Here a few observations from the last few weeks.
US Politics
– OK, how long will Rick Santorum’s turn as the Anti-Romney last? There is no one else after him unless we get a spring surprise.
– Will Newt Gingrich’s fade be permanent or will the “South Rise Again?”
– Is anyone else missing the debates?
– Can the Susan G. Komen Foundation recover from the Public Relations blunder at best and/or its political misstep at worst?
Discussions continue after the release of LDS surveys from Pew and Dehlin.
– How many disaffection discussions can one possibly endure?
– Does it seems that defenders of the Church do not defend it as hard as those who criticize it criticize?
– Does it seem odd to you to write blog posts about blog posts?
– The article, “France’s First Mormon Temple Sparks Controversy” seems bad at first, but if you read the article, it is the usual questions about a Temple going into a new area. With a bit of French secularism thrown in.
And finally, the big question of the day:
If the LDS Church:
- Admitted it has not always being forthcoming on its history
- Gave up the fight on Gay marriage
- Expanded the role of women in the Church including giving them the Priesthood
- Better trained leaders on abuse issues
- Apologized for the policy on excluding black male members the Priesthood and all black members the Temple rites
If the LDS Church did some or all of those things, would disaffected members come back into full activity and those who officially left come back?
I know my answer to that question, what would yours be?
Wheat & Tares 
Jeff, love the photo.
In answer to your Big Question At The End — Nope, I don’t think so.
It seems to me blogging defenders of the Church do not defend it as hard as they used to.
If the LDS church did those things few disaffected members come back into full activity but there would be far fewer newly disaffected members.
Howard, I’m not so sure. There might be different disaffected members.
Especially if the church did those things in a way that seemed they were bowing to public pressure rather than being guided by revelation.
Paul, that is an excellent point.
Paul,
Would admitting is hasn’t been forthcoming or expanding the role of women or better training cause disaffected members? I doubt it. So that leaves the priesthood ban and gays.
Wasn’t the lifting of the ban on blacks a response to public pressure? Did the lifting it cause disaffected members? Not in numbers that I am aware of. So why would apologizing for it cause them?
Why would the lifting the ban on gays have a different affect than lifting the ban on blacks?
jeff – how can you know the answer to that question? you are not a disaffected member.
i agree w/ #2 – some might not come back, but there would be less future disaffections. isnt that the point?
i think its a really weak defense. “the church did all these screw ups, but it wont bring people back, so lets not change anything!”
I’m sure if the church gave more responsibility to women, people would claim that until now, the church “wasn’t ready” for such a large step towards social equality. At least that’s the sentiment I’ve heard from faithful members whenever the 1978 revelation comes up.
I also agree with #2, most disaffected would not come back in significant numbers, as trust takes time to rebuild, not just a quick policy change.
That would be my answer, but I’m not disaffected.
I have always heard the argument that the Church of Christ is looked at as the case study on making changes, and how it impacts membership, and in many cases it just seems to cause more schisms. So you address one problem but introduce several more.
Heber13,
Are u refering to the Community of Christ, ex-RLDS? Firetag can speak to that issue very well.
“…we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things.”
#5 Howard, as my comment implies, it would depend how it’s done. The faithful would be accepting of revelation on any of those matters, I suspect. The faithful, who still rely on modern revelation, would be concerned about any other approach, I suspect.
Extending the priesthood to women is a significant change, for instance, as would be a reversal of a position on same-sex marriage. (Though I guess it means what one means by giving up the fight — do we simply accept that it’s going to happen or do we embrace it? There are plenty of jurisdictions where we seem to be doing the first.)
There are those who claim the priesthood change for blacks was driven by public pressure. I am not one of them. It is clear to faithful members that the change came through revelation.
To Jeff’s first question on admitting that it has not always been forthcoming on history, hasn’t it done that already? There will always been simplified history taught in Sunday School and even seminary (but maybe one day more complex history will be taught in Institute classes). (We Americans teach simplified history in primary, middle and high school, too, don’t we?)
But high-profile books like the Massacre at Mountain Meadows and some of Elder Jensen’s public comments seem to signal that message.
Better training on abuse issues is available. Whether it’s consistently applied is another matter. I’m confident that better training will continue to be developed over time. Stephen Marsh has written on this subject here and elsewhere.
Thanks for correcting, Jeff…yes..meant to write Community of Christ. I’d like to hear Firetag’s take on that.
“Admitted it has not always being forthcoming on its history”
Like what?
