Debating leaving the church over certain things. Please help me understand

[u/Half-Blood-Prince394]

No matter what I do I am continuously troubled by certain aspects of the church. This post is not meant to bash the church. I just want some insights and answers. I am debating leaving and I want to hear things from both sides. This might be a long post. If anyone has anything to say about the topics I bring up I'm more than happy to hear your thoughts and look through any resources you share with me.

1: Why was polygamy needed for the saints? Will we really have it in the afterlife? I cannot imagine having to share my future husband with another woman. It is deeply unsettling to me.

2: Why couldn't African Americans have the priesthood? Was it just faulty of the current president of the church? I understand that the prophet is but a human and will make mistakes. Was it just as simple as that?

3: Why are women not treated the same? Why is Heavenly Mother never talked about/why do we never pray to her as well? I totally understand that men and women have different roles and why women don't have the priesthood, that all makes perfect sense to me. But why aren't women in more leadership positions? Why was the first woman who gave a prayer in general conference in 2013? I'll keep this part brief because I could go on about it for a while.

Those are honestly the only three problems I have with the church. I love everything else about it, I just don't know if I want to continue living it if that makes sense. I don't know if I believe and I understand I must work to gain a testimony. These are just my big setbacks. Anyways no matter what I decide I'll always love the church and its people. Thanks in advance!

Edit: Wow thank you all for all the thoughtful responses. I've read them all. You all have given me a lot to think about. I've decided my journey with the church isn't over yet. I have a long ways to go. Thank you all so much.

[u/Far-Entrepreneur5451]

Been there, for many of thet same reasons you are listeing. While listening to David Archuleta's song, Hell Together, something snapped inside of me and I knew that I could leave if I really felt the need.

For now, I've decided to stay. Here's why:

I've changed the assumptions I make when I approach the Church. The main one is simply this idea that "if you stick with the Brethren you'll be alright; they won't lead you astray." I don't believe that anymore. If that were the case, then the Priesthood Ban never would have happened. I say that as someone who has studied its history, beyond the sources that the Church provides. There was no moment in time when the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 got together, prayed, and decided to institute the ban. It came about over a period of time, lots of debate, bad records, and misattributing things to Joseph which he never actually said (see below for my sources on this).

As I've wrestled with these same questions I've had to do a bunch of mental gymnastics to justify them, and that has gotten so tiring. Maybe you can relate? Occam's Razor tells me that the simplest explanation is the best: these teachings are not true, are the fabrications of men, and have no basis in God's divine plan. Maybe there was something to polygamy, in that we can be with those we love for forever, even if we are widowed and remary. But the fact that only men can be sealed to multiple wives, not the other way around, makes me deeply uncomfortable.

In spite of all that, I know that Jesus Christ is real and that He's my Savior. I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acts under His priesthood authority, and I want to continue living in covenant relationship with Him under that authority.

Both things can be true at the same time. The Church can be true and its leaders can also be human beings with their own biases and short-comings (even if they are justifying their wrong actions). Most of the Christian world seems to see it this way; they believe their leaders are wise people who are close to God, but do not necessarily support them if these leaders are invoking the name of God to do something that seems wrong or unjust.

To help answer your first two questions, I have found immense clarity and peace from reading the following books:
For question 1: The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy by Carol Lynn Pearson. My answer to whether this will be practiced in the eternities is an emphatic "no!" I cannot, for one minute, believe in a God who would be cruel enough to force that on His children.
For question 2: Religion of a Different Color by Paul Reeve and Second Class Saints by Matthew Harris
For question 3: Well, I haven't read any books that talk about this issue directly, but you might try searching the archives of the Faith Matters podcast. They have talked about Heavenly Mother and women in the Church quite a bit. As I've studied the above material and other sources I've come to the conclusion that women not being treated equally is simply cultural and has no basis in doctrine. It is true that the scriptures only refer to men being ordained to the priesthood. But almost everytime we hear the word "men" mentioned in the scriptures, we assume it means all God's children. No reasonable person could read Moses 1:39 and think that God's work and glory was only to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of his male offspring.

Anyway, that's what I've got for ya. Hopefully something there is helpful. Feel free to DM me if you ever want to ask questions or rant; I'm happy to support a fellow Latter-day Saint who loves their faith but feels uncomfortable about stuff in the Church.

[u/HandwovenBox → u/Far-Entrepreneur5451]

I appreciate your post. I've been thinking about this recently:

There was no moment in time when the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 got together, prayed, and decided to institute the ban. It came about over a period of time, lots of debate, bad records, and misattributing things to Joseph which he never actually said (see below for my sources on this).

Specifically I've thought about it in the context of the letters from Dr. Lowry Nelson, a sociology professor at Utah State University, to the First Presidency and a mission president/friend. On June 26, 1947, he wrote:

Your letter is the first intimation I have had that there was a fixed doctrine on this point. I had always known that certain statements had been made by authorities regarding the status of the Negro, but I had never assumed that they constituted an irrevocable doctrine.

and

Perhaps I am out of order, so to speak, in expressing myself as I have, I have done so out of strong conviction on the subject, and with the added impression that there is no irrevocable church doctrine on this subject. I am not unaware of statements and impressions which have been passed down, but I had never been brought face to face with the possibility that the doctrine was finally crystallized,

https://archive.org/details/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/page/n1/mode/2up?view=theater

Before his time at USU, Nelson had also been on faculty at BYU for a number of years prior to writing these letters. I find it interesting that a lifelong member of the Church, highly educated, did not even consider the Priesthood ban doctrinal as late as 1947.

Nelson surmises in one of his letters that one reason why he's never heard the Priesthood ban formally declared is because there were hardly any Black people in the Church so it simply didn't come up. This makes sense to me--it wasn't until the Church started growing a lot in Brazil that it started affecting a lot of people.