The reaction of Traditional Believers to the disavowal

[DarkJedi]

I think it’s general knowledge that the church is revising manuals, at least to align the curriculum with the new youth manuals. And, we’re running out of prophets for that series, but I suppose we could just start over.

[fnts]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

Not a word about it at church today.

No unexpected. I’m sure no talk was assigned or lesson was planned about the ban.

Actually, I would have been very surprised to hear about it in church. When the additional explanation was added to the official declaration, nothing was said about it. In fact I’ve shown it to a few people and they were surprised by it – one as recently as 3 weeks ago. It seems that TBMs in my area don’t frequent the lds newsroom. Consequently, they don’t actually know the church’s position on several matters.

[Sheldon]

I spoke with a friend at the ward Xmass party Saturday night about the new priesthood disavowal. This friend is the only black man in our ward. He is a member of the high council. I asked him as I pointed to the 200 people sitting on the basketball court (I refuse to use the word culture), how many of these word members have read the lgs.org article. He said zero. I agreed. If you don’t live in SLC and get the SLTrib, there is no way the normal member will ever see this. The church has not announced it in the Ensign or Church News to my knowledge. Maybe that was the compromise to get the vote in the 12 to release it. BKP voted yes, but only for a “soft” release, no publicity, just a link buried on the web site. (Just my guess, no knowledge on this)

[Old-Timer]

Quote:

If you don’t live in SLC and get the SLTrib, there is no way the normal member will ever see this.

Unless members who found out about it online share it.

There’s Facebook; there’s email; there’s printing copies for the local leadership. A simple, “I heard about this and just want to make sure everyone else sees it, also” – with no other commentary (but a smile, if printed copies are used), is neither threatening nor difficult.

We can complain, or we can help spread the word. I’m sharing it with others.

[Sheldon]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

We can complain, or we can help spread the word. I’m sharing it with others.

You are right Ray, I didn’t mean to imply that it will stay hidden. My black friend will share it with the HC and SP. I’ll share it every time someone brings up Blacks and the priesthood. It will get out. I think the church did the best they could given the institutional baggage they carry.

[SilentDawning]

I don’t believe they did the best they could. I give them credit for what they DID do, but the timid way in which they released it smacks of a kind of pride that isn’t endearing. I would have rather seen an announcement like the Manifesto or SWK’s extension of the priesthood to all races that makes it into our scriptures and is agreed to in Conference. This is not small news, in my view — given the great volume of people who have been disadvantaged by it. If you make a mistake, own up to it and get the full respect you deserve for admitting your past errors.

Nonetheless, I’m still glad they did it finally.

I agree, one can spread the word, but I’m not sure how from my position of unorthodoxy. It could be easily interpreted as reveling in the church’s awkward position or something. If I was a TBM, it could be different — I would have more crediblity. But I would also be afraid of hurting people’s faith, and would likely be part ofthe rationalization scenario to protect my central belief in the infallibility of prophets. I would probably invest a lot of time in justifying the truth of current prophet’s utterances in spite of the doubt it casts on the infallibility of previous prophets.

AT one time people said “It’s hard to belive the words of current prophets, but its easy to believe the words of past prophets”. This disavowal turns that argument on its head in my view.

[Author]

Posts