I was pondering the other night the reasons people leave active participation in the LDS Church. It seems a lot of the reasons can be put into two categories: Historical/foundational issues, and current social/administrative issues. Under historical claims you could put the Book of Mormon historicity, Book of Abraham Translation, Polygamy, First Vision, etc. For Current issues the list contains the Church’s wealth and trying to hide it, LGBTQ exclusion, Gay marriage, Women’s rights, and more.
What I was wondering was if one of those categories was resolved, would that be enough to get you to come back to Church, or not leave in the first place?
Let’s set this up. A magical wand is waved, and all the historical/foundational issue are gone and never happened. DNA of Native Americans contains large amounts of Hebrew ancestor. Bones of horses are found dating to 600 BCE to 400 CE. There is only one version of the First Vision. Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy, and thus it was never part of the Church. The facsimiles in the BofA are found to be translated correctly. In total, all the issues from the past are gone. Is that enough to make you stay in the Church? The current social issues are still here.
Or lets switch, and all the foundational issues are still there, but the Church spends most of its money on the poor, and is recognized as a major world-wide charity in solving world hunger. LGBTQ people are fully accepted in the Church, Gay marriage is recognized, woman hold leadership callings with equivalent power as men. The Church is quite popular on the world stage with these stances. Do you stay?
Each scenario holds a different underlying basis to stay. For the first, with the historical issues solved, this might be the easier one to stay/go back. The indications are the Church is what it says it is, the One True Church, and the way back to God. You might stay because all evidence points to the Church being true, and then you could work to change the current issue from within. Pascal’s wager would play a big part here: Better to wager the Church is true, as all indication are it is, than to risk eternal life and reject it.
For the second scenario, all the current “Latter-Day” social issues are solved, but the underlying foundational issue are still there. This may be a little harder to justify staying. One reason for staying may be the social or family connection the Church offers. You could stay knowing the Church is doing good in the world, raising your kids in the Church gives them a good moral underpinning, even if the foundation may be problematic. You could be in and not be a true believer, given how good the Church is enhancing your life.
I know this is just a silly thought experiment, but is any one side’s problems (historical or current) easier to live with than the other?
For myself, I don’t think either would get me back. Too many problems with both scenarios.
Would you go back/stay engaged with either of the above scenarios?
You should include the overwhelming Trumpiness of the Church in your list of social/admin issues. Nobody wants to go to church with a bunch of fascists (even if they call themselves “patriots” — fascists never call themselves fascists). Well, other Trumpers might be okay with that, but not the rest of us. As far as I can tell, senior leadership has no clue this is a problem.
It’s an interesting thought experiment. Disheartening, perhaps, because it shows how deep the problems go. I’m thinking there is a second post to be had here — looking at the two categories and asking what the Church does that is *positive* under each heading and to what extent that balances or even outweighs the negatives.
For me, the exit ramp began with learning about the Strengthening the Membership Committee, which would fall under a latter-day issue. It reminded me way too much of Scientology and that made me look at all the things I had already put on my “shelf”. That led to research which exposed all the historical problems, and this post only scratched the surface of that. For me, I don’t ever see a way back. My moral conscience can’t overlook all the historical LIES and still represent. If current issues were resolved, the past still remains, though I would respect the church more. One huge obstacle is the policy of NEVER apologizing for the wrongs and lies of the past, in addition to decades of cover ups. For a church that preaches repentance quite heavily, it’s hard to move past their own refusal to do so. An honest or different history along with the modern scenario described would be a completely different organization, so the question is kind of moot as it doesn’t and can’t exist. All that being said, I don’t believe that there is any church that is perfect. One thing JS got right is that when men get a little power they tend to exercise unrighteous dominion, and that is true of any type of organization including churches. I’m not a scholar, but it seems that most religions were started by someone who had specific ideas on what they thought was the true way and they all tell you what you should do and how you should live, according to their ways. I feel that most start out with true intentions, but most also end up trying to control your life. Christianity’s obsession with human sexual behavior is just weird and disturbing. I’m actually a much kinder, less judgmental, and happier person outside of religion. I have a strong moral compass, and religion adds nothing to my life at this point. Perhaps it could add community, but I was never fully embraced in Mormondom even as a full TBM for decades, so I’ve made community elsewhere, so even that has no allure. Why would I want to have a community of “acquaintances” who would only accept me if I lie about my beliefs etc?
