- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m too young to know this, but was there a problem with people leaving the church in 1978 after the priesthood policy was changed? All the personal experiences I have ever heard have been positive, like a feeling of rejoicing and confirmation that the change was coming from God. (Of course I don’t know who would speak up in a Sunday school class and say they wished the change hadn’t been made) Mr. Sneelock Quote:
I’m too young to know this, but was there a problem with people leaving the church in 1978 after the priesthood policy was changed?I was really young, too, but I remember it enough and my parents have talked about it quite a bit. I think the opposite happened. The ban had dragged on too long. People were leaving or not participating because the ban had been in place far longer than even the Civil Rights movement. Which leaves us only the story of relief and support. The others were gone long before. With some of the other issues we have now the issue is reversed.
mom3 wrote:
Mr. SneelockQuote:
I’m too young to know this, but was there a problem with people leaving the church in 1978 after the priesthood policy was changed?I was really young, too, but I remember it enough and my parents have talked about it quite a bit. I think the opposite happened. The ban had dragged on too long. People were leaving or not participating because the ban had been in place far longer than even the Civil Rights movement. Which leaves us only the story of relief and support. The others were gone long before. With some of the other issues we have now the issue is reversed.
It was 3 years before I joined the church and I didn’t know about it before. However, being that it was recent enough in history then I agree with Mom3 – it seems to have had the opposite effect and people came rather than left. There is a member of my ward who still tells the story from time to time that he “knew the church church was true” prior to the lifting but would not join because of the ban. He joined the church almost immediately afterwards. I don’t recall anyone talking about people leaving because of lifting the ban, but that’s not to say it didn’t happen, especially in places where racism might be more prevalent. My own ward is very white and so is our town, but I love when I visit other wards and see racial and ethnic diversity.
Quote:Who will he follow when he’s running the show?
Who says he will make it that far? It’s a long time from now. Plenty of men never made it to chair. Even people next in line. I am more focused on the Nelson/Oaks option ahead.
My other concern lies not with the whom is running the show chair wise, but how the chair info gets disseminated to us or through us.
Soapbox TimeOur version, as a people, of follow the prophet is sketchy. We follow messages we want to hear or we want our congregations to hear. Not the chair guys.
My number one example is the 4th Mission of the Church. My Bishop always panics when I am in the room and someone mentions the 3 Fold Mission of the Church because he knows what’s going to happen. I always demand that we add the 4th Mission.
President Monson – top chair guy adds a beautiful 4th Mission and it barely blips our religious radar screen. The Mission of the Church is barely a buzz quote anyway. But no one really took the ball and ran with the “Care for the Poor and Needy.” We didn’t get inundated with Primary Songs written about it. Entire Ensigns dedicated to it. Or a plethora of supporting articles and talks about it.
He is the top guy. There was room for change. Better yet there was a change. But NO we just let it float away.
Even without the 4th Mission issue, I never see Pres. Monson talks on the 3rd hour and Sacrament Rehash rotation. Come to think of it, I rarely get an Uchtdorf.
For my part I keep trying to nudge change where I want to see it. When I run out of steam. Perhaps it will be time to move on.
Mr. Sneelock wrote:
I’m too young to know this, but was there a problem with people leaving the church in 1978 after the priesthood policy was changed? All the personal experiences I have ever heard have been positive, like a feeling of rejoicing and confirmation that the change was coming from God. (Of course I don’t know who would speak up in a Sunday school class and say they wished the change hadn’t been made)
Some people did. I’d imagine it was an issue in South Africa, where the vast majority of members were white and there was still racial segregation until the mid nineties.
I’ve heard it happened in the USA too in the Deep South.
Benson was radically different as the President than he was as an apostile. I will cross that bridge when we get to it, but I hope, if Elder Bednar becomes the President, it will be after years of Uchtdorf & Eyring leadership in the FP.
I actually am interested in Oaks, simply because I could see him asking for revelation regarding women being ordained to Priesthood offices, in some way. He certainly has been at the forefront of acknowledging that endowed women have Priesthood authority and exercise Priesthood power. That water hasn’t flowed far down many rows, but it is recorded, at least.
Some of the polygamist sects (in Utah/Arizona) also believe that that this was another example of the LDS church caving into pressure. They consider themselves the “real” church where they still practice polgyamy and don’t think Blacks should be allowed to go into the temple or get the priesthood. So some LDS folks transitioned out of the “mainstream” church at that time to more fundamentalist Mormon sects/splinter groups. At least that is my understanding.
Old Timer wrote:
Benson was radically different as the President than he was as an apostile.I will cross that bridge when we get to it, but I hope, if Elder Bednar becomes the President, it will be after years of Uchtdorf & Eyring leadership in the FP.
I actually am interested in Oaks, simply because I could see him asking for revelation regarding women being ordained to Priesthood offices, in some way. He certainly has been at the forefront of acknowledging that endowed women have Priesthood authority and exercise Priesthood power. That water hasn’t flowed far down many rows, but it is recorded, at least.
I, too, am interested in Oaks and given the choice between Oaks and Nelson would choose Oaks in a heartbeat. I referenced earlier that I didn’t think Bednar was a thinker. Oaks, on the other hand, is most definitely a thinker. His views may be on the conservative side (with some progressive leanings) but he knows why they are conservative. I don’t think the same can be said for all the Q15.
