Going back to Church

Recently, I've been asked variations of a question several times by active Mormons, ex-Mormons, and Never-Mos. That question is: “What would it take for you to go back?” or “What would it take to change your mind?”

It’s an interesting question, to say the least, and I've thought a lot about it. I know a lot of people who would say, “I will never go back,” or “I will never change my mind,” etc. But I’m not someone who works in absolutes. Only a Sith does that . . . 

But the simple answer to that question is the same as the one Bill Nye (the Science Guy) gave at the end of his debate with Ken Ham: Evidence. (You can watch the part in question here.) Before we move on, let’s examine those answers. Ken Ham’s answer was: “No one is ever going to convince me the word of God is not true.” While I have to admire his personal conviction, I believe it to be the epitome of foolishness to stick to one’s guns in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

Here’s my favorite example of this exact thing. Like him or hate him, Jon Stewart often has really good points. This is a piece about Nancy Grace, the HLN anchor who was absolutely sure that the Duke Lacrosse team raped a girl. She harped about it for *months* almost every night. When the evidence cleared the boys of any charges, she didn't come out and apologize or admit she was wrong. If you skipped past the link, go back and watch it. It's quite entertaining. (For what it's worth, if you want to see a great fictional representation of her, go watch Gone Girl)

Can you imagine what our justice system would be like if the police or ADA just decided someone was guilty and ignored any evidence to the contrary? Every so often we’d have a press conference with the DA or a judge explaining that there doesn't need to be a trial because they felt it in their hearts that the suspect was guilty and put them into the correctional system earlier that day. Doesn't sound very fun to me.

I know eating crow is humbling and not very fun, but admitting one is wrong when the evidence says so is taking the high road, and it is what should happen in an honest society. I remember an “argument” that I had with a companion while I was in Japan regarding the filming location of the movie Karate Kid Part II. I had known a guy who went there on his mission and wrote back about how he was serving where the movie was filmed. My companion said it wasn't really filmed there, but was shot in Hawaii instead. We went back and forth with our reasons for why we thought the way we did, and it got a little heated, each of us absolutely sure we were correct. After a while, we realized that this was something that could be easily verified using the internet. We did so at a member’s house later that week, and it turns out that it was filmed in Hawaii. I admitted I had been mistaken, we moved on, and it was never brought up again. I believe that had I not admitted defeat, ( by saying something like, “The people who run that website are all liars,” or, “I don’t care what it says”) it would have become a wedge between us. But it wasn't and didn't have to be.  I’m not trying to boast of myself, just give an example I know from my own life.

I think it’s admirable that someone is able to change their views to fit the evidence. That’s what science (usually) does, and I wish it were more common in the world. It takes an amount of integrity and maturity to do this, but for a lot of people, not admitting to having ever been wrong is more important than almost anything.

But anyway, back to the question: What would it take for me to go back? 
Based on the numbers the BoM reports, there should be scads of archaeological evidence of some kind of Christian-believing Hebrew civilization. We should be able to find DNA evidence of Hebrew blood in Native American populations. We should be able to show that Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian before anyone else. Sadly, this kind of evidence is sorely lacking.

But if the church were able to show evidence that its current claims were true, I would be stupid to not go back. After all, my eternal salvation would be at stake. But even still, it's an interesting thought experiment, but I would rephrase the question as, "What would it take for me to go back knowing that it's just another man-made organization?"

Well, it would have to be a lot of things that would be changed. I can't un-know what I now know about the true history of the church. But I will admit that there are a few things I miss about it. Things like, having instant friends, having a community of support, and organized parties (for Halloween or Christmas).

