To Open The Church's Doors To All

[Storm Rider]

We strive for the “ideal” in all things.  Following the counsel of the 13^th Article of Faith teaches us that we should look for the best in all things. It also guides us to expect the best not only in ourselves, but also in others.  When we find that the ideal is consistently confronted with the weaknesses and frailties of humanity we are often confused and bewildered – particularly when it is so easy to judge others whether they are leaders of the Church, its membership, and specifically those outside the Church.  This confrontation with reality causes almost everyone to question and to challenge the status quo of the Church.

 

A significant minority of our people raised LDS in the USA have ceased to attend Church or to worship as LDS?  In many ways our young people and those who have become mired in the unyielding quicksand of doubt no longer find The Church of Jesus Christ as a credible voice of truth.  Does the fault rest on the shoulders of those that question and with the secular culture that appears so toxic to people of faith or does the fault also rest on our shoulders?

 

On another thread I alluded to the belief that Latter-day Saints are called to seek the truth and to follow their well-formed consciences and their Holy Spirit inspired deductions.  We need not simply to surrender our minds to either the Church or secular society’s teachings.  The Church has changed its process of teaching truths – its emphasis or priorities of fundamental truths previously.  My question now is there may be a need for a change in process, in culture, to meet the needs of those who struggle whether it is with Church history, marriage, sexual morality or morality in general.   

 

I have faith that this dialogue must occur with the Brethren first and foremost.  We are a Church that believes completely, fully in revelation and that revelation for the Body must come from them unilaterally.  I strongly reject the methods used by others who demand change by using the secular media to change the Church to meet their own image and desires.  However, I am not against entering into respectful dialogue about pertinent issues.  It may be that our own LDS culture should change rather than us blaming the sinful nature of secular culture and those who struggle.

We represent, as members, the restored Church of Jesus Christ.  Our Church culture is created by our own thoughts and actions.  Our invitation to the world, the Great Commission, to repent and be baptized – to come unto Christ is real and vital.  The sins of each child of God are irrelevant to us and should remain so.  However, there is great room for improvement in how we treat those who have fallen by the wayside, those who question, and those who have yet to engage in the active life of discipleship.  How can we change our own culture to reflect the ideals that we cherish so much?

[Boanerges]

Based on my experiences in my own stake I believe the brethren are having this conversation and are making efforts. Understandably they have to be careful making huge blanket changes in General Conference - but the message that it's OK to honestly question and sincerely seek truth is there. The message to accept and welcome those who believe differently is also there.

 

I'm not going to go into detail - but I truly believe the apporach the brethren are taking is more grassroots. I believe that through the Seventies, including the Area Authorities, the brethren are sending these messages very clearly to stake presidents who are then sharing and implementing subtle changes within their stakes. Again, no detail, but I believe this because of messages that I am hearing from my SP who talks about his meetings with other SPs in the region (and the AA), and what I hear others saying in other parts of the world (mostly US) that are strikingly similar. FWIW, I think this is a great approach because it makes the change local where it needs to be and where it will have the biggest impact.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Boanerges

[Senator]

 

  The Church has changed its process of teaching truths – its emphasis or priorities of fundamental truths previously. 

 

Please demonstrate this assertion.

[Storm Rider]

Please demonstrate this assertion.

 

I don't know what you mean by demonstrate, but one of the easiest examples is plural marriages.  The process, the manner, and the priority that we give this concept has changed.  It remains doctrine, but it has a different place in how we teach it.  Another example would be the Word of Wisdom, which has changed from the time the revelation was given in the 89 Section to how it was taught and how it is treated culturally.  Would you like more examples?

 

The changes in our cultural are secondary to the objective of the thread.  What I am interested in hearing about in a respectful, thoughtful manner is to discuss how we might change our culture in order that all feel welcome to come to church.  Is there a balance that can be struck between offering healing, even in a small, minuscule degree, and holding true to the principles of defining sin?  

Edited October 15, 2014 by Storm Rider

[EllenMaksoud]

We strive for the “ideal” in all things.  Following the counsel of the 13^th Article of Faith teaches us that we should look for the best in all things. It also guides us to expect the best not only in ourselves, but also in others.  When we find that the ideal is consistently confronted with the weaknesses and frailties of humanity we are often confused and bewildered – particularly when it is so easy to judge others whether they are leaders of the Church, its membership, and specifically those outside the Church.  This confrontation with reality causes almost everyone to question and to challenge the status quo of the Church.

