- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was one who formally resigned from the Church. After a number of years attending other churches, studying, and even becoming a member of another church, I find myself thinking of going back to the LDS Church. I cannot say that I have any sort of testimony of Joseph Smith. I don’t particularly like the tithing thing either. However, it is my heritage and I find that the LDS teachings make more sense to me than most others out there. I don’t even particularly believe in the Book of Mormon either. I do believe the Bible to be the word of God. That’s as much as I can say for scripture. There are some things I miss about the LDS Church. I was particularly fond of the hymns. Most churches do not do hymns anymore. I miss the closeness of the members in the LDS Church, too.
I was wondering whether anyone else was in the same position. I had left the LDS Church after having done a mission, going to BYU, and serving in many callings over the years. I just did not believe it anymore. I was wondering if there was room in the church for a re-vert who did not quite have a belief and testimony of it all. Quite likely, I doubt if I would pass any interviews in order to be re-admitted. If asked about Joseph Smith and all I would have to be truthful and say that I just do not have a belief in him as a prophet. I would pass the morals questions with no troubles, though.
Honestly, the question of formal readmission through baptism would depend on the local leaders, and it might not be possible where you live. However, participating as a non-baptized person happens all the time – and I have found that the standard for baptism is relaxed often for those who have proven they really do want to belong to the community and are dedicated to attending regularly and contributing in a meaningful way. So, my advice is to talk with the local bishop or branch president and explain your situation openly and honestly. Talk about being a bit of a prodigal son who isn’t sure of much except that you really want to “come home”. Ask specifically what you can do to serve – what calling or assignment is possible for someone who might not qualify right now for re-baptism.
There is a chance that such an action might be met with something other than joy, but I would hope and expect not. I know if you were talking with me, I would embrace you and welcome you back gladly – and give you something to do. *grin*
Old-Timer wrote:Talk about being a bit of a prodigal son who isn’t sure of much except that you really want to “come home”. Ask specifically what you can do to serve – what calling or assignment is possible for someone who might not qualify right now for re-baptism.
I really like Old-Timer suggestion here, as well as his observation that you can certainly participate without being baptized, and doing that is a good gesture.
I respect and support your intent to disclose your beliefs and approach the church with integrity. That is what I have done as a continuing member.
I’d like to explore with you the idea of alternate interpretations of some of the questions. Regarding prophets, for example, can’t it honestly be said that we all are prophets or potential prophets? Maybe rather than thinking about whether Joseph was a “true” or “false” prophet, you can simply accept as a given that he was a prophet and reserve the right to believe on any matter whether or not he was a “good” or “bad” prophet. Maybe it would be good for us to discuss the various temple recommend questions in separate threads on one of the forums.
Congratulations on your journey!
Tom Haws
Great suggestions. I would point out that you absolutely can attend the LDS Church, attend classes, participate in social functions and all of that without being rebaptized. It would do no harm to just go back and start attending to see if that really is the direction you want to go. I like the idea of being upfront and talking to the Bishop. How could someone turn you away with an attitude like that?
You don’t have to believe it all to participate or enjoy. Join some of us at the buffet
Tell them you are mulling over the possibility of coming back, that you miss elements of the Church, and you would like to try things out again. I know there are callings you can have as a non-member. We have some never-mo’s in our ward that you would not be able to identify unless you really had the background knowledge.
Feel free to keep us updated. I would be really interested to see how this works out for you. I am sure you would have great perspectives to share here.
I am not quite sure that the LDS Church would agree that we are all prophets. Maybe prophets for our own family and that would be the extent of it. Is that a safe assumption? I don’t think I’ve looked at it in such a way before. That is, on the basis of continuing to be a participant and thinking Joseph Smith was a “bad” prophet. For me, it was either he was a false prophet or the truth prophet. There did seem to be bad prophets in the Bible but I do not recall bad major prophets, such as Joseph Smith would have to have been.
Agreed. Likely a good idea to discuss the recommend questions separately.
Tom Haws wrote:I respect and support your intent to disclose your beliefs and approach the church with integrity. That is what I have done as a continuing member.
I’d like to explore with you the idea of alternate interpretations of some of the questions. Regarding prophets, for example, can’t it honestly be said that we all are prophets or potential prophets? Maybe rather than thinking about whether Joseph was a “true” or “false” prophet, you can simply accept as a given that he was a prophet and reserve the right to believe on any matter whether or not he was a “good” or “bad” prophet. Maybe it would be good for us to discuss the various temple recommend questions in separate threads on one of the forums.
Tom Haws
I may do this. I am still thinking about just going and letting it be that. The one thing I might not like is just feeling like a bump there. Not being able to take sacrament, not being able to fully participate unless I was re-baptized, etc. For LDS, it is not quite the same as someone else in another church, who is not a member of that church, just attending. In many churches, I can go and partake of the sacramental elements without being a member. Little things like that. There are other churches, such as Catholic, that follow a similar route, though. Are there things I do not agree with? Yes. A few things. I do not necessarily believe in the relevance of temples today and being able to save one’s dead. Consequently, I do not believe in the tithing line and how it is used as an means of granting full participation in the church. Most other things are just more of being open to belief possibilities these days.