“Gave up the fight on Gay marriage”
Why should they, marriage should be between a man and a woman
“Expanded the role of women in the Church including giving them the Priesthood”
Why would God change the significant role women currently have? Why should he?
“Better trained leaders on abuse issues”
Why should leaders try and handle abuse issues? Why not turn it over to professionals?
“Apologized for the policy on excluding black male members the Priesthood and all black members the Temple rites”
What do they need to apologize for?
Will, 14
—-“Admitted it has not always being forthcoming on its history”
Like what?
Closing the archives, firing Leonard Arrington, hushing up the Mountain Meadows Massacre, polygamy, etc.
—–“Gave up the fight on Gay marriage”
Why should they, marriage should be between a man and a woman
Based on what evidence? What justification is there, really, for such a stance. A handful of verses, most of which have alternative interpretations?
——–“Expanded the role of women in the Church including giving them the Priesthood”
Why would God change the significant role women currently have? Why should he?
Why would you assume that the current role of women is what God intended? It is pretty clear to me that Joseph certainly was heading in a different direction than the one we took.
—–“Better trained leaders on abuse issues”
Why should leaders try and handle abuse issues? Why not turn it over to professionals?
Agreed, but some knowledge and training is absolutely necessary so that bishops can be aware of *when* they need to turn it over to professionals and not go for a hush-hush resolution.
“Apologized for the policy on excluding black male members the Priesthood and all black members the Temple rites”
What do they need to apologize for?
Preaching false doctrine from the pulpit, if I may word it so strongly.
Re Jeff-
I’m not sure I’m qualified to answer either. But I’m gonna. For me, some of those things would be the morally upright thing to do, and ALL of them would increase credibility of the church in my eyes. Nevertheless, trust takes time to rebuild as was stated, and moreover, I don’t think most people left for these reasons. Rather I think these things are instigators to leaving. Most people leave because they no longer believe the church is what it claims to be. The things you’ve listed won’t change the church’s claims, or what people believe.
I want to add something to this though. I actually don’t think the church should do all those things. And going back to a different thread, I think we need to modify our expectations of the church. The church is a corporation, and it behaves like one. If the church did what you suggested, there would be a downside. I personally think the downside would be a decrease in social capital from members generally resulting in a weaker community. Part of what makes the church what it is is the high transaction costs of being a member, and those high costs are what keeps the church strong.
So, if I may be so bold. If the church DID do what you’re saying here, I think there would be a chance I would leave because the church might not be able to provide what it currently offers to me. (obviously this is tricky. I think the church could be MORE forthcoming in its history without this downside, but it takes time to “wean” people, etc.)
jmb, I’d agree that people might not leave BECAUSE of these things, they are instigators, but when people do struggle with these things, the church isn’t currently equipped to deal with the issues, which then means the individuals don’t have anywhere to go to work it out or talk it out, which leads to losing belief in the church.
I think there could be more preventative care before belief is gone, with more forthcoming about history. It should be part of “nourishing with the good word” and ministering to our brothers and sisters. I think they have to. It may take time to “wean” people, but it is hard to see they have even started to try.
Paul,
So the civil rights movement was just coincidentally timed to precede revelation lifting the ban on blacks? Maybe, but it sure seems unlikely. If you ask me the civil rights movement was strong motivation for a couple of prophets to get on their knees and ask.
Is a simplified history taught in Sunday School implying Joseph was monogamous honest?
jmb275,
I’m curious as to what you think the church will lose by changing these things? What would the church lose by training leaders on how better to deal with abuse or by no longer actively campaigning against same-sex marriage?
In answer to Jeff’s question:
First – I would hope not. I certainly wouldn’t want anyone to think that I am holding out for an apology from the Church. I don’t want it, and I don’t care if they do it. In order for me to be willing to come back I would need to be presented with some convincing evidence that it is in fact true. That’s what it would take, and I think that is as it should be. If there is a strong contingency of people who have left the Church but still believe in it, that are waiting for an apology, then those people need to have their heads examined.
On the other side, I would venture that if apologizing for those things would result in higher overall numbers of Mormons, that the Church would do it.
Heber13,
Oh you’re absolutely right. I’m a perfect example! Until there is something institutional, it’s going to depend on local leadership. It may be (total speculation here), had I been in my current ward, with my current bishop, my faith crisis may have been lessened by an order of magnitude!!
