because his hand is being forced to address it in order to stop the bleeding.

No goal post has been moved. You're just complaining cause you're out of range to make the punt. Try actually running or passing the ball for a change.

As I have previously stated, the church should teach this and other troubling aspects of church history as a part of their standard curriculum.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Palerider

[The Nehor]

I agree. And that is how I have reached my own conclusions regarding the LDS church.

Then best of luck to you. I don't think you will ever find what you seek in this church.

[why me]

This article ( I imagine, no personal experience here) is like taking a little hit of some sort of an opiate.

All is well....you don't have to worry about those things that you hear about the church. They're bad people who say such things. They have bad motives, they're EVIL! Go back to sleep...........

He mentions the differing versions of the first vision. He can mention it anyway he felt like. The point is: he mentioned it. You claimed that the chruch hides it. It was obviously not hidden if he mentions it. Here is the point: I don't think that it would matter to you at all what the church mentions or teaches. You will still find an excuse and play the blame game. YOu have read a great deal into a quote. But...it doesn't seem that you are correct in your interpretation.

[Calm]

In our ward, the responsibility rotates from one organization to another (RS, EQ, HPG, etc) and Primary holds the kids an extra 15-20 minutes by showing a video (church or scripture video) while the set up occurs.

Planning the event usually amounts to sending out a mass email that says "If your last name begins wih A-L, bring a main dish and dessert, M-Z bring a main dish and salad." and then helping to clean up - which most people do willingly anyway, regardless of which oganization is in charge.

We only have two wards in our building so I'm not sure how it would work with three but I know we had a dinner in our old building where 5 (yes, you read that right!) FIVE wards were meeting. Again, though, we were the last ward out. I do recall the second to last ward having a dinner and the only thing that invaded the last half hour of our classes was the delicious aroma...

I'll have to ask my folks how wards manage when there are three in a building. Their ward has a "break the fast" meal almost every Fast Sunday.

What happens with the kids during the meal and afterwards? Do they stick by their parents and quietly behave or do they tend to socialize with other kids their own age? Do they tend to run around the rest of the building?

[Deborah]

Hinkley is being reactive not proactive. He brings the issue up because his hand is being forced to address it in order to stop the bleeding.

Actually the different first vision accounts were published back in the 80's and I recall something in the 70's but not sure when. So to say Pres. Hinckley is being reactive when the message was already out there is disingenuous.

Here are different publications;

http://www.lds.org/e...vision+accounts

http://www.lds.org/e...vision+accounts

http://www.lds.org/e...vision+accounts

[noel00]

Smith claims that in 1820 his mother and other members of his family had joined the Presbyterian Church. The records of this church have been missing since 1930 (LDS cent) which would have shown the correct date. Bushman in RSR page 570 Fn 30 states "Lucy Smith's engagement to Presbyterianism remains a matter of debate. It is possible to argue that she did not join until later Palmyra revivals in 1824. Hill, "First Vision Controversary", 39-42; Marquardt and Walters, Inventing Mormonism, 16-17. This fact and the lact of evidences for a revival of the kind described by Smith seems to make the First Vision account somewhat confused with contemporary data. It fits more the Cowdery account in the M& A. Bushman cites Backman's book as the rebuttal to Walters. It's interesting that Backman makes no mention of Walter's Spring, 1969 Dialogue paper and Bushman's response anywhere in his book..

[Palerider]

He mentions the differing versions of the first vision. He can mention it anyway he felt like. The point is: he mentioned it. You claimed that the chruch hides it. It was obviously not hidden if he mentions it. Here is the point: I don't think that it would matter to you at all what the church mentions or teaches. You will still find an excuse and play the blame game. YOu have read a great deal into a quote. But...it doesn't seem that you are correct in your interpretation.

Since you failed to read it the first time please re-read my previous post # 191.

Then if you can intelligently address anything of which I've written,feel free to try.

[Palerider]

Actually the different first vision accounts were published back in the 80's and I recall something in the 70's but not sure when. So to say Pres. Hinckley is being reactive when the message was already out there is disingenuous.

Here are different publications;

http://www.lds.org/e...vision+accounts

http://www.lds.org/e...vision+accounts

http://www.lds.org/e...vision+accounts

I doubt very much the sccounts were published as a part of standard church curriculum. Besides I am sure he isn't bringing it up in his talk because it was something he wanted to clarify and inform the church further on.

I'm not sure why we're dwelling on this particular aspect anyway. The three different versions of Joseph's story weren't something that I ever mentioned and further as I have already stated, II never said in any of my statements that the church was "hiding it's history".

Why don't you try addressing the discussion regarding why the church avoids these subjects rather than clarifying and addressing them as an integral part of their correlated study?

Edited February 4, 2012 by Palerider

[Palerider]

Then best of luck to you. I don't think you will ever find what you seek in this church.

Perhaps not. But one can always hope. Best of luck to you as well.

[Deborah]

Why don't you try addressing the discussion regarding why the church avoids these subjects rather than clarifying and addressing them as an integral part of their correlated study?

Because it isn't integral to the fact of the First Vision and what it teaches.