 

A significant minority of our people raised LDS in the USA have ceased to attend Church or to worship as LDS?  In many ways our young people and those who have become mired in the unyielding quicksand of doubt no longer find The Church of Jesus Christ as a credible voice of truth.  Does the fault rest on the shoulders of those that question and with the secular culture that appears so toxic to people of faith or does the fault also rest on our shoulders?

 

On another thread I alluded to the belief that Latter-day Saints are called to seek the truth and to follow their well-formed consciences and their Holy Spirit inspired deductions.  We need not simply to surrender our minds to either the Church or secular society’s teachings.  The Church has changed its process of teaching truths – its emphasis or priorities of fundamental truths previously.  My question now is there may be a need for a change in process, in culture, to meet the needs of those who struggle whether it is with Church history, marriage, sexual morality or morality in general.   

 

I have faith that this dialogue must occur with the Brethren first and foremost.  We are a Church that believes completely, fully in revelation and that revelation for the Body must come from them unilaterally.  I strongly reject the methods used by others who demand change by using the secular media to change the Church to meet their own image and desires.  However, I am not against entering into respectful dialogue about pertinent issues.  It may be that our own LDS culture should change rather than us blaming the sinful nature of secular culture and those who struggle.

We represent, as members, the restored Church of Jesus Christ.  Our Church culture is created by our own thoughts and actions.  Our invitation to the world, the Great Commission, to repent and be baptized – to come unto Christ is real and vital.  The sins of each child of God are irrelevant to us and should remain so.  However, there is great room for improvement in how we treat those who have fallen by the wayside, those who question, and those who have yet to engage in the active life of discipleship.  How can we change our own culture to reflect the ideals that we cherish so much?

In my own Ward, I think that some of this conversation is going on now. As to the Stake, with their other Wards, I can not say. I will say that I went to church with friends while visiting Provo, and later this summer in Southern Idaho, and will say that I think that church in "The Mormon Belt" feels different than my experiences in Kirtland, Perry, Indianapolis, and other places. And, some people who have come here have expressed happiness in the open atmosphere here.

 

There are certain conversations I stay out of because frankly I do not know what to do. I pointedly follow the church leadership in regards to the whole diversity issue. The Media is educating Americans and has become the state religion for a substantial portion of Americans. There is a good reason that I do not have a television, and it saddens me that many Mormons seem to embrace the views of some very radical, self righteous, news agencies.

 

Racism is rampant in America, however in Indianapolis I attended a Ward where half those attending were Black, so in certain areas Mormons get a B.  With a couple people in my Ward, I have told them not to talk to me about God if they are going to say hateful political things. Some might assume that I am liberal but that is not correct. I just believe in loving cooperation.

 

Some have thought that becoming Mormon means the abandonment of their culture. The "Meet The Mormons" movie made it clear to me that at least in other countries people blend church values with cultural expression. I've returned to Hijab for various reasons and so far, that has not been an issue.

 

Even in the short, nearly 5 years of my exposure to the church, I have seen some change. May God watch over that change.

[JLHPROF]

I don't know what you mean by demonstrate, but one of the easiest examples is plural marriages.  The process, the manner, and the priority that we give this concept has changed.  It remains doctrine, but it has a different place in how we teach it.  Another example would be the Word of Wisdom, which has changed from the time the revelation was given in the 89 Section to how it was taught and how it is treated culturally.  Would you like more examples?

 

The changes in our cultural are secondary to the objective of the thread.  What I am interested in hearing about in a respectful, thoughtful manner is to discuss how we might change our culture in order that all feel welcome to come to church.  Is there a balance that can be struck between offering healing, even in a small, minuscule degree, and holding true to the principles of defining sin?  

 

This depends on the origin of our "culture".  If our culture has been born out of our doctrinal beliefs then to change our culture would be to change our doctrine.  And I personally oppose changing any doctrine simply in order to convert more out of the world.  For example - one of our cultural eccentricities is our refusal to smoke or drink alcohol/coffee/tea.  Changing this aspect of our culture by removing said doctrine would likely increase conversions (a small amount) and in my opinion would not constitute acceptance of sin (since I don't believe there is any sin in a glass of wine or a cup of coffee).