People leave church activity all the time – Catholics do it, and Episcopalians, and Presbyterians, and Hindus, and Muslims — it is not a Mormon phenomena — I suppose some LDS members leave church activity for the same reasons as the remaining 99% of humanity,
When I was younger I cared more about the church being true. Now? It’s much more important that the church be good, regardless of popularity. If it’s not taking care of the poor and following Jesus, what good is it?
If the church wants me all in it needs to be good.
Ordain women and see if it changes what needs to be changed. If the changes don’t happen, then I would never go back.
Dave B, how can leadership have no idea about the Trumpiness unless they are actually in media isolation?? I have to believe that for some reason they do not care.
It is the same with women’s issues. As was once said about Nixon and Watergate….they are either responsible or irresponsible. Surely, even with their refusal to provide a mechanism for information to flow UP, they know statistics and that women are leaving in fairly large numbers.
They seem just not to care….about either issue.
lpf43,
The institution will always optimize towards self-preservation. Any time there is a threat, it withdraws into its shell hoping things will blow over. The people leaving honestly don’t matter that much in the eternal sense as long as the “true church” remains on earth. I don’t get the sense that the church leaders believe the people are the church–the body of Christ. They believe either the church is Jesus himself (a weird, yet unsurprising comparison) or some entirely separate entity empowered by God independent of the people that serves as sort of an airport shuttle to the celestial kingdom. And I think this is where the church has gone off in a wrong direction. There is no church without the people.
I love how Tim articulated this.
I get excited a theology where “love is a higher value than truth”. That would certainly be a draw to me.
The church does preach a lot about love and charity being the highest virtues, but I think they focus too much on love as “intent” not love as “impact”.
For example: Parents who send conference talks to their kids who no longer attend church can tell themselves they have loving “intent”, but the actual “impact” of doing that is awful. The person on the receiving end NEVER feels love in those interactions. What if that same parent sent their child a text saying “It was nice chatting on the phone yesterday. I love hearing about (insert something you talked about) and am grateful for you.” Will that automatically result in loving “impact” No, but it has a much better chance than a sudden conference talk out of nowhere. More “impact” love would certainly be a draw. If you think about it, Jesus really excelled at the “impact” kind of love, and that’s the kind of love I’m focusing more on whether in or out of the church.
Bill, for the Book of Mormon, wouldn’t we also need strong evidence of pre-Colombian Christianity?
ChrisDRobinson, I think you hit on something I never could put to words. The leaders do not think of the church as the body of Christ made up of people/members. The leaders think of the church as a vehicle to get us back to God. Kind of like the religion is organized and works like a conveyor belt to take us to the CK. Sure, people need to be working the conveyor belt to keep it moving and they need to be on the belt/covenant path and stay on the belt/covenant path. The church is not a group of people walking the path and helping each other along, but the church is the path rather than the people on the path. WOW. Mind blown. So, it honestly doesn’t matter if the prophet is the lone person on the path. The path remains. And it remains the only way back to God/home.
I see it, well, I see what it SHOULD be as a family and where ever we live is home. Home is not the one and only house I grew up in and there is only ONE road back to it. Home is not a house at all, but where my loved ones are. But then we moved house 20 times in 20 years, but we made each one home. And there is that scripture, “whereever one or more of you is gathered in my name…” So, the CK is whereever the people are gathered in his name and rather than a path going to Him, He comes to us.