LovelyLauren,
Damn, I should have been more specific. Regarding abuse, nothing would be lost, to be sure. But to answer your question, I’ll refer you to an interesting article I once read:Why Strict Churches are Strong (warning: PDF)
It’s long, and academic, but worth your time. The bottom line is that part of what gives our church the ability to mobilize a force to be reckoned with (e.g. Prop 8 in CA), is our strictness. If you lower the costs of membership (and I think that’s exactly what is happening with most of the points Jeff mentioned), the strength of the community will diminish. It’s why cults have the power to control people, and Universalists can’t get anyone to do anything. Personally, I think the LDS church does a pretty good job of balancing the costs of membership and strength of the community. Indeed, few religions the size of the LDS church have that power.
OK, here is some of my thoughts about the questions I asked.
I do agree with JMB on the strictness issue. Were the Church to give in on some of those things, we would be moving toward the mainstream and lose the unique qualities of the Restoration doctrines. As has been noted, when the CoC did that, they lost a lot of members and created a great schism in their Church.
Having said that, I do think on areas like history, the Church could be more explicit in declaring openness about our history, warts and all. I do think they have moved in that direction in recent years, but not been as vocal about it. And the out of date manual do not help convey that message at all.
I think the Church should work toward preserving its rights under the First Amendment with regard to marriage and allow the secular process to run its course with regard to Gay marriage.
I’d like more recognition of the role of women in the Church. Again, headed in the right direction, but local leaders need to be forced to move there faster.
Reporting of Abuse, no question, perps should be handed over to the cops then and there and the victims shielded from any possible harm. You can’t fast and pray away pedophilia or spousal abuse.
And lastly, I actually do not think disaffected members would come back in any great numbers. Even if the Church complied with every demand, there will be just more demands or reasons why not to be active in the LDS Church.
BTW, most revelation comes in the form of answers to questions the Prophet had. So when would be a better time to receive revelation than when something is happening currently that needs to be taken to the Lord.
While I’ll have to answer this question and the others in detail later, I think the one about disaffected members coming back to the church is something that should be investigated further.
Because one thing that people often don’t discuss is whether or not “dealbreakers” can be reversed. In other words, can you reverse someone who feels betrayed by being taught a false history by saying, “OK, we weren’t candid before, but now we’ll be candid.”
I think, as some people have already said, that this might work to prevent people from having faith crisis to begin with (that is, the “inoculation” approach), but that it doesn’t actually work for people who have already had their faith crises. That boat has sailed. Sunk in stormy waters. It’s resting at the bottom of the sea and it’s never coming back.
(That being said, every once in a while, Jared Anderson or Joanna Brooks will say something about an ideal for church so appealing that I think I would go back if church were like that. But I’m not completely sold on if this is possible, much less something that could actually ever happen.)
Andrew,
It appears to me that some disaffected folks have set up a view of Church in their minds that I do not recognize even if I project the worst of the worst situations I have personally been involved in.
So I think that remains a barrier when they describe a Church experience I cannot even imagine.
And since I pro-actively sought out information and confronted it early on in the Church experience, I cannot be hyper-surprised anymore.
Disaffected members who have their names removed are gone and they ain’t coming back, regardless of any changes. They would just cynically see any of the changes Jeff mentioned as backpedalling and more proof of lack of divinity. So no real point in pandering to them. They’ve moved onto “authentic living.” They’ve chosen to disassociate from those who remain (and then mock and criticize them). I always like how exmormons complain about how family turns their back on them. Well guess what, Mr. (or Ms.) Self-Appointed History, Theology and Evolution Expert After a Couple of Weeks of Reading Internet Sites, you turned your back on your family first. If the “anger” you feel after “finding out the true history” is real, don’t you think that comes across in your tone when you bring your “concerns” to your family and friends? And then your friends and family have the nerve to get to defensive! Shocking!
Sure dpc that’s just how it works. How profound, I see you have a lot of experience with it.
“They would just cynically see any of the changes Jeff mentioned as backpedalling and more proof of lack of divinity.”
In other words, they would see backpedalling as a proof of backpedalling? Yeah, I guess I would. That’s not really the point though. Part of what I see implied here is that those who leave the Church over history/doctrine/etc, do so only on account of the “shock” and “surprise” of new information. There is no consideration to the possibility that we don’t all assess the same information equally. Jeff was okay with what he learned early on, some people may not be okay with it. What is the difference? I would say that it is just the way we process and evaluate information. Instead, they assume that it is just the “surprise” of new information that get’s people up in arms.