I have seen never-Mos at church like you describe. They have mostly been family members in a part member family. Is that the case with those you know?
I will keep you updated.
Valoel wrote:Great suggestions.
I would point out that you absolutely can attend the LDS Church, attend classes, participate in social functions and all of that without being rebaptized. It would do no harm to just go back and start attending to see if that really is the direction you want to go. I like the idea of being upfront and talking to the Bishop. How could someone turn you away with an attitude like that?
You don’t have to believe it all to participate or enjoy. Join some of us at the buffet
Tell them you are mulling over the possibility of coming back, that you miss elements of the Church, and you would like to try things out again. I know there are callings you can have as a non-member. We have some never-mo’s in our ward that you would not be able to identify unless you really had the background knowledge.
Feel free to keep us updated. I would be really interested to see how this works out for you. I am sure you would have great perspectives to share here.
I currently fall under that category that Tom is talking about. I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. He was a 19th century mystic that acted like a prophet, thus he qualifies as a “prophet.” I believe that Joseph believed his experiences. That makes him sincere in my mind (it doesn’t mean it was all factually true, just that JS believed). JS wrote scripture like a prophet and gathered people into a church community like past prophets. I can answer honestly that I think he was THE prophet of the LDS Restoration. Who else would that be?
Now I can say all that, and at the same time don’t have to accept every single word that came out of his mouth or pen as the literal word of God, and that applies exactly the same to me and all other people. I really like a lot of Joseph Smith’s teachings — the good positive ones. I like his breaking of the status quo. I like his rejection of thousand year old creeds. I like his ideas on universal salvation, personal revelation, divine nature of humans, lack of original sin, brother-sister kindred of all humankind, eternal progress … I could go on and on. God speaks to me through prophets, but I am responsible for what I decide to use or discard. It ain’t all sugar
I think he was a terrible banker, a terrible politician, and not a great businessman. I think he was a little goofey sometimes with the peep-stone treasure seeking, but that really was pretty common for his day. He seemed to grow out of that. I find his polygamy ideas troublesome at best. He was a flawed man. His willingness to follow his impulses made him a great religious genius, while at the same time making him prone to bad worldly mistakes.
You may be in a good place then. Do more believing members look down on you in your Ward for this attitude or have you even worked your way past that if it does occur? Does it even come up? You just say, “I believe.” and that is all there is to it? There is more to Joseph Smith, and the church, than just him being a prophet. The title he has is a prophet, seer, and revelator. Those each have specific meanings from what I recall. You believe he is a prophet. What about the other two titles he, and others, have? One problem I have seen is that many go hardcore with something said by the 12 or First Presidency. If they say it then the members interpret it themselves, or worse yet they let others interpret it for them, and that interpretation becomes the doctrine and standard by which everyone should live. It is like the three earring policy. Believe it or not, I saw this at work where a lady was chastised for not going by BYU standards. While BYU was never mentioned, that comment struck a raw nerve with this lady. The other lady interpreted it for herself that there should be a set number of earrings. She placed that standard on all church members.
I did read an Ensign that said Gordon Hinckley commented that the First Presidency did not have any minimal ear piercing position. I know he mentioned the two piercings before but I believe, in context, it was something to discourage body mutilations and tattoos. The above story was one extreme example of how members, and lower level leaders, go mad with the letter of the law and not the intent.
“It ain’t all sugar.”
I currently fall under that category that Tom is talking about.
I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. He was a 19th century mystic that acted like a prophet, thus he qualifies as a “prophet.” I believe that Joseph believed his experiences. That makes him sincere in my mind (it doesn’t mean it was all factually true, just that JS believed). JS wrote scripture like a prophet and gathered people into a church community like past prophets. I can answer honestly that I think he was THE prophet of the LDS Restoration. Who else would that be?
Now I can say all that, and at the same time don’t have to accept every single word that came out of his mouth or pen as the literal word of God, and that applies exactly the same to me and all other people. I really like a lot of Joseph Smith’s teachings — the good positive ones. I like his breaking of the status quo. I like his rejection of thousand year old creeds. I like his ideas on universal salvation, personal revelation, divine nature of humans, lack of original sin, brother-sister kindred of all humankind, eternal progress … I could go on and on. God speaks to me through prophets, but I am responsible for what I decide to use or discard. It ain’t all sugar
I think he was a terrible banker, a terrible politician, and not a great businessman. I think he was a little goofey sometimes with the peep-stone treasure seeking, but that really was pretty common for his day. He seemed to grow out of that. I find his polygamy ideas troublesome at best. He was a flawed man. His willingness to follow his impulses made him a great religious genius, while at the same time making him prone to bad worldly mistakes.
seedtender wrote:You may be in a good place then. Do more believing members look down on you in your Ward for this attitude or have you even worked your way past that if it does occur? Does it even come up? You just say, “I believe.” and that is all there is to it? There is more to Joseph Smith, and the church, than just him being a prophet. The title he has is a prophet, seer, and revelator. Those each have specific meanings from what I recall. You believe he is a prophet. What about the other two titles he, and others, have?