But then I was always confused about why God *needs* us to be dunked in water and *needs* certain words said over us and so on up through the second anointing. Compare becoming a god in Mormon belief to becoming a doctor. There is a process you go through to get your degree, but it isn’t the diploma that matters. Really, it is the knowledge you gained while earning that diploma. The diploma is not important to actual functioning as a doctor, only the knowledge. But our church has gotten so hung up on the diploma that first it starts passing out easy As, and dumbed down the curriculum, and cut some classes, and pretty soon, people are not learning, just getting the paper that said they learned. And it refused to even let women in, because they are supposed to be nurses, not doctors. Baptism is supposed to be just the symbol that we accept Jesus and to follow him. But instead the church teaches it like it is the ticket to Jesus, rather than a marker we arrived. If we are not learning love, compassion, charity along the path, no matter how many markers we pass, we are not making it. What is important is what we learn along the journey, not just passing Go and collecting our $200. We need people to love on the path, not just the path, or we learn nothing along the path. And really, Jesus comes to us, we do not go to him. We learn to be like him.
So, I try to imagine “if all the historical problem were gone” and it is a totally different church in a different universe. In order for native Americans to have that DNA they would have had to come to the America’s some 20k years later than they did, and that would totally change everything about who they are. And polygamy, what if Joseph had not started polygamy….well, for one, I would not be here, seeing as I come from a third, second, and I think even a sixth wife. So, if I don’t exist, I can’t exactly go back to the church. And about that time, in trying to imagine “what if the history issues didn’t exist” my brain short circuited.
So, if the church was a completely different church, would I have left it? I can’t answer that because I wasn’t born and raised in that completely different church. I have no idea what the doctrine would have turned out like. It is just a mind boggling experiment.
For one thing if all the historical problems didn’t exist, would the church really be true? If it was, how would the leaders actually act? I mean, our leaders are so defensive, they know there are big historical problems and so they are all insecure and jumpy about being proven wrong. How would they act if there were not all kinds of historical problems they have to hide from and refuse to know or examine? I don’t know.
It is like, well, if the church really WAS true, I would hope I was not the evil kind of person who would reject God, or the stupid kind of person to claim the earth is flat in spite or real evidence otherwise. So, *IF* the church really was true, of course I wouldn’t have left. And just like the people who hid Anne Frank, I would have stood up to Hitler too, because 90% of the people failed that test but I am one of the heroes who would stay with “the one true church” if only it was true.
See, there is a flaw in the very question. We all think we are better and smarter than “average” and we would do the right thing.
I had not previously considered the overwhelming influence of PATRIARCHY, until watching Ben Park’s interview with Steven Stell, who wrote ‘Born Again Queer’: https://youtu.be/X_Nv4-FwYrw?is=MHdJP9H1T6ImjblZ
“Patriarchy seeks to control bodies, reproduction, and personal autonomy. Because non-binary people reject traditional gender expectations, they frequently champion body autonomy outside of patriarchal control. Conversely, patriarchal restrictions on reproductive healthcare, bodily self-expression, and freedom of movement directly harm non-binary individuals’ safety and self-expression.”
This explains why LD$ Corp has mandated Idaho members to vote No, and donated $1 Million to defeat Prop 1 in Idaho without considering the implications for women’s health and safety, or even how this negatively affects birth rates! (Mormonland OBGYN Interview). I am furious with LD$ Corp for facilitating this HARM on Women, 25% LDS! This is on par with Prop 8, and the POX.
I would not go back or stay with either scenario, but I would prefer the LD$ Church be GOOD TODAY, which would include being Honest of course!!
Dave B
“I’m thinking there is a second post to be had here — looking at the two categories and asking what the Church does that is *positive* under each heading and to what extent that balances or even outweighs the negatives.”
Yes, I would love to see that post!
It would be nice to be pleasantly surprised! LOL
chrisdrobison-
“They believe either the church is Jesus himself (a weird, yet unsurprising comparison) or some entirely separate entity empowered by God independent of the people that serves as sort of an airport shuttle to the celestial kingdom.
I agree The Church is not the people- it would not behave against the weak and marginalized if it were.
