Impact of the priesthood ban disavowal on your commitment

I’m committed, so it doesn’t increase or decrease that – but, along with all the other stuff I see happening and being said, it does increase my optimism about a number of things.

I’m not committed to the LDS church, so it doesn’t lessen my commitment.

If I was actually welcome to fellowship in the church, it may increase it. But im not. There can be no fellowship where my opinion and faith are not welcome or tolerated even to be voiced.

This statement…Even though family will not admit it or see it, it validates my concerns and frustration over the years.

I appreciate the effort…but have no allusions that the people will listen to the prophets…none. So they will continue to say I’m welcome, but I’m really not. I’ll only be welcome if I don’t teach, or speak and keep my opinions, even my opinion of disagreeing with some of the prophets to myself.

SD said it perfectly.

After a day of disappointment, I don’t expect anything. And my original hope was more unconscious — I didn’t understand what was disappointing me until I felt deflated and reflected for a day — I said what it was earlier in this thread so I won’t repeat it.

So, now I will go to church expecting to hear

a) nothing

b) rationalizations

c) statements that the disavowal referred to the theories, and not the original policy

d) blanket statements that we don’t understand God’s ways and its not ours to question

e) statements that the disavowal casts no doubt whatsoever on the revelation of prophets.

That’s what I expect.

AS the old proverb I found on my birthday card recently says:

“Blessed are they who expect nothing on their birthday, for they shall not be disappointed”.

Let’s reword it like this:

“Bless are they who expect the church to remain the same after priesthood ban disavowals, for they shall not be disappointed”.

In the short term, this event will have no effect on the church membership. The church spent 180 years digging this hole they are in, they won’t and can’t dig themselves out overnight.

It is a small step…but it will take time to fix the problem.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

The priesthood ban may be what finally does me in. The recent emergence of the Dr Nelson 1947 letter exchange with the first presidency coupled with the recent LDS.org racism article was bad timing for my spiritual welfare.

The new article disavows things that the first presidency stated as doctrine. These were not said by some first generation Mormon hundreds of years ago, but said in living memory. My Dad was alive at the time that letter was written. He was also alive for the race relations speech given by Mark E. Petersen and the letter written by Delbert Stapley in which he recommend the 1960 book justifying the black priesthood ban. At the beginning of the year I was born there were still black families being denied entry to the temple. Simply because of their skin colour.

I’m not sure I want to raise my kids in a culture and group that is predominantly lead by ultra-conservatives whose interests seem to be focused on preserving the status quo that they were raised in. I don’t like the paradigm that they are convinced is absolute and non-negotiable truth. Having todays leaders simply shrug off the priesthood ban and say “we don’t know” simply compounds their apparent lack of divine guidance.

I’m very grateful for the work and words of people like Elder Uchtdorf. I want to heed is invite to stay and show myself and other people that a middle way is viable.

I worry that leaving could hurt others trying to walk the middle way. It’s discouraging for me when I see people I know who have tried to be moderate Mormons but can’t sustain it. I’d hate to cause that same pain to others. I worry too about the negative impact on people of the opposite view; those who are strongly orthodox and currently avoid any questioning and exploration of origins. I fear that if I leave it will only back them further into the corner of defensive fundamentalism. Don’t question, don’t explore, don’t study… look what it did to Mackay…

Conflicted.

Wow! I read over the letter exchange between the sociology professor Nelson and the First Presidency. A mission president (Meeks) consulted Nelson on the demographics and Cuba and their receptivity to the gospel. The mission president (Meeks) asked Nelson, the sociologist to comment on the possible success of a missionary effort in Cuba given the church’s stance on the Negro and the possible entrenchment of Catholicism in Cuba. The sociologist suggested the church should not introduce racist ideas into a society that was not nearly as racist as America. The answers from the FP are similar to what we hear today — that it’s revelation, that we shouldn’t let academic learning interfere with the truth, that it’s doctrine, etcetera.

Given the contents of the letters from church officials at the time, the letter exchange also shows the current disavowal is a hugely important step for the church. This is even though the current leaders lacked the humility to make it a general announcement, like Manifesto or granting the priesthood to blacks like Spencer W. Kimball did.

Nonetheless, it’s a step forward.

I’m not sure I want to raise my kids in a culture and group that is predominantly lead by ultra-conservatives whose interests seem to be focused on preserving the status quo that they were raised in.

Then it’s a good thing you live now when that statement is far less accurate than it would have been from the 40’s – 60’s. Seriously, that statement doesn’t come close to describing the current leadership. :thumbup:

I put decreases my commitment somewhat. I’m already not that committed to the church though, at least in my mind (I’m one of those who still goes through the motions for my family’s sake.) It’s funny, because although I think it is good that they finally disavowed those harmful false teachings, having them sort of admitting to those things that I already believed (that the ban was wrong, the explanations for it untrue) makes me realize even more strongly that they don’t seem to be let by God more than anyone else. I don’t know that the Mormon church can get someone closer to God than other churches, and even the temple ordinances that are unique to it, maybe they are just exclusionary practices too, just like the ban.

It is a first step so I put somewhat of an impact on my commitment, but I would liked to have seen these read over the pulpit and signed by the FP. I hope that they make these 13 issues into lessons thought in sunday school or PH/RS meetings. I still think that church has put spin on these issue but they are at least acknowledging that for many in and out of the church that these are issues.