The History Behind This Letter

[MatthewG]

An ex-mormon sent me this link: http://mormonisminvestigated.co.uk/2012/08/28/an-open-letter-to-europe-area-presidency-by-chris-ralph/

My question is does anyone have the history behind it? What was/is happening in these areas that would require a letter like this to be sent out?

My comment to the ex-mormon was that there was probably a lot anti-mormon literature being distributed to members in those areas causing a lot of people to question the their testimony or the validity of the Church.

If you have citations, links, etc please provide them so I can continue my conversation with this person.

[Bart Burk]

I have seen several claims on other boards that members in Sweden in particular are leaving. I don't know how accurate that claim is. The letter sent out by the area leaders seems to me to be reasonable in its approach. My own experience is that local leaders can at times be too quick to react negatively instead of working patiently with members with questions. This letter seems to warn against that.

[DBMormon]

Elder Marlin K Jensen has addressed this as well, acknowledging that we have the greatesy apostacy since the days of Kirtland and that the church is addressing it. I would expect to see other church sponsored ways to address this to surface soon.

[Alan]

I have a son serving in Sweden right now. He reports a growing church with a lot of interest particularly from non-Swedish born citizens. Interesting times.

[Bart Burk]

I have a son serving in Sweden right now. He reports a growing church with a lot of interest particularly from non-Swedish born citizens. Interesting times.

I just googled Swedish and LDS. There are several sites describing something they are calling the "Swedish rescue" which has a letter written by a Seventy in Sweden very much like the one above. Of course placing your trust in something you see on the internet is probably risky.

[wayfarer]

I see nothing wrong or unusual with the letter from the European Area Presidency and the guidelines as posted. I do take exception with the long response made by "Christopher Ralph", the disaffected member (or whatever he is).

It should not surprise anyone that in this year of the "Mormon Moment", that the flaws of the church are made public. It should also not surprise anyone that exposure to these flaws can cause disaffection, because the Church has taken a 'milk' posture about it's flaws for many years (perhaps back to the beginning). However, when we put the increased attention to the Mormon Moment with the speed at which information -- true and false -- get's disseminated today via the internet, it's a troubling situation.

That, I believe is the context of all these type of 'rescue' letters. I hope and pray that more of these letters are disseminated by caring leaders who see that the immense good the Church does for its members is being jeopardized by dissemination of information without adequate context. While I believe that the Church has brought onto itself this crisis by its historical fear of history, it does not change the fact that the conditions are ripe for people to get disaffected and leave, often without adequate consideration of the consequences.

The guidance of the second page of the Area Presidency Letter tries to provide appropriate guidance to helping. Perhaps it doesn't go far enough, but the guidance is sound. Here is the part that I find very important:

"Teach the spiritual path the person must walk to gain or regain a testimony (Alma 32), including helping him or her remember past spiritual witnesses (D&C 6:22,23), and avoid contact with evil influences (Moroni 10:30).

I agree in principle with this, but I believe that by itself it doesn't get to the heart of the matter. Alma 32 suggests testing things we hold in faith as if they were a seed. A good seed grows, but a bad seed doesn't. The test is specific to a specific testable seed, not to the entire garden. In applying Alma 32, we should find things in the church which are 'true' and uplifting - they grow, and we might and will, if honest, find seeds that aren't good. Any good gardener knows this, and if we apply Alma 32 fully, we will be able to weed out of our garden those things in LDS history that aren't true while fostering and keeping the things that are. This, to me, is the key to surviving the transition from milk-style faith to a more mature, nuanced understanding of the gospel and church.

What doesn't help is this confrontational repetition of the same stuff that we all know is problematic. The Book of Abraham is not a literal translation of the papyrus. end of story. Get over it. It's not important. Why? Because when you put revelation in context from the beginning of scripture to today, it's not unusual to see things that appear 'fraudulent' but were never intended to be so. BoA is simply another example of that process. An attitude of truth accepts that the papyrus was not literally translated. An attitude of faith gives Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt, and recognizes the possibility that he was revealing (as he did with the Book of Mormon) rather than translating. Faith is not a perfect knowledge... but faith is also not persistent in holding true that which is proven not to be. By being SPECIFIC, as Alma 32 encourages, we can sort out the truth from the fiction.