The problem with serving like a shuttle to the C K, is they’re operating on a lot of assumptions and inherited beliefs that have no basis in reality or truth. It’s a powerful patriarchal paradigm that has way too much power, influence, and control, without understanding scripture, and without understanding the history of gods, science, or humans. So is it just “revelation” that matters? Okay,
….let’s see it!
(finish of comment)
I think pretty much everything that’s wrong with the Church can be summed up with “they don’t practice what they preach.” I’d rather its origin story be accurate, but if it was doing wonderful good in the present I wouldn’t mind too much if its origin story wasn’t.
If the LDS became a group such as the Shriners who had a weird background but who spent so many resources dedicated to helping others, I could maybe be a member. As soon as they started requiring gratuitous displays of obedience at the expense of any rationality I’d have to quit.
That’s an interesting counterfactual. How did Joseph Smith, a Master Mason, turn a group of people into polygamist outcasts while another group of Master Masons at approximately the same time period establish a hospital system for the poor.
I don’t know of a single human enterprise that doesn’t have some form shady past. And if we disconnected from everything with a shady past, we’d be disconnecting from everything that is human—church included. I think it is probably normal for groups like the LDS church to have a sorted past like it does. I think pretty much every religious group in the history of the world has that. For the love, the I’ve been learning about the history of the US constitution and the US and we definitely not the great nation we’ve been led to believe—we are most often the bad guy. It is really hard to come to terms with all of that. And I think we humans deal with these things in a few ways: 1) we bury our heads in the sand 2) we pretend those things never happened 3) we lie about what happened to make ourselves the heros instead 4) we own the past and change moving forward.
But the thing is, even with all the garbage in US history, we still do have a vision for the future that is a good. And I think many still stay in the US because they want to see that vision come to fruition (or they have no where else to go and have to stay to make it work). There is no where in this world that does not have significant historical (or otherwise) baggage it has to deal with. And at some point, every single group of people has a decision to make as to how they want to deal with this hard stuff. In the US, for example, slavery became increasingly at odds with the freedom and liberty espoused by the constitution and at some point just had to go. Women had to be given the right to vote. And yet, in 2026 we are still fighting epics amounts of racism and misogyny that would take us backwards. The fight is happening because the vision for the future is good and worth reaching for. In a lot of ways, we’ve had to own the lies we’ve told ourselves and others. I think another reckoning in this regard is coming soon with how ugly the Trump admin and evangelical Christianity has been.
I think the vision of the church to establish a Zion is a good one. But I think that until they can properly deal with their past, that future vision can never come to pass. For example, the Book of Mormon can still be scripture in the church and come from God without being historical. You can have fallible prophets that make terrible mistakes—like polygamy and black priesthood bans. It cannot, however, have a future built on a lie. And until we own the lies we’ve told ourselves and others, it will forever be held back. I think if they could just give up all notions of infallibility, a lot could change for the better. We could acknowledge and let go of so many harmful things and start the healing process. But, all this assumes the institution sees value in ALL the humans that are part of it and not just trying to play a covenant path numbers game.
Things that would make me consider going back:
The prophets revealing an actual theology for God’s queer children that doesn’t involve not knowing anything useful and loneliness.
Leader humility. Exhausted from the whole judge in Israel/we don’t apologize extravaganza. Leaders should apologize.
More inclusive membership. In my corner of Mormonism, the adult and teenage cliques is just disgusting.
A return to fun activities for adults and teenagers, including spending the church’s money on these things and not requiring bake sales to send the kids to camp.
Published financial reports audited by an independent accounting firm. These should include how much stipend money the leaders receive, and details about who gets the largest contracts to serve/build things for the church, including company name, owners, and relationship if any to top church leaders.
Less boring church services.
As noted above, then maybe the church would be good, even if none of these things would make it true.
And I’ll be the first to say the church probably shouldn’t do any of these things, because I probably still wouldn’t return, and my changes would probably piss off the core believers.
