My Path Thus Far

weissadler,

I probably will post the full account here separately as we build a section about our own journeys to find peace and activity in the Church despite exposure to everything you mention, but fwiw, the following are excerpts from something I wrote a while ago on Mormon Matters:

I have never believed in the certainty that (another writer) describes prior to his own dark night, so I have never felt abandoned by its loss. My “dark night” appears “light” to me, because I have never believed I see things clearly and completely. I just see them as clearly as I am capable of seeing them – which I understand and accept as “through a glass, darkly”. I have never been shaken by doubt of detail, because my testimony has never been founded on certainty of detail.

I am certain of many things, but those things are principles – not details. Radical changes in policy and even “doctrine” don’t shake me, since I have never based my testimony on those things. I believe firmly and deeply in the PRINCIPLES of ongoing-revelation and charity exercised in how I must view others – that what I believe now differs from what I believed as a youth and young adult – that what I believe now differs from what I will believe in the future – that what I believe now differs from what others believe now. I believe that this charity God gave me as a youth will not fail me, even as prophecies and tongues and knowledge fail all around me.

Hi Weissadler,

Welcome to the forums! Wow, what a way to start the journey of questioning things. You are not alone.

After becoming more educated on racism and the history of mormonism I now understand why the priesthood ban happened. It had nothing to do with the Curse of Cain, although that was a common explanation. And it had nothing to do with being fence sitters in the pre-existence, which has no doctrinal backing whatsoever. When I read comments made by Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, Mark E. Peterson, and even Bruce R. McConkie I came to the conclusion that although they were inspired men of God they were also human and were influenced by the society around them. I have since come to the conclusion that the priesthood ban was not inspired of our Heavenly Father, but motivated by racism.

People can come to different conclusions. This is pretty close to the way I see it right now. I would add that I think God let this happen. He lets us humans mess up other things in the world, a lot worse things (although I hate to really try and prioritize them). I believe this “ban” went on until *we* (the membership as a totality) were ready to accept the change. It was the imperfect Church that was not faithful and were fence-sitting, so to say. This is just my personal opinion, but it’s the explanation that I use to reconcile the past and the changes. The hard part is the length of time it took. We were quite socially progressive in a lot of ways in the 1800’s. The slow and conservative nature that followed was too slow in making much-needed corrections.

The priesthood ban IMO was a cultural artifact the LDS Church picked up. We did not invent the “Curse of Cain” and lineage of Ham idea. That predates us by hundreds of years. There were a few key individuals in the early Church formation that brought in these ideas when they converted. It also, IMO, has ties to how Masons conducted their business. They were a prominent social organization of the era, and many early members (and leaders) were Masons.

People often quote that last line from BRM’s speech. I like to quote the full paragraph. It makes a MUCH stronger statement than simply saying we got a little more light on the subject. BRM was very clear about being wrong, and that people need to *STOP* looking back to the incorrect doctrines taught in the past.

“There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

-Bruce R. McConkie

Most of the time, only the last sentence is quoted. I think the whole statement is vital! Yes. People like BRM, Mark Peterson and all the others defended the past policy with a lot of zeal. They thought they were defending their faith. BRM did a complete 180 degree turn on the spot, and called all those people holding on to the incorrect doctrine to repentence. All that junk about pre-existence valiance was an incorrect defense, based on limited understanding. It was just plain wrong.

The problem with coming to this conclusion is it felt like my whole foundation was ripped out from under me. In the past I had felt such comfort in following men who were near godliness. This showed me that even when they are over the pulpit they can say things that are not necessarily true. For some of you this may not be a shocker, but for me it caused my world to collapse and now I’m rebuilding it.

It’s a shocker to anyone who cares about the Church and comes to this realization. The best I can say is to try and see how the collapse, although very painful, is a step towards a much more mature and personally responsible faith. You can not depend blindly on someone else for your beliefs nor for your salvation. The good news in all the turmoil, if you can see the light at the end of the tunnel, is that YOU can now choose what to believe and what to reject. Your faith is yours now.

Thanks for listening. I’m excited to be apart of this and sharing experiences and knowledge.

I’m really excited to have you here. Thanks for joining. I bet you can be a great resource, since a tough subject like the past priesthood ban affects your family so personally.

I find myself scrutinizing everything.

I find myself feeling (at this point) that this is in fact what God intended. Surely He does not want us to simply take everything at face value as it is spoonfed to us–how would that work for our eternal progression? I realize that in some circles in the church “thinking,” “questioning” and “scrutiny” have become synonymous with apostacy, but there are plenty of other places that encourage that approach. Other words for “scrutinizing everything” are searching, pondering, praying and seeking out wisdom, and increasing our understanding and seeking further light and knowledge. All of these are ostensibly Mormon principles, but there are many who don’t pursue those things or are afraid of what they might find. I’d rather believe things that are true, nuanced and unsettling than things that are untrue, simplistic and commonplace.