 

Now, if you believe our culture has come from alternate sources - politics, pioneer heritage, revivalist origins, new england WASPishness, or whatever one of a million things you happen to think might have created in our religious culture things that drive away converts, then these might be things worth revisiting.

 

But not a speck of truth should be given up to gain a convert.

[mormonnewb]

This depends on the origin of our "culture".  If our culture has been born out of our doctrinal beliefs then to change our culture would be to change our doctrine.  And I personally oppose changing any doctrine simply in order to convert more out of the world.  For example - one of our cultural eccentricities is our refusal to smoke or drink alcohol/coffee/tea.  Changing this aspect of our culture by removing said doctrine would likely increase conversions (a small amount) and in my opinion would not constitute acceptance of sin (since I don't believe there is any sin in a glass of wine or a cup of coffee).

 

So would it be okay to scrap the WoW?

[JLHPROF]

So would it be okay to scrap the WoW?

 

Nope.  Not to gain converts.

It is a temporal law (obviously) and so God could revoke it, although we'd still lose the blessings connected.

 

But changing doctrine to gain converts is about as foolish as it gets.

[mormonnewb]

Nope.  Not to gain converts.

It is a temporal law (obviously) and so God could revoke it, although we'd still lose the blessings connected.

 

But changing doctrine to gain converts is about as foolish as it gets.

 

But isn't this, in a sense, what happened with polygamy?  For temporal reasons (i.e., the imminent confiscation of all Church property and imprisonment of its leaders), the Lord discontinued the practice of plural marriage (at least, in the earthly realm).  And while I don't see a temporal reason for HF to discontinue the WoW (after all, the secular world is actually coming around to our point of view on this issue), I could see the need with regards to some of the hot button issues.  However, before I derail the thread with another lengthy debate on those topics, what about a change regarding something like garments?

 

It seems to me that the Brethen could receive revelation in which HF says that wearing the garments is a vestige of the "old Law," much like, say, circumcision was in the early Church.  It was necessary at one time, but it simply will keep more people away from the Church as the practice becomes more widely-known.  In fact, I'm not even sure why the Brethren would need "revelation" on that matter since I don't think that there is any scripture that necessitates the practice.

 

But, be that as it may, is that the kind of change that would be acceptable under your "not a speck of truth" test?

[JLHPROF]

But isn't this, in a sense, what happened with polygamy?  For temporal reasons (i.e., the imminent confiscation of all Church property and imprisonment of its leaders), the Lord discontinued the practice of plural marriage (at least, in the earthly realm).  And while I don't see a temporal reason for HF to discontinue the WoW (after all, the secular world is actually coming around to our point of view on this issue), I could see the need with regards to some of the hot button issues.  However, before I derail the thread with another lengthy debate on those topics, what about a change regarding something like garments?

 

It seems to me that the Brethen could receive revelation in which HF says that wearing the garments is a vestige of the "old Law," much like, say, circumcision was in the early Church.  It was necessary at one time, but it simply will keep more people away from the Church as the practice becomes more widely-known.  In fact, I'm not even sure why the Brethren would need "revelation" on that matter since I don't think that there is any scripture that necessitates the practice.

 

But, be that as it may, is that the kind of change that would be acceptable under your "not a speck of truth" test?

 

Changing of the garments would NOT be acceptable to me, as they are based on an eternal pattern.  They represent more than a reminder of the covenants we make, although this board is not  the right place to discuss that.

 

Also, you know full well that there are many scriptures that allude to the garments and many prophetic teachings on them.  But just like the temple endowment, they are not spelled out as we know them today in scripture.  The ancients did a better job keeping their mouths shut about temple things than we do.  But even then the references exist.

[Calm]

But isn't this, in a sense, what happened with polygamy?  For temporal reasons (i.e., the imminent confiscation of all Church property and imprisonment of its leaders), the Lord discontinued the practice of plural marriage (at least, in the earthly realm).  

 

I don't see that as about gaining converts but first, prevention of the Church members from engaging in temple work and two, possible destruction of the Church itself eventually.

[mormonnewb]

Changing of the garments would NOT be acceptable to me, as they are based on an eternal pattern.  They represent more than a reminder of the covenants we make, although this board is not  the right place to discuss that.