Like Tim, I’ve become more pragmatic in my old age. False history/cosmology/theology is mostly harmless as long
Like Tim, I’ve become more pragmatic with age. I’ll take the false but harmless history/cosmology/theology as long as the world is a better place with the church than it would be without it.
Well, seeing as I stayed with the church as long as I felt it was good, even though I never really felt it was true, one might think that if it really became good, I might be back. But I have decided that it cannot really be good until it comes clean with the bad parts of its history. So as long as people like Packer say that some things that are true are not very useful, no the church will always be dishonest as long as it tries to hide ugly history. Hiding history leads to hiding wealth, leads to fibs to the government, leads to fines for illegal dealings. So, now I see the negative stuff in the history as part of what the church is today. The misogyny goes right back to polygamy. Lying for the lord doesn’t stop with just lying about one too many wives. Until the church really comes clean about its history, it will never be honest, and until it repents of that bad history, it will not stop being racist, sexist, and bending the law when convenient.
But if the church was able to pull it off, I might go back. But here’s my list:
1. Start giving its vast wealth back to the people it should belong to—the members. So, nice ward budgets, more Sunday meeting buildings and fewer temples, more to the poor, more to help impoverished countries, feed starving children
2. restore the RS to a self governing women’s organization instead of a men’s organization for women with women holding the priesthood and being part of leadership right to the top.
3. Term and age limits for apostles, no more gerontocracy. Maybe all general authorities should serve 5 years like the women’s leaders
4. LGBT temple sealings, and recognizing transgender
5. Come clean on history, blacks & priesthood, and apologize for harm done and make restitution. This may take admitting that BY was a racist, sexist nasty man.
6. Restore the community and activity levels of years past. Maybe this takes weekday YM/YW, weekday primary, weekday RS for those who want it, but respect that not everyone does. Stop with required meetings.
7. Stop with temple recommends, worthiness interviews, all the judgy crap. Get rid of temple garments, or even make them optional.stop with pushing so hard on temple stuff. You know, there is more to Jesus’s gospel than just temple.
8. Stop protecting child sex abusers. And stop pretending that victims are not harmed. Help victims heal almost as much as they help abusers pretend nothing ever happened.
9. Actually teach more Jesus, less exclusive Mormon stuff like temple, tithing, prophets.
10. Make lessons interesting and educational and not just repeated boring conference talks. Let the women write their own lessons.
I could list a few dozen more, but I don’t want to be up all night and there is a snowflake’s chance in hell of any of them happening anyway.
1) Amen to Tim. A million times over, brother, amen. All hands on deck. No “ites” among us. Millennial zeal.
2) Fight Trumpism, champion democracy, freedom and liberty, stand up for people in the light of AI, and protect the earth/environment.
3) The GAs re-assimilate with the people. They come down from the cloistered tower. Cough-cough- King Benjamin.
4) Missionaries follow Ammon and just jump into service.
5) Partnership, not patriarchy.
6) We re-invest in LDS art . . . our unique spiritual aesthetic. Not the evangelical cultural band-wagon. The beauty of our peculiarity and light.
7) Cut back on the temples. 1X temple recommend. Endowments are forever and provide permanent access to temples with membership.
Want a fancy temple? Make it yourself with hand craftsmanship. No more temples made with super fancy things. We make it ourselves.
8) Bring back by common consent and build some sort of local government/ownership and voice.
This question doesn’t interest me all that much, as I’ve chosen to stay active in the church despite my misgivings. Having spent years participating in online spaces at the fringes, my observation is that there’s been a bit of a shift in the last decade from historical problems being the primary driver of people leaving to the social issues. So on the question of what it would take to get people back, I’d speculate that “fixing” all of the social issues might bring more people back (to the extent that here are all that many interested in coming back) than the history.
I agree with chrisdrobinson’s comments about looking to the future rather than the past and accepting there are problematic histories everywhere. I think there’s a way for the church to do this, which is to be more frank about the church being run, past and present, by fallible humans, and focus their forward looking rhetoric on doing the most good. I think we’ll see that eventually.