I think another point that needs to be addressed is implied in DPC’s comment:
“Well guess what, Mr. (or Ms.) Self-Appointed History, Theology and Evolution Expert…”
Kevin Barney made a comment that carries this implication recently as well. The idea is that somehow when a person begins to learn more about the history, they somehow set themselves up as “experts”. Also implied in this argument is the idea that unless I hold a Ph.d. in some field related either genetics or archaeology, etc, I am not justified to doubt The Book of Mormon on those grounds. I am definately not allowed to bring the point up in some kind of blog discussion with other fellow lay Mormons and former Mormons. This is complete nonsense. If I publish a paper, or start holding myself out as a scholar or authority, you may critique my credentials. Otherwise, if I say that as of yet there is no accepted archaeological evidence to support The Book of Mormon, you can know that I haven’t just assumed myself to be archaeological expert somehow. In any case, far more useful than making assumptions about how I percieve myself, would be to show why that statement is incorrect.
Again, this is all just decision making.
Heber13:
I did a great deal of research on the membership history of the RLDS/CofChrist, and even had the opportunity to present the results personally to several members of our Twelve and our Presidency. I basically found that NOTHING we did had had any effect on our growth rate in North America, and had not had any effect for 130 years. Further, liberalization occurred AFTER the decline had already started, and changed nothing.
Here’s the key quote from my presentation:
“In the late 1800’s, although our denomination had considerably less than 20,000 members, we were adding about 1700 people to our membership per year. Over roughly the next century, we added some 150,000 additional church members as potential witnesses. We built hundreds of churches. We trained and expanded the missionary quorums of the church several-fold. We established major church institutions such as Graceland University (of which this seminary is a part), the medical complex next door to us, the Auditorium Complex that preceded the Temple Complex a few blocks to your right, and Herald Publishing House. We experienced times of relative financial hardships and times of relative plenty. We knew times when the leading quorums were highly unified and times of great internal disputes among them. We undertook literally thousands of evangelistic initiatives at the local and regional levels.
And none of those things had absolutely any effect, positive or negative, on the numerical rate at which the church in North America grew! The church shook off the effects of every one of them after a few months or, at most, a few years and stubbornly continued, decade after decade, to add the same 1700 members per year.
“It is as if you’re driving a car, and no matter which way you turn the steering wheel, and no matter how hard you step on either the brake or the accelerator, the car continues to travel in a straight line at the same speed. Eventually it has to dawn on you that your controls aren’t really connected to anything, and, in fact, you aren’t really the one driving the car. …We were not ‘driving the car’ in regard to our own church’s growth!”
FireTag,
Don’t you find that conclusion odd. The general population grew by a percentage but the church added a steady 1700 yearly. Were the missionary efforts also flat?
Thanks Firetag. Great response, thanks for sharing.
I think that is how the LDS Church leadership looks at these things…they’re not driving the car, so others can speculate or we can debate what policy changes would be best, but unless the “feelings” and inspiration instructs otherwise, there is no need to change things. Because it will not make a difference one way or another to try to appease others, decisions are made based on what they think the Lord is guiding them to do.
Isn’t that what we want the Church to be doing?
Perhaps Jeff’s questions are in 2 categories:
1) Things that can be done without changing doctrine (Administrative/Policy actions to appeal to more people):
– Admitted it has not always being forthcoming on its history
– Gave up the fight on Gay marriage
– Better trained leaders on abuse issues
– Apologized for the policy on excluding black male members the Priesthood and all black members the Temple rites
– Expanded the role of women in the Church excluding giving them the Priesthood
2) Doctrinal changes requiring revelation:
– Expanded the role of women in the Church including giving them the Priesthood
– Allowed gay men and women to hold callings and go to the temple.
I live “out West”. We Have In & Out Burgers. I can take or leave them__ but they are good. But for a lot of people, you might just save your wind. They have a faith/belief in these burgers that cannot be challenged. To do so, is to label yourself an idiot. It seems, in many ways, the Church is this way(?)
…but unless…there is no need to change things I suspect until the internet became popular most of these issued stayed pretty well buried and that made it easy to stay the course but as information continues be more available and retention rates continue to plunge the church is under increasing pressure to be more open and candid.