 

Also, you know full well that there are many scriptures that allude to the garments and many prophetic teachings on them.  But just like the temple endowment, they are not spelled out as we know them today in scripture.  The ancients did a better job keeping their mouths shut about temple things than we do.  But even then the references exist.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I am trying to be clear on the distinction you see between changing the doctrine on polygamy in light of earthly considerations and changing the "doctrine" on garments.

 

Leaving out the particulars, wasn't polygamy also based on an eternal pattern?  As I see it, eliminating polygamy had a much greater effect on both the temporal and eternal lives of the saints than any possible consequence of not wearing garments.

 

So why is one change acceptable and the other not acceptable?

[Calm]

If the wearing of garments resulted in throwing members in jail, removal of church property, etc. I suspect there may be a change.  

 

I remember reading a story of how the German police identified possible Jews by checking for circumcisions with the result of sending them to death camps.  It is possible imo if the story was based on fact that some at the time were inspired not to have their boys circumcised so as to pass for gentile, though I also see that at times God would allow his people to be attacked and even destroyed because of the principle of the agency of man combined with the need of God's people to be fully dedicated and committed to the Lord. 

 

 That is significantly different from changing them because some people find them uncomfortable or unappealing in appearance even to the point of rejecting joining the Church over (much like someone might not join the Church due to smoking or drinking).

Edited October 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

I don't see that as about gaining converts but first, prevention of the Church members from engaging in temple work and two, possible destruction of the Church itself eventually.

 

True, but there are some changes that would not be acceptable whether to gain converts or prevent destruction of the Church.  For example, and maybe I'm wrong here, but I imagine that we couldn't publicly denounce the atonement under ANY circumstances.  I imagine that our leaders (and most of the saints) would willingly be jailed (or worse) than deny Christ's atonement.

 

But obviously, polygamy was not such a make or break issue.  It was a commandment that HF could give us a "pass" on in order to preserve the Church.  To me, it seems like something like garments would fall on the polygamy (as opposed to the atonement) side of that line.  Unless, of course, we want to create a third rail, so to speak, by distinguishing between those circumstances in which changes can be made to preserve the very existence of the Church (polygamy and garments) and those circumstances in which changes can be made purely for church growth purposes, such as changing the missionary age.

 

I'm going to assume that, in this last case, the acceptable changes would only be changes in policy and not doctrine.

[JLHPROF]

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I am trying to be clear on the distinction you see between changing the doctrine on polygamy in light of earthly considerations and changing the "doctrine" on garments.

 

Leaving out the particulars, wasn't polygamy also based on an eternal pattern?  As I see it, eliminating polygamy had a much greater effect on both the temporal and eternal lives of the saints than any possible consequence of not wearing garments.

 

So why is one change acceptable and the other not acceptable?

Who said either change was acceptable?

 

See D&C 58:32, Isaiah 24:5 and what is commonly known as Wilford Woodruffs "Wilderness Prophecy of 1880" which was presented to, voted on, and accepted by the quorum of the 12 but never presented to the Church for canonization.

 

CHANGING ORDINANCES = BAD or at the very least BLESSINGS LOST

[Calm]

Out of curiosity, do you know of any revelations that were canonized that were received by those who were not Presidents of the Church at least at the time of revelation.

[mormonnewb]

If the wearing of garments resulted in throwing members in jail, removal of church property, etc. I suspect there may be a change.  

 

I remember reading a story of how the German police identified possible Jews by checking for circumcisions with the result of sending them to death camps.  It is possible imo if the story was based on fact that some at the time were inspired not to have their boys circumcised so as to pass for gentile, though I also see that at times God would allow his people to be attacked and even destroyed because of the principle of the agency of man combined with the need of God's people to be fully dedicated and committed to the Lord. 

 

 That is significantly different from changing them because some people find them uncomfortable or unappealing in appearance even to the point of rejecting joining the Church over (much like someone might not join the Church due to smoking or drinking).

 

I understand the distinction, but I think, in the long-term, garments could present a problem akin to the problem that circumcision presented to the non-Jewish Christians of the first century.  Some simply were not willing to become part of the community of Christ if circumcision was the price of admission.  I can relate because the garments are still a major stumbling block to my "complete" conversion, and it isn't a matter of style or comfort.  In fact, I find the garments quite comfortable and as to fashion, as a middle-aged man, NO ONE is interested in attractiveness of my underclothing.

