Would you come back after this?

I can’t see why I wouldn’t come back after these changes. I would still have boundaries, but they would be much more favorable to the church. I wouldn’t have to have all these things either, just a few key ones…

Sure, I’d go back. Someone would have to step in to take over for all the active people that left.

I think a number of the items would in fact scare the TBM’s and many would leave. Of course, that might make it much easier on many of us

Nibbler – my questions are hypothetical. I didn’t know what my answer would be until after I reviewed the list and visualized what a church would be like with those policies in place. I honestly thought nothing would ever entice me back, but that suite of changes (even a subset of them) made the idea inviting.

I think a number of the items would in fact scare the TBM’s and many would leave. Of course, that might make it much easier on many of us

Now that I think about it some more it’s not like any of the changes that would drive people away would happen in the span of 3 minutes over a general conference pulpit, the biggies would be generational shifts. A slow boil of the frog so that it doesn’t jump out of the pot. You know, like all the other big changes since the church was founded.

There’s a reason it’s called being on the bleeding edge of change. It don’t feel good.

In the PR article at the top of this thread, I believe the PR guy said that changes for women are coming….but he didn’t say what. I wonder if perhaps the church is implementing slow change on certain fronts (such as the role of women) in a slow manner to prevent loss of membership. Do is slowly, so it creeps up on the membership and they accept it.

To answer a previous question you had in this or another thread — the leaders DEFINITELY think about loss of membership. They also respond well to loss of assets and other temporal things. (how they recanted plural marriage when all their assets were on the verge of being confiscated). This stuff really matters, and that’s why they excommunicated Kate Kelly — as JR Holland said — you can have doubts, but if you start trying to take people with you, then we have a problem with you So, yes, keeping membership is of critical importance to the church leaders at the top.

What is perplexing is the mixed messages you get from the church on matters of commitment. One one hand, when they want you to get active, there are videos on activation indicating that “we need you”. Make people feel needed. Indicate the consequences and losses if they are not active and serving.

On the other hand, we have the statements such as “the church will go forward without you” when people grandstand the fact they are leaving or the church has lost a group, or person’s commitment. Then you get this quote, which I have quoted to local leaders who have stressed just how much the world and church loses when I personally am not willing to take a calling, for example…..I quoted this once…and they can’t argue with it…

Our missionaries are going forth to different nations, and in Germany, Palestine, New Holland, Australia, the East Indies, and other places, the Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done” (History of the Church, 4:540).

In short, they don’t need me. God has it covered

Sure, I’d go back. Someone would have to step in to take over for all the active people that left.

I wish I had sufficient time to give a more thoughtful answer. My answer is similar to Nibbler’s. I’d be more likely to participate – and feel better about it. However, I wonder if the LDS church would become more like the Catholic church, although not a perfect comparison. Many members but nobody cares or attends except twice a year. Or maybe the Community of Christ is a better example of a religion that tried to modernize but didn’t catch on.

Let’s say you are not active and put off by the typical suite of problems that vex many members.

Let’s say we are in the future, and the church has:

a) Given women the priesthood

b) Removed all policies that discriminate against gays

c) Come openly clean about, and has apologized in General Conference for whitewashing history, and have corrected the problems in approved church lesson materials, even openly apologizing. The theme is broadcasted throughout the year in Stake and Ward Conferences and in lesson manuals.

d) Acknowledged the priesthood ban was a mistake

e) Changed the culture so a TR is not required for full fellowship.

f) Starts putting more and more and more money into programs and services that benefit the general membership, rather than building real estate holdings and business interests — in a dramatic way. (Such as expanded LDS Social Services)

g) Provides a true annual report with full disclosure of the financials at conference, which presents an income statement and balance sheet comparable to what other churches our size spends.

h) Has moved to a voluntary model of church service that removes cultural ostracization for refusing callings, asking to be released, and which attempts to align individual interests and passions with organizational needs.

i) scrapped the home teaching program in favor of a mailing list and visits based on an “opt-in” model by both priesthood holders and member families at large.

Would you come back into full fellowship with the church if they made these changes? Be fully active and commit your disposable time to the church? Why or why not?

As you were listing these things, I couldn’t help thinking of the Community of Christ. The LDS Church shares the same history with COC (as we do with several other branches of Mormonism). COC has already done many if not all of these things. COC (or RLDS) never had a priesthood ban, and priesthood was extended to women in 1984. The BOM is affirmed as scripture, but does not mandate the degree of belief or use. COC also uses the D&C as scripture, but several early sections are removed and has regularly added new revelations and inspired documents to it. Incidentally, the COC has never considered the PofGP to be scripture.

Some that are bugged by the problems in LDS history or current practice join COC, but not many, I think. Why would one need to come back to the LDS Church, when COC already has done these things, or not had these problems in the first place?

I do sometimes find myself identifying more with the beliefs of the CoC, especially relating to polygamy. I’d like to go visit sometime, the closest congregation to me is about 30 miles away but I have seen the building. I agree that few people who leave the church go to the CoC, but I seem to remember someone here a couple years ago who regularly attends and really liked it. I think most people who leave the LDS church don’t go to any other church, perhaps because of the all-or-nothing mentality.

Well, I haven’t left, but I would start believing more in the goodness of the church if these things happened.