Howard:
The paper is lengthy (though I did link some of the critical charts in a post here at W&T — check the October 2010 archive on the right hand menu if you want to look at them) but essentially what happened is that we filled our societal niche by 1880. The limiting factor was our ability to expand leadership because we were too coupled to the surrounding society (by not migrating to the frontier) to keep any gains in leadership resources from “leaking” into the surrounding community: family life, professions, etc. Unless all of those communities grew resources simultaneously, leadership within the church would simply keep shifting roles to juggle church and non-church responsibilities, but never become an engine that could lift society and thereby continue to grow off the increase.
In economics-speak, the marginal utility in all types of “investment” — church, home, work, etc. — always had to be equal because you could always increase total utility by shifting investments until they were.
By 1950 or so, society itself began to change values (no idea why, but it effected multiple denominations) and our baptisms peaked. Thereafter we couldn’t quite replace ourselves, although it took another 30 years or so for the existing generation of leaders to age, and so we went into an accelerating decline.
Maybe LDS isolation will produce a different demographic destiny for you than for us, but your declining retention rates look a lot like our behavior during the 1950-1980 period.
Very interesting FireTag thanks.
Ah, the end-of-the-week rant from one that at best feels the need to “steady the Ark”, but likely can do no better than carp and criticize. A “murmurer” instead of a “builder”, as the late David O McKay would say.
Oh well…a response…
The Church isn’t losing members for promulgating the Gospel as it sees fit. The disaffected are looking for excuses to lose themselves.
1) Abandon the fight AGAINST gay “marriage”? Never! The Church will always uphold the Lord’s view on marriage, political correctness notwithstanding.
2) “Apologize” for the Priesthood ban on blacks? Why? Either the Prophet received revelation on the matter or he didn’t. Either way, the issue becomes moot and there is no need to apologize to ANYONE.
I did forget to convey appreciation about the “cat-herding” picture. You just described my job! Once I got home (instead of viewing it on my smartphone during a tedious meeting…), I could see the detail better. Made my day.
As for “training” leaders (I assume you mean Bishops and Stake Presidents), I agree wholeheartedly with other posters that abuse cases should be left to the professionals. While being sympathetic and caring, this is no job for an amateur, however “inspired” he might be. Nothing wrong with a bishop acting like a gatekeeping physician in an HMO.
Santorum will peter out like the rest. “Newt” is waiting for super Tuesday and a strong showing in the South to save his campaign. Don’t be surprised if a few politically active preachers weigh in some anti-LDS diatribes at the last moment to swing votes of “Evangelicos” away from Mitt. Methinks Romney’s nomination is inevitable, though, unless he derails it himself. Someone duct-tape his mouth and just let him “smile and wave” like the Madagascar Penguins!
Such vitriol….
“Abandon the fight AGAINST [blacks holding the priesthood]? Never! The Church will always uphold the Lord’s view on [priesthood], political correctness notwithstanding.”
Exclusion and social violence are wrong, and are roundly condemned in the scriptures.
And as far as revelation goes, regarding blacks holding the priesthood, there was none, as far as I am aware. Joseph ordained black men to the priesthood, Brigham couldn’t live with that.
Promtheus,
“Exclusion and social violence are wrong, and are roundly condemned in the scriptures.”
Actually, exclusion has been practiced down through the ages by even God himself, if you accept the scriptures:
“…. I say unto you, be aone; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.” D&C 38:22
Hmm. I don’t know that we are reading that quite the same way. First off, I think there is a real parallel to be made with ‘I will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men’. Second, the exclusion is at least in part a self-exclusion. If we choose not to be one, we are choosing not to be God’s people, we are separating ourselves from others.
I suppose one could see a paradox there with the necessity of including those who are intent on excluding – at some point, God will make a decision I am sure. 🙂
I just really see an incredible focus on unity in the scriptures, which seems at odds with statements of racism, sexism, or whatever other -ism.
“Actually, exclusion has been practiced down through the ages by even God himself”
This is what makes me nervous about organized religion.
The whole plan of salvation is built on exclusionary principles…only 2/3 made it to the 2nd estate, then there will be CK/TK/TK/OD divisions in the next life. I trust God justly deals with these matters. It seems to me to be exclusionary in terms of a person’s heart and actions.
For us mortals, it is hard to trust exclusionary practices based on other things (race, sexual orientation, gender) because it is fallible mortals trying to decipher God’s will, but not being able to see into the heart of individuals.
It is hard for me to agree with Howard that it will never change, when so much has changed in the past. These issues are the kind, I’m sure, the Brethren are not all 100% in agreement with.