So I guess I would go back just for a sense of community, but the following things would have to happen (this list is partially my own thoughts mingled with suggestions from other ex-mormons):

• They would have to dispose of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham as canon because neither has proof in scientific evidence which is externally supported. (Scientists aren't out to get Mormons or deliberately ignoring evidence that supports it. The evidence just isn't there). A couple of Egyptologists at BYU suggest that the Book of Abraham isn't wrong, but who signs their paycheck?
• The Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency would have to publicly admit that they are not actually prophets seers and revelators but merely businessmen running a church. It would also mean coming clean with their entire history, and dropping the "one, true church as the only way to get back to heaven" shtick. 
• They would have to become financially transparent and probably minimize excess wealth in a mass donation of services especially to its poorest regions. ($1.4 billion in humanitarian aid over 26 years versus $3.5 billion spent on a mall by Temple Square is unethical and I am almost positive Jesus as depicted in the New Testament would rebuke the leadership as he did the money changers).
• Their teachings would have to focus solely on teaching Christ-like values of charity, forgiveness, withholding judgement, and entirely drop the sexual shaming of children and adults. 
• Drop F&T meeting - it's just people reassuring themselves that they are right and "brainwashing." Change the culture from the top down to stop saying, "I know the church is true," and start letting people say, "I believe in Christ's teachings," or something like that. Stop the emphasis on the organization and more on the teachings. 
• No more temple recommend interviews at any age. Confession becomes entirely optional and self driven.
• Drop the sexist culture of modesty of women to help men keep their minds clean and focus on respecting each other. Women, are not, as Dallin H. Oaks suggested (paraphrased) "walking pornography" because they choose to wear a low cut or sleeveless top or shorts/skirt above their knees or a bikini, and men are not mindless sex addicts who will hump a bare shoulder on sight. 
• Ditch the garments; they're pretty unbearable, especially in summer heat. Also, having everyone check up on each other's underwear in order to know how righteous everyone else is being is creepy.
• Ditch the temple ceremonies entirely and make temples an open place of worship and meditation. It's clear that the Endowment is a hybridization of Masonic rites and Moses 4. They made no sense to me when I went through. I have learned that they are out of place due to being a man-made combination of a medieval fraternity's ceremony and Joseph Smith's version of Genesis. I expected something more focused on Jesus or learning about self. 
• It would have to accept science and history where applicable. No more young earth teaching in Seminary, no more anti-gay mantra, no more anti-history (see Boyd K. Packer as an offender with The Mantle is Far Far Greater than the Intellect specifically in his commentary about truth not being useful and that historians should hold back things that don't promote faith).
• The church would have to promote equality of all members. (Probably either need to offer priesthood to all, or dispose of the idea entirely and just treat each other as equals including having female leadership even up to the First Presidency and among the apostles and 70's. "Women are to motherhood as men are to fatherhood," not "women are to motherhood as men are to priesthood," which is a false equivalency.
• The church would have to stop "love bombing" people, because it's intrusive. If someone is interested in returning to church, they'll do it of their own volition. Groups of people just dropping in on others, frankly is cultish and rude. People should always call ahead before appearing at someone's front door, especially if this person has never met the other person. How can Home and Visiting Teachers actually suggest that they love or miss someone who they've never met? Also, it's a shallow system, I have yet to keep in touch with anyone I was home or visit taught by after I moved out of that ward or branch. These are "assigned" associations, not natural affiliations and friendships.
• Missions could continue in an entirely humanitarian aid function. No more proselytizing and no trying to find people who have just gone through a life change as "Golden contacts." It's exploiting people in a time of weakness to get people to convert after divorce, death, or financial hardship. Having 80,000 strong as a humanitarian force would do a lot more to drum up interest in the LDS church than knocking on door after door interrupting dinner after dinner.
• Ditch tithing as a requirement because the whole justification for it out of Malachi is flawed reasoning (but that's a discussion for another day). Make it a voluntary contribution, not mandatory if someone wants to see their kid/sibling/cousin/whatever get married in the temple. 
• Seriously cut down on the unnecessary meetings. 1 hour a week for church services should be plenty, and combined with other church activities/meetings, I would think that fewer than 3 hours per week should be spent in callings and such. 
• Change the amount of responsibility the leadership (specifically Bishops and Stake Presidents) have, along with the amount of time they spend away from family. Of all the people who suffer from "too much church," I think bishops' families are probably up there.

So there's a whole bunch of things. I really doubt it will happen, but you never know. It happened to the RLDS Church when it changed itself into the Community of Christ. After learning about them, I think that if I were forced to pick a church to belong to, it would be them. Partly because of the shared heritage, partly because it's somewhat familiar to what I knew/learned as a kid, and partly because I can respect their integrity in all the changes they made.

(Written by Joseph)