What is disturbing about both sides of this is the comment by the letter to invoke church discipline against those who might persist in publically opposing the church, coupled with those who insist in publically oppsoing the church. This war of words and opinions does not serve dialogue, and tends to harden the sides. Not useful.

So in answer to your question, I would continue to suggest that StayLDS is evolving as the more balanced of middle-way sites that encourages staying in the church while navigating that middle ground. THere are plenty of resources there if the person wants to stay in the church. Before going there, or anywhere else, it's important to understand what the ex-mormon friend wants to achieve. If s/he wants to stay ex, then there isn't much to do here. But if the person really wants to come back, then there are multiple paths.

Edited September 6, 2012 by wayfarer

[Bart Burk]

What is disturbing about both sides of this is the comment by the letter to invoke church discipline against those who might persist in publically opposing the church, coupled with those who insist in publically oppsoing the church. This war of words and opinions does not serve dialogue, and tends to harden the sides. Not useful.

Having been threatened with church discipline and then being asked to resign because I joined the Catholic Church, I agree with the above. When I joined the Catholic Church, the handbook said joining another church wasn't a reason for church discipline. Then they came along and changed the handbook and decided it was a reason to impose church discipline. I would have been happy to have just remained on the church rolls as a practicing Catholic still attending the Mormon Church with my family -- I was voluntarily not taking the sacrament or trying to get a temple recommend. I'm sure nobody cared what Bart Burk thought or did except for some authority who decided they had to follow the letter of the law. A couple of years after I was told to resign there were still members in my ward who assumed I was a member since I attended every week and went to church functions with my family. Oh well, I still attend sacrament meeting every week with my family, and I'm more or less of the opinion that it was all just meaningless paper work. Apparently, my friends in the stake were happy to see me go relatively quietly! The Catholic Church has lots of people who become disaffected (even loudly) and then quietly come back by just going to confession and returning. Some of the strongest Catholics I know have done that. Baptism is considered an indelible sign -- you can't renounce it no matter what you do. The idea of rebaptism is simply not considered useful. Faith is something that can ebb and flow in a person's life and hasty action sometimes does more harm than good.

[wayfarer]

Having been threatened with church discipline and then being asked to resign because I joined the Catholic Church, I agree with the above. When I joined the Catholic Church, the handbook said joining another church wasn't a reason for church discipline. Then they came along and changed the handbook and decided it was a reason to impose church discipline.

...

Faith is something that can ebb and flow in a person's life and hasty action sometimes does more harm than good.

How very true on all of the above. Having reviewed current CHI 1, but do not possess a copy right now, my recollection is that the condition is joining another church and advocating its teachings is the triggering event for CD, but since the "As guided by the spirit..." part more-or-less is completely subjective, anything goes, and thus 'Priesthood Roulette' rules the day.

I admire your pincipled position of joining where your beliefs were (at the time), while completely supporting wife and family. I went on a faith journey for many years, practicing many faith traditions, but never publicly joining any. Ultimately I returned here, but throughout all that, I was never detached from the Church. Had someone decided that my explorations were worthy of CD, I certainly would not have returned.

Edited September 6, 2012 by wayfarer

[Bart Burk]

How very true on all of the above. Having reviewed current CHI 1, but do not possess a copy right now, my recollection is that the condition is joining another church and advocating its teachings is the triggering event for CD, but since the "As guided by the spirit..." part more-or-less is completely subjective, anything goes, and thus 'Priesthood Roulette' rules the day.

I admire your pincipled position of joining where your beliefs were (at the time), while completely supporting wife and family. I went on a faith journey for many years, practicing many faith traditions, but never publicly joining any. Ultimately I returned here, but throughout all that, I was never detached from the Church. Had someone decided that my explorations were worthy of CD, I certainly would not have returned.

I was definitely advocating the teachings of the Catholic Church on the internet. If I had to do it all over again I might have been quieter, but part of how I form my views is discussing them with others. I'm sure that a case could have been made for church discipline in my case if one wanted to make it. Heck, I belong to a church that says eating fish on Fridays during Lent is a mortal sin worthy of hell and bans you from taking the Eucharist unless you go to confession for eating the fish. Of course the reality is that's a self-imposed banning not something the Catholic Church imposes. My only point is that patience is better than action when it comes to some things.