 

The stumbling block is largely mental and as to what having your undergarments picked out for you traditionally meant in my neighborhood (i.e., you are in prison).  And not to mention the irony of descending from a line of people who had every bit of their agency ripped from them -- they could be bought and sold, have their babies ripped out of their arms, and have their every movement dictated to them -- and to finally achieve freedom, only to willingly cede back the right to pick out our own underclothing.

 

And while I may be hypersensitive in this regard, I am not a complete outlier.  In fact, I strongly suspect that a major reason for our "hush hush" approach to the garments is because we know that others would find it weird (or even cultish).

 

Well, we wouldn't be able to have "sacred but not secret" practices if we were to ever become the majority religion.  You simply can't keep anything that a majority of the people are doing "on the down-low."  So, at some point in the future, the prophets (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) might have to decide between becoming the preeminent branch of Christianity and retaining some of the more "controversial" parts of Mormonism.

 

I'm not convinced that they (and HF) would always choose the latter.

[JLHPROF]

Out of curiosity, do you know of any revelations that were canonized that were received by those who were not Presidents of the Church at least at the time of revelation.

 

Every epistle of Paul while Peter presided that was canonized...

 

And 18 sections of the Doctrine and Covenants that came before there was any Church to be president of or a vote to take.

And 11 of those came before any priesthood authority was even restored.

 

Actually, we only have two (three if you count D&C 135 as a revelation) canonized revelations that didn't come through Joseph Smith.

Oddly enough we have many revelations that WERE given to the president of the Church at the time that were accepted by the General Authorities but never presented to the Church.  By all rights, they should have been presented for a canonization vote but were held back for some reason.  The GA's certainly considered them valid, binding, and canonical.

 

Which bothers me - at some point after the organization of the Church 18 of the revelations were added to canon (1835 vote on the D&C at conference).  And other were left out.  It's just like the creation of the modern Bible.

There are many revelations to prophets of the Church that were never presented for canonization to the membership despite being accepted by the GA's as valid.  It's strange that as members we were never given the opportunity to vote no or yes on a revelation accepted by our leaders as valid.

Edited October 15, 2014 by JLHPROF

[mormonnewb]

Who said either change was acceptable?

 

See D&C 58:32, Isaiah 24:5 and what is commonly known as Wilford Woodruffs "Wilderness Prophecy of 1880" which was presented to, voted on, and accepted by the quorum of the 12 but never presented to the Church for canonization.

 

CHANGING ORDINANCES = BAD or at the very least BLESSINGS LOST

 

Okay.  I think I'm following you here.

 

But just to be clear, is your position that the Church was wrong to fold on polygamy?  And that as a result, we lost blessings?  However, despite that, the Church still retains priesthood authority?  And that you sustain and follow Church commandments (such as earthly monogamy) even when you think they are not what HF commanded?

 

And I hope this doesn't come off as an inquisition.  I'm not trying to paint you into a corner.  I'm simply curious as to how you reconcile prophet fallibility with faithful obedience, as I might be to adopt your model with regards to some of my disagreements with the Church on various issues.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I think of garments as wearing armor and being protected. I feel naked if I wear a t shirt without my garments underneath.

[Storm Rider]

I agree that changing actual doctrine is not an acceptable path if the motivation is to gain converts; that is not what this thread is about.

 

As a people we have a culture specific to us; our ideas, our customs, and our behaviors that are not dependent upon doctrine, but remain a part of our people.  I don't have answers, but I have concerns that we may not be doing our best in making all people feel welcome in our congregations.  Can all sinners feel comfortable or feel invited to come to Church?  Should they feel comfortable?  Is it possible to feel comfortable and still be convicted by our own sins?  

 

The Church is not for the healthy, but for the spiritually sick. If this is true how do we demonstrate that sense of being?  

[The Nehor]

I agree that changing actual doctrine is not an acceptable path if the motivation is to gain converts; that is not what this thread is about.

 

As a people we have a culture specific to us; our ideas, our customs, and our behaviors that are not dependent upon doctrine, but remain a part of our people.  I don't have answers, but I have concerns that we may not be doing our best in making all people feel welcome in our congregations.  Can all sinners feel comfortable or feel invited to come to Church?  Should they feel comfortable?  Is it possible to feel comfortable and still be convicted by our own sins?  

 

The Church is not for the healthy, but for the spiritually sick. If this is true how do we demonstrate that sense of being?

