Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

https://theboard.byu.edu/questions/73450/
I wanted to pitch in my point of view on this question. As the daughter of a man who was raised in the church, held leadership callings, and then fell away, I feel that there is no cut-and-dry answer to Midna's concerns. However, I would like to offer some insights I have gain as I've watched my dad's progress over the past 5 years.

First, I would like to express my opinion about the specific situation described. I personally know the church is true and believe in the doctrines taught. Even when I don't believe in a specific course of action commanded by the First Presidency, I will follow it on faith. Despite this, I feel that as a church our methods can often be improved. One of these areas is not rushing to baptism so fast for converts. How soon after the first lesson can a member be baptized? It's something akin to a month, if I remember properly. Now, even if this convert had been around members for years and knew a bit about the church, that's very fast for such a huge, eternal choice. If I had been friends with a man for years, then he asked me out on a date, I wouldn't get sealed to him 6 weeks later. Even if I was sure I loved him in that time. It's just not enough time to fully understand the dynamics of what I am getting into. I believe baptism is highly similar to marriage. Both are covenants we enter into that will affect our entire lives for eternities. Why do we rush people so quickly to baptism when even in the speedy relationships of BYU, marriage usually takes at least 4 to 6 months to achieve from the first date?

How much time to research and learn did this friend really have before joining the church? He got the cleaned-up, pretty version that is 90% of what he'll face in daily Mormon living. But couldn't he have been given time to learn more if he wanted? Within a year of baptism he had already found negative vitriol about the church. Some of it might even have been true. You cannot classify everything negative as wrong. If he had faced it while investigating, it may have changed nothing, it may have caused him to not be baptized, but it may also have lessened the shock factor. Instead of discovering that he was now a member of a church he was ashamed of, he could have faced these challenges with the strong support of the missionaries. He could have reached out to resources such as the LDS History Library, where true answers can be given, and difficult or disturbing stories can be explained and discussed in a more academic, calm setting. By coming to terms with the negative things he found before making a life-altering commitment, I believe he would have been better prepared to deal with the hard parts of being a member of the church.

Stemming from this specific example, I'd like to discuss a bit about the general concept of falling away and how testimony and answers from God play into these situations.

First, a divine answer doesn't solve all problems. Many who struggle to gain or hold a testimony in face of historical fact also face scientific fact. Science talks about many ways people can feel the same way inspiration is described as feeling. These cognitive biases can imitate inspiration, and when faith wavers, it is easy to think that you aren't feeling the Spirit, you're just feeling the way you want to feel. Do not assume that God hasn't answered someone. He answers all who need it in the time they need it. But those answers aren't always recognized or accepted.

Second, a true desire to know doesn't mean someone goes about seeking answers the right way. My dad truly wanted to know the church was true, and he kept seeking new information to help him. He called the LDS History Library and spoke to them. For a time, that helped him a lot. But as he kept wanting to know more he'd turn more and more to the internet. Unfortunately, those who support the church and are involved in these online discussions by and large took a view point that differed so fundamentally from his that he connected more with those who had separated fully from the church. Those who stayed and he could respect, he clung to. He still does. He wishes he could believe and feel like he's not lying to himself, but he can't. The historical bungles our church has faced over the years bother him too much to look past.

Finally, and most separate from this specific example, sometimes I think that stepping away from the church is the right answer. I know, that will sound like heresy to some people. But I firmly believe that God has a hand in all religions on the earth. He gives followers of each a way to come closer to Him. Without the priesthood, they cannot make it all the way, but they can come closer. And the pain of discovery of certain aspects of the church is sometimes too much. If a person can no longer focus on the Spirit while at a meeting because the culture, the history, or something else is too abrasive to them, perhaps God would encourage them to step back and come toward him along a different path for a time. I do not know this. It is a theory I have developed through my study of other religions and my experiences with my dad. But I have never felt that it is wrong. And it seems to me the sort of thing a loving Father in Heaven would do for His children. When they cannot stay on the best path home, He will lead them to another path and help them along as best they can come until they are ready to come back all the way.

I appreciated this question's answer and your response also, SBS. I may have more reactions later, but first, I just have one reaction (and I'm not calling anybody out) which has very little to do with anything. I think that when talking to and about inactive members, it would be better to use terms other than the jargon that we commonly use at church ("fallen away," "strayed," "apostates," etc.). It was hard for me to have people use these terms about me, especially early in my faith transition, because they are so loaded and because they can be interpreted as being condescending. I think it would be better if we could use terms that described the behavior more ("stopped going to church," or even "inactive").

You know, labels and all that. The end.

While I do understand and even appreciate SBS's train of thought and points, some people (including missionary me, courtesy of my mission president) think that it's better to baptize someone, even if they fall away before a year is up. The reasoning for this is that even if they're gone, someone might find them 2, 10, 20 years down the road and invite them back to church, and that may be enough to remind them of why they liked it and get them going out again. I know that I did that for lots of less-actives (apostates. (Just kidding, Black Sheep)) who ended up coming back just because my companion and I stopped by their door and invited them.

Granted, it's generally not that simple, but my mission president always said "This may be their only chance at the gospel. Even if they fall away, a small chance is better than no chance at all."

In case anyone was wondering what the counter-argument was.

TheBlackSheep wrote: I think it would be better if we could use terms that described the behavior more ("stopped going to church," or even "inactive").

Thanks, BlackSheep. I have a hard time choosing how to refer to people who have undergone this sort of faith transition. My preferred term with my dad is OmNomNomNomer, which is an inside joke that could be potentially offensive, so I tend to be at a loss for what to use in general. Thanks for explaining what you prefer. I'll do my best to use that in future.

Giovanni Schwartz wrote:The reasoning for this is that even if they're gone, someone might find them 2, 10, 20 years down the road and invite them back to church, and that may be enough to remind them of why they liked it and get them going out again.

I had thought of that reasoning and don't completely disagree with it. I understand why it is used and the benefits to that system. It is true that being baptized and then stepping back away from the daily aspects of the church is still better than never being baptized. That ordinance still holds sway in God's eyes, and will be factored in when He sees fit. And re-activation is a different process than full conversion. Possibly, some people need to take each step one-by-one along that path. I am happy for those who follow this path and the benefits it brings, whether or not they ever return to full activity in the church.

I still believe that we wouldn't lose as many converts to the shock of historical or cultural inconsistencies if we tried to help them understand these sorts of things a bit more, or at least gave them a chance. I don't think every investigator needs a three month history course discussing how polygamy worked into our history. However, I think there should be a time between the investigator deciding they want to be baptized and the actual ordinance for them to ask these questions if they are so inclined. Allow them a chance to work with a church history specialist for the historical concerns. For the cultural and social, that's heavily on the members. I am terrible at this and want to be better, but as members we can really reach out to and include investigators in our whole culture. Joke with them about how everyone uses the same "nourish and strengthen" line while blessing food. Explain how family home evening works for your family. These sorts of things. I simply believe giving an investigator an extra month with increased access to these uplifting resources could only improve the quality (for them) of their conversion.