[wayfarer]

I was definitely advocating the teachings of the Catholic Church on the internet. If I had to do it all over again I might have been quieter, but part of how I form my views is discussing them with others.

Well, then it sounds like the system worked at least according to the book. Should it have? I'm not sure.

On one hand, the church should be open and loving, even to those who oppose its point of view. On the other, and this is what gets me sometimes, is that it's a tribe -- my tribe -- and while I may be critical, I have a natural tendency to defend my tribe when attacked.

I personally did not see suffiicent justification during my faith journey to change tribes. I have deep respect for the Roman Catholic tradition, and once I figured out how to participate in the eucharist without partaking (crossing arms and receiving a blessing), I've had some pretty amazing experiences. But it, too, has a number of serious issues, and I personally feel that jumping from one tribe to another isn't always the best practice. My previous calling was Ward Mission Leader, and this attitude isn't easy to have in that calling.

[Bart Burk]

Well, then it sounds like the system worked at least according to the book. Should it have? I'm not sure.

On one hand, the church should be open and loving, even to those who oppose its point of view. On the other, and this is what gets me sometimes, is that it's a tribe -- my tribe -- and while I may be critical, I have a natural tendency to defend my tribe when attacked.

I personally did not see suffiicent justification during my faith journey to change tribes. I have deep respect for the Roman Catholic tradition, and once I figured out how to participate in the eucharist without partaking (crossing arms and receiving a blessing), I've had some pretty amazing experiences. But it, too, has a number of serious issues, and I personally feel that jumping from one tribe to another isn't always the best practice. My previous calling was Ward Mission Leader, and this attitude isn't easy to have in that calling.

At this point in my journey I would never suggest to anyone that they "change tribes." I'm more inclined to say "Love the One You're With." At least until the tribe decides to kill you ...

[daz2]

It is true that the 2010 handbook requires discipline if a person joins another church AND advocates the teachings of the new church; I don't have access to the 2006 handbook, but I don't believe advocating the teachings was required in order to trigger discipline. Perhaps someone with the 2006 handbook can say one way or the other.

Of course, if someone joins another church, one would anticipate their "advocating" the teachings in the sense that when attending that church they would accept, believe, discuss, support or teach them. I would hope that that would not be enough to excommunicate someone from the LDS church. I don't believe that the majority of other churches excommunicate routinely those who become Mormon and advocate its teachings.

As Bart says, our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters accept back people who become Mormon and change their mind and return. (I wonder if any LDS disciplinary action was taken against Senator Marco Rubio and his family for becoming or returning to Catholicism.)

[KevinG]

Given the effect of LDS excommunication is the same as leaving the church voluntarily I see a distinction without a difference if someone chooses to become a member of another faith.

It would be a very unusual situation for someone to believe in two faith traditions that have no agreement over their authority and expect either of those traditions to accept some sort of joint citizenship. I can understand a desire to respect both traditions for the sake of the family but joint membership is not something I would expect either church to condone or support.

[wayfarer]

Given the effect of LDS excommunication is the same as leaving the church voluntarily I see a distinction without a difference if someone chooses to become a member of another faith.

It would be a very unusual situation for someone to believe in two faith traditions that have no agreement over their authority and expect either of those traditions to accept some sort of joint citizenship. I can understand a desire to respect both traditions for the sake of the family but joint membership is not something I would expect either church to condone or support.

First, catholics do not excommunicate people over leaving their church. Since they believe that they are the only true, universal ("Catholic") church, becoming a mormon is merely a temporary lapse in judgment.

Second, I'm not sure why this would be unusual. For a cafeteria mormon to be simultaneously a cafeteria cathoilic would just indicate that someone prefers a little variety in their spiritual diet. I much prefer the sanctity of the mass with its ritual and music, it's expression of the peace, and other things, to the somewhat boring aspects of LDS meetings. Yet I have never formally joined up, and continue to stay fully active in the LDS church.