While we can do better as a people it is important to note that we will never make sinners comfortable at church. The Savior couldn't make sinners comfortable with his teachings and I doubt we can improve on it. Sinners are not intended to be comfortable. The Savior tended to inspire adoration, anger, or fear in those he interacted with. The gospel will do the same.

[Storm Rider]

While we can do better as a people it is important to note that we will never make sinners comfortable at church. The Savior couldn't make sinners comfortable with his teachings and I doubt we can improve on it. Sinners are not intended to be comfortable. The Savior tended to inspire adoration, anger, or fear in those he interacted with. The gospel will do the same.

 

I think that is a generalization.  The Savior sat with, ate with, conversed with sinners and publicans.  Does that sound like sinners being uncomfortable being in his presence?  Do you feel comfortable in Church?  I suspect you are still a sinner.  I also suspect that you are a committed sinner in some respects i.e. there are sins you continue consistently do and have done for years.  You are no different than the rest of us.

 

I think it is more accurate to state that those who have no desire to follow Jesus, to be his disciple; those who are committed to darkness are not comfortable in Church.  

 

We are sinners and we seek to follow after the Savior.  What separates us from other sinners?  Could we do a better job of making sinners feel more comfortable worshiping with us and learning more about the fullness of the gospel?  Even in our sin we follow after Him; why not others?  

[3DOP]

I think that is a generalization.  The Savior sat with, ate with, conversed with sinners and publicans.  Does that sound like sinners being uncomfortable being in his presence?  Do you feel comfortable in Church?  I suspect you are still a sinner.  I also suspect that you are a committed sinner in some respects i.e. there are sins you continue consistently do and have done for years.  You are no different than the rest of us.

 

I think it is more accurate to state that those who have no desire to follow Jesus, to be his disciple; those who are committed to darkness are not comfortable in Church.  

 

We are sinners and we seek to follow after the Savior.  What separates us from other sinners?  Could we do a better job of making sinners feel more comfortable worshiping with us and learning more about the fullness of the gospel?  Even in our sin we follow after Him; why not others?  

 

As you know, I speak as a Catholic.

 

Faith is what separates the two kinds of sinner. We can't allow unbelievers to be priests or encourage them to receive the Sacrament. There are privileges that come with faith and the gathering of the saints (going to church) is not necessarily about making unbelievers comfortable. If for social reasons they come, we can be individually friendly, but we should not expect that they could feel at ease among us until after conversions.

 

Ask adult converts among you about how important "comfort" was in their faith journey. I am sure you agree we can't be modelling our worship services for the comfort of unbelievers. We can have committees established to make sure we cheerfully greet every unbeliever that comes in to the church. I try to speak to everyone I don't know who comes. But now that you cause me to reflect, I can say for certain that when I was an unbeliever, I didn't want to be approached at church. I wanted to sit back and observe and get out the back door. The only discomfort came on those occasions when I was forced to interact with the believers before I was ready.

[Storm Rider]

As you know, I speak as a Catholic.

 

Faith is what separates the two kinds of sinner. We can't allow unbelievers to be priests or encourage them to receive the Sacrament. There are privileges that come with faith and the gathering of the saints (going to church) is not necessarily about making unbelievers comfortable. If for social reasons they come, we can be individually friendly, but we should not expect that they could feel at ease among us until after conversions.

 

Ask adult converts among you about how important "comfort" was in their faith journey. I am sure you agree we can't be modelling our worship services for the comfort of unbelievers. We can have committees established to make sure we cheerfully greet every unbeliever that comes in to the church. I try to speak to everyone I don't know who comes. But now that you cause me to reflect, I can say for certain that when I was an unbeliever, I didn't want to be approached at church. I wanted to sit back and observe and get out the back door. The only discomfort came on those occasions when I was forced to interact with the believers before I was ready.

 

I think you elucidate the challenges with finding the proper verbiage and the challenge of how best to welcome all who seek to attend.  I believe that every faith community must accept the fact that not everyone desires to worship with them. Secondly, some of those who are just beginning to feel the pull of the Spirit are not really interested in being approached too directly; a smile and a wave might be all that is wanted.  

 

At a time when we have women who desire ordination and those with SSA that seek to remain within the Church, there may be cultural things that we may change (this is a question) without any objective of changing doctrine and what is considered holy and righteous.