I also agree Benson was different as president than as apostle, but that doesn’t help that he’s my least favorite. I also noticed a difference in Monson. He was much more direct as prophet than as an apostle where I would often come away from one of his talks wondering what his point was. In retrospect I get those talks, but maybe only because his was more direct about it as president.
I tend to think some changes are inevitable. If history has taught us anything, it’s that the church certainly does change, especially when social pressure mounts enough that not changing would do more harm than changing. That’s when revelations come. Polygamy and the priesthood ban are clear examples. You have strong statements from prophets about how these policies would never change, but once there was enough social pressure (government confiscating property, losing tax-exempt status, etc) there were changes and major ones. Those are examples of external pressures bringing about change. An example of internal pressure is the changes in the temple in the 90’s. My understanding is there was a major dip in temple attendance, and a survey sent out showed some things that members were very uncomfortable with. Then came major changes that helped alleviate these discomforts. Another example is the ordain women campaign, which hasn’t resulted in women receiving the priesthood, but some of the other disparities brought to light were addressed, like women praying in general conference and being more involved in priesthood councils.
These are just a few examples but I think change will continue. All organizations must evolve to survive. The church generally lags behind society in social progress by about 20-30 years. That may speed up in the information age but we’ll see. I personally think certain changes are inevitable as societal (external) and membership (internal) pressures continue to mount. These things are the impetous the brethren need to be open to reveive the revelation that will make the change official. But I feel a change (or many) coming! However, I am not patient enough to wait around for it.
I think we would all agree that the church will eventually change over time, I think the issue is more related to the timing of the changes. What do you do when you feel that the changes that you’d like to see noware at minimum always two generations out? The church is a conservative church, no surprises there. It can be difficult to deal with the belief that the church will always lag 20+ years behind some of the more positive changes taking place in the world and it’s even harder when you believe that the church nearly always needs to be drug kicking and screaming towards that change and that in some cases you will be labeled an enemy if you make the change quicker than the rest of the church.
No doubt the rapidity (or lack thereof) of change is difficult to deal with. I find the same to be true for the nation as well. Not growing up in the civil rights or equal rights ammendment eras, I can only imagine the frustration with the slow speed of change those in those eras had to deal with. Yes, the church is slow to change. Having to wait several generations for changes that seem needed now is frustrating. I don’t have the patience, especially when I see current policies as harmful and my involvement as voluntary. But I still look forward to change when it does inevitably come.
Thank you all for this discussion. LookingHard wrote:
Some of the polygamist sects (in Utah/Arizona) also believe that that this was another example of the LDS church caving into pressure. They consider themselves the “real” church where they still practice polgyamy and don’t think Blacks should be allowed to go into the temple or get the priesthood. So some LDS folks transitioned out of the “mainstream” church at that time to more fundamentalist Mormon sects/splinter groups.At least that is my understanding.
It splinters off both sides. The fundamentalists go off at one end and the liberals to the other, leaving a more loyal center. It is a tactic that has worked to some extent.
While they botched the gay announcement, they have at least made anti-racist statements in the recent past and I’m proud of them for doing so.
DoubtingTom wrote:.
Those are examples of external pressures bringing about change. An example of internal pressure is the changes in the temple in the 90’s. My understanding is there was a major dip in temple attendance, and a survey sent out showed some things that members were very uncomfortable with. Then came major changes that helped alleviate these discomforts. Another example is the ordain women campaign, which hasn’t resulted in women receiving the priesthood, but some of the other disparities brought to light were addressed, like women praying in general conference and being more involved in priesthood councils.
I have argued on here before that women are ALREADY ordained in the LDS church, just that it is overlooked. Consider the following:
* Women are confirmed and given the gift of the Holy Ghost.
* Women are referred to *specifically* as “priestesses” in the endowment. They take part in all temple ceremonies to some degree.
* Women can receive insight and blessings even without a man in the house sccording to orthodox LDS teachings.
* Women can serve a mission.
* There is evidence that JS set up the RS to be a priesthood auxiliary and may have turned it specifically into such.
One day they’ll turn around and say this was already there, like praying in GC. So in some senses, we don’t need to start ordaining women as the set up is here now. We just need to shift perspective and allowing women to take on more leadership positions.
SamBee wrote:
I have argued on here before that women are ALREADY ordained in the LDS church, just that it is overlooked. Consider the following:* Women are confirmed and given the gift of the Holy Ghost.
* Women are referred to *specifically* as “priestesses” in the endowment. They take part in all temple ceremonies to some degree.
* Women can receive insight and blessings even without a man in the house sccording to orthodox LDS teachings.
* Women can serve a mission.
* There is evidence that JS set up the RS to be a priesthood auxiliary and may have turned it specifically into such.
And yet we feel the need to create a PH ordinance (outside the temple) to ensure men are ordained to the PH. One could make a similar argument for abandoning the ordinances where the AP and MP are conferred on men (and when men move from office to office in the PH) because they also receive the HG, receive the endowment, etc. they are already ordained without the explicit ordinations – but I don’t think we’d go for that… yet we make these apologetics when it comes to women and the PH.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.