Third, I think Gandhi-ji's comment to someone who, amidst the religious fighting between muslims and hindus, asked if the Mahatma was really a Hindu, to which he answered, "Yes I am. But I am also a Muslim, a Christian, and also a Jew."

I believe we need to consider the idea that God communicates his will to his people throughout the world in language and culture they understand. I have lived in India and China, and the message of the restored Gospel is a non-starter there, until we anchor our beliefs in their own revealed and received scripture, as did Matteo Ricci. I subscribe fully to this scripture:

2 Nephi 29:7-12 --

Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

...Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another.

...For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written. For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

Joseph Smith was highly syncretic, and could find divine wisdom in a plain funeral scroll or a masonic ritual... While I'm not expecting that we have his gift of translation, it is entirely possible, maybe even required, that we seek from all the best books, from faiths, from all sources the divine wisdom that God has revealed through all of his people.

What Joseph opposed, clearly, was the idea that the church would dictate what the Saints had to believe. Here are two things Joseph said in 1843:

"The prominent points of difference in sentiment between the Latter Day Saints & sectarian viz: the latter are all circumscribed by some peculiar creed which deprives its members of the right of believing anything not contained in it; whereas

the Latter Day Saints have no creed

,

but are ready to believe all true principles existing

, as they are made manifest from time to time."

from William Clayton's notes in his journal for January 1, 1843

I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things: but

the creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto shall thou come, and no further;" which I cannot subscribe to

.

History of the Church, V6 p57

For some reason, many in the Church today seem to think that there are some things that an LDS must believe ("credo" is latin for "I believe", from which the word "creed" comes). We do not. We must have 'faith' which is somewhat different than belief, "knowledge", meaning something we have discovered and proven to be true, and a 'testimony' which is a personal witness of how a person has come to that faith.

If I were to try to obtain a testimony that the Church is true versus, say Catholicism, then a true test of that principle in faith is to experiment with it, to try out Catholicism and Mormonism, to study it out in my mind, and then to pray for the answer in faith. If it is revealed to me after studying it out in my mind, testing it, and praying, that the church is true, then for me, I now have knowledge -- justified true belief -- that the church is true vis-a-vis Catholicism. Sure, you can study it, but until you try it out, you have no clue what it is to be a Catholic. To say "I know the Church is the Only True Church upon the face of the earth" is not an honest testimony unless a person has tested that concept. Without testing, one is not justified in believing it. Without justification, there is no knowledge, no justified true belief.

After thoroughly testing catholicism, episcopalianism, daoism, and hinduism over a period of 20 years, I'm back here. I have more justification than most people to say 'this is the only true church', but i can't say that as a universal absolute, because i haven't proven the negative absolute that there is none better. But I can say, it's the only true one for me. Had someone decided to excommunicate me during my faith journey, I would not bother returning.

Thus, I can see multiple reasons why someone might want to try multiple religions. And I don't think it's so rare as you indicate.

for what it's worth.

Edited September 8, 2012 by wayfarer

[KevinG]

I see your point and I'm not sure I made myself clear enough.

I distinguish between trying different religions and being baptized (or other joining requirements) of a particular religion. Visiting or investigating another faith would not be reason for excommunication. I am not sure what LDS church policy is for the disposition of someone who gets baptized into another church.

On becoming a Mormon I no longer recognized myself as a Methodist. Something I see as the functional equivalent of excommunicating myself from their ranks.

Edited September 8, 2012 by KevinG

[wayfarer]

I see your point and I'm not sure I made myself clear enough.

I distinguish between trying different religions and being baptized (or other joining requirements) of a particular religion. Visiting or investigating another faith would not be reason for excommunication. I am not sure what LDS church policy is for the disposition of someone who gets baptized into another church.

On becoming a Mormon I no longer recognized myself as a Methodist. Something I see as the functional equivalent of excommunicating myself from their ranks.

one cannot sample the other religion fully, at least in the Catholic church, without becoming a member, somehow. I wasn't willing to do that, fearing the consequences, but I did participate -- I've even sung in the choir

I'm with the concept that if one joins another church and advocates its teachings, one is functionally divorced from the previous church. I'll go with the current policy...