I am *VERY* thankful to be in my particular ward right now. We are way outside the traditional Mormon cultural corridor (Georgia). Somewhere around 30%-40% of the families in my ward are part-member or have inactive spouses (including me). People are very normal, real, authentic people for the most part in my ward. There really isn’t a lot of elbow room to go throwing rocks around in our little glass house
I have to be clear also that I don’t talk as openly with everyone at my ward like I do here. It is the wrong environment. People with similar doubts, questions and concerns gravitate to places like this on the internet. I don’t want to cause problems and make people upset in my ward with all my religious pondering. I share a little bit with a few close friends, just a little. I make slightly challenging statements in classes sometimes. People know that, but my comments are challenging in a positive way.
I just “believe” in Joseph Smith. I don’t know beyond a shadow of doubt and with every fiber of my being anymore. I don’t think people that say that know either. They are just saying “I feel good when I express my hopes like this about Joseph Smith.” It isn’t my job to argue the definition of knowledge and truth while tearing down their good feelings. I use words like “believe,” “want to believe” and “hope.” That is enough. They can’t condem me for wanting to believe or hoping to have faith.
Joseph Smith as prophet, seer and revelator? Here is a link to how the Church defines it
http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=3b62982b9ab42010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD I am pretty ok with those definitions. I view them in the same light as how I described JS being a prophet. I still have to decide what is valuable or not for me in dealing with my life and circumstances. It seems to me like JS acted out those roles. I can still consider that he was mistaken at times and flawed. I don’t have to trust everything. I still need to figure it out for myself. I can still use the valuable stuff that I like.
Yanno – there is so much insight on these boards it both scares me and comforts me I think the idea that we are all prophets of some kind is a nice one to have. Maybe there is only one prophet holding all the keys on the earth at any one point. BUT I think that every member of the church could be defined as a prophet to some degree
Dictionary.com has prohet defined as: –
1. a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.
2. (in the Old Testament) a. a person chosen to speak for God and to guide the people of Israel: Moses was the greatest of Old Testament prophets.
b. (often initial capital letter) one of the Major or Minor Prophets.
c. one of a band of ecstatic visionaries claiming divine inspiration and, according to popular belief, possessing magical powers.
d. a person who practices divination.
3. one of a class of persons in the early church, next in order after the apostles, recognized as inspired to utter special revelations and predictions. 1 Cor. 12:28.
4. the Prophet, Muhammad, the founder of Islam.
5. a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader.
6. a person who foretells or predicts what is to come: a weather prophet; prophets of doom.
7. a spokesperson of some doctrine, cause, or movement
It is no. 7 that most strikes a chord with me
We are all spokespeople to some degree
The person chosen to give a talk on a Sunday – the person who introduces a friend to the Gospel using the influence of the spirit
Or any person here who gives their own “take” on ideas and talks
Im starting now to seriously consider going back to church, which 2 weeks ago I couldnt have said and that is because of the ideas and comfort I have recieved here. Surely this is a great thing
And it cant be wrong to believe most of it and have issues with some of it – we will one day get full belief and understanding.
I can’t add much to what valoel has said, but I do want to mention something. There is a cultural tradition in the Church that says non-members shouldn’t partake of the sacrament. Technically, that isn’t universally true. Those under church discipline who have been asked explicitly to not take it are one thing; non-members are in a totally different category.
The standard for them is the exact same as for unbaptized, BIC (technically, non-member), under-eight-years-old attendees: Can the person take the sacrament in full comfort with and dedication to the words of the prayer?
If so, take the sacrament; if not, don’t. (and realize it says “willing” BEFORE the actual covenant part is stated)
Here is the text of the prayer over the bread (D&C 20:77), since the water’s is a repeat as to our promises:
“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father,
that they are willing totake upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.” Even the “keep his commandments” covenant is a covenant of willingness – NOT perfect obedience. Any sincere non-member can be totally “worthy” of partaking of the sacrament – and I would share it in that way with your Bishop if the issue came up. (that you are willing to do everything in the prayer and you want the extra help it provides to do so)
Here is another topic I want to bring back. I especially like the comments by Old-Timer, Brian Johnston, Tom Haws, etc. During my period of inactivity, I never thought about removing my name from the church rolls.
I never really thought about what the advantage would be in my life. My wife always remained “active” to a degree.
I was totally absent & have since come back. I have a calling & everything.
Has anyone here ever had their name removed?
If you did, how do you feel about it now?
I have thought about removing my name from the church records after the October 2018 Women’s talk that rolled out the assignment of “mothers faithfully teaching the scriptures in their families (basically All the Executive Functioning)” explicitly as part of the “nurturing” responsibility for women in the “home centered church supported” scripture study program. It felt like acid to my soul because I didn’t have any faith to pass onto my children. It has changed… I refuse to be described as “nurturing” even though I am very good at tending to my family. I can do “concerned parent” any day of the week hands down. I can do “supportive spouse” pretty decently sometimes. I just don’t want to be held as a “nurturer” anymore – and that talk is probably a bigger part of it.
Now, I don’t really care about my records being in the church. It would be distressful to most of my family and a lot of executive functioning that I just don’t want to spend.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.