Regarding the “Trumpiness” of the church, yes it’s clearly been a problem for some members, but I would disagree with the comments that the leaders don’t see it. I think they do, but I think they don’t what to do about it.
” But our church has gotten so hung up on the diploma that first it starts passing out easy As, and dumbed down the curriculum, and cut some classes, and pretty soon, people are not learning, just getting the paper that said they learned. ” ;/
Absolutely one o the best analyses I’ve ever read. Thank you, Anna.
The church would have to change too much for it to be something to “come back to.” What I want from the church I left is the community and culture that I grew up in, the feeling that I was part of this bigger thing with glorious eternal purpose that was doing good in the world.
When my testimony broke, the illusion of what I miss from the church also cracked and then faded away. The nostalgia for past community had wallpapered over the very racist and self righteous community. The things that drove me away were pillars of belief that had built that culture. And on top of it the church itself kept changing. No more scouts, blue and gold ball, dances, roadshows, cultural events, firesides, etc. the Book of Mormon doesn’t hold up to scrutiny as a real historic document from pre-Columbus Christians. The church hoarded wealth and doesn’t know what to do with it. The hyper nationalism and Americanism isn’t what I want either. The patriarchy was worse before but leadership is so oddly corporate that it is banal and faceless.
You can’t go home again. That place is gone and changed with time. For me to go back it would have to change so much it wouldn’t be Mormon anymore either. But since the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints isn’t really Mormon now either – Pres. Nelson would have erased that if he could from our vocabulary, I won’t go back. I hope the church moves ahead but I am passed it and won’t return.
For me there’s no where else to go. The church has the words of eternal life.
If the church fully embraced secular humanism, abandoned superstition, and devoted itself to advancing human progress, I would return. That’s the only condition.
I think the leaders see the Trumpiness and they don’t care—because a majority of them are themselves Trumpers.
As far as what would bring me back—I agree that the social issues bother me more than whatever happened 150 years ago. But at the same time, if the church were great on social issues, I still wouldn’t go back because it’s just not true—so it turns out the history does matter a bit, after all. Another factor I don’t think anyone has mentioned (I may have missed it) is how utterly shallow and dull it is. Yeah, nope.
Both the social and historical problems led me to leave. Leaving was the most difficult thing I’ve ever done, but ultimately it felt like going from living in black and white to living in technicolor. I only have this one precious life, and there is nothing the LDS church could do now that would get me to return.
Interesting question
The site takes comments differently now. I tried to enter my name and email and it interpreted it as me submitting the comment.
Interesting question.
My faith journey started out by studying historical/foundational issues. At that time my faith in the organized church informed my all of my opinions on social/administrative issues. At some point during that journey I reclaimed my own authority and reassessed the social/administrative issues. Now I’m in a place where the historical/foundational issues don’t matter and it’s the social/administrative issues that do. We can’t change the past but we could do something about the future.
I can’t answer what it would take to get me back because I still haven’t left. You could say that my heart is no longer in it though.
I won’t repeat what others have said, but agree with those that have commented about things that need to change on the social side. Even with all those changes I fear it would still be difficult to be enthusiastic about participating in church again. All the changes would make the church less toxic but there’s still something else I can’t put my finger on.
Like if they started ordaining women to offices in the priesthood and half the leadership of the church at all levels were women. That’s a very positive and desperately needed change but if that’s all that changed would the experience be all that different? Would the average member in the Murray 23rd ward have any more autonomy that they do now? Would we still be regurgitating conference talks every Sunday? I’m sure the conference messages would improve but I’m kind of done with the whole hierarchy thing.
I don’t mean to pick on ordaining women specifically. I know there would be a whole host of benefits to making that change. I’m just wondering out loud whether resolving any one social issue in isolation would move the needle for most people. If not, how many social issues would it take? All? Some subset? I don’t have an answer.
I wholeheartedly agree with dropping temple recommends and worthiness interviews. We’re all sinners. We need to get over it for the sake of starving out the toxic worthiness culture in church.
Trumpiness in church is the proverbial/literal elephant in the chapel. I wait in vain each conference to hear something specific and concrete calling members back from the brink. I’m not naive, I know they won’t go there. They need to. The won’t. I’m fortunate to live in a ward that’s relatively progressive but it’s still a major issue for me. As to why leaders don’t talk about it; I think it’s either they have the Trump mindset themselves (after all, leaders of the church administer the gospel via authoritarian means) or they’re afraid of testing members’ true loyalties by calling them to repentance. Either way, maybe a fish should swallow a couple of them for a few days.
@Fred VII
No worries, I did the same thing the first time I used the new interface.
“I only have this one precious life…”
These words of the Savior offer humanity our greatest hope:
“I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.”
Jack,
Hope for what Jack? Jesus’ earthly ministry was 99% about bring heaven to earth—right now. It was never about reaching an imaginary mansion in the sky. It is about living and thriving right now in this moment and doing that by lifting others into that same state. I feel like our church has become so obsessed with being “safely dead”, it doesn’t put enough focus and effort into the living and thriving right now part. “Eternal life” always seems to be the next one, the “when my ship comes in” one, instead of this one right now.
A pastor of another faith made a good point recently when he said we should be thinking deeply on what we mean when we or Jesus pray “on earth as it is in heaven”. He invited not only MAGA to really think about that, but I think it is a good invitation for everyone.
chrisdrobison,
What about 95 percentile of humanity who have lived without the blessings of heaven in the here and now? What about those who have lived as paupers and peasants and servants and slaves–only to lie low in the dust never to have anything better to look forward to?
Jack,
I’ve read your reply a few times and I don’t know what you’re getting at. If you’re referring to our temple ordinances, in the words of Jesus, “let the dead bury the dead” because they’ve gone “home to that God who gave them life.” I essence, they are God’s responsibility now–it’s probably always been that way anyway. I guess I just no longer see the temples as doing what they say they do other than serving as distractions away from engaging in the here and now.
As for the paupers and peasants, why would giving fantasies of a better afterlife be better than figuring out how to give them a better life now? I just do not understand why our church and so much of religion in general has given up on this life. When I was a boy scout, we were taught that when we went camping, we needed to leave the camping area we stayed at in a better condition than we found it. I wish that was something everyone lived by about this planet and life in general. But, it seems the opposite is true. At least in the US, we seem hogtied to maximum extraction. Jesus and the prophets were overwhelming concerned about the here and now–bringing heaven here to earth. In fact, for most prophets of the OT, there was no afterlife to worry about making this life and the present moment the most important concern. I think significant positive changes could happen if we all learned to take radical responsibility of the here and now.
Maybe I’m reading you wrong–but it seems to me that we folks in the West sometimes devalue the resurrection because of our wealthy circumstances. Most of us live in better circumstances than emperors of the past–and that causes us to lose touch with our mortality. And so, that’s why I brought up the 95 percentile who haven’t been as fortunate–as sort of a reality check.
Re: living in the here and now: I think the church does a wonderful job of living in the present and preparing for the future. I suppose well have to agree to disagree on that particular point–but when I think of all the church does to help the needy or the counsel it offers to help people build happy homes or the opportunities it provides to help people get a basic education or the services it provides to help the mentally ill etc., etc., I think there’s good evidence that the church is concerned about doing what it can to make the world a better place.
That said, IMO the best way to improve the world is to convert people to the Savior. Because it is really only by having enough people trying to follow him that the world will return to Eden.
Late to the convo but sharing because it is so sad and ignorantly cringey-
Someone in my circle about to leave the MTC writes: “I would love to practice teaching – if anyone has questions of any level or kind let me know…I’d love to give my insights and help you in any way I can.”
Dear missionary – what do you know about Elder Poelman, the Kinderhook plates, Mark Hofmann, and/or freemasonry?
Jack,
We don’t need more Jesus converts or religion, we have plenty of those. We just need more decent people.