- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
johnh wrote:
Exactly. So now the is guilty of the sin of Omission and the Anti’s have the truth
I wonder why the first emotion most of us felt was a sense of betrayal
Betrayal!? The first emotion!? Ha! that was my second! Maybe third…Anger falls in there somewhere…Extreme grief mixed with despair for my loss was first…Oh to be a child again…I absolutely agree these “things” should be out there more. It would be easy to tell the seer stone story in Primary, Polygamy in YM/YW as a tidbit in one lesson, or polyandry in Adult Sunday School. But these things can not dominate the material and have to be a very small piece of the background. They see that and if we give them time, it will happen.
DB I agree with your assesmnet, but they can’t have it both ways. They can’t show the seer stone one week and JS and OC the with the plates setting between then the next week. Same thing with the missionaries, they can’t teach one thing in the lesions and have something different taught at church. I’m not sure if they still show a lot pictures but what comes to mind is JS being visited in his room by Moroni, the 3 witnesses all being there with the plates and the angel at the same time. You get the point. The church would have to do it all at once, like removing duct tape.
Quote:The church would have to do it all at once, like removing duct tape.
The good thing about the faithful is that they are so darn faithful. If people heard these things in an Ensign article along with some explanations and historical context and some faith promoting testimonies, I don’t think it would hurt that much. Like having a monthly “Church History Corner” in the Ensign.
As I TBM, I took my kids to the Mountain Meadows Massacre site. (The irony of that being owned by the church…) Anyway, we walked the site, showed them the monument, discussed briefly what happened. They were young, but at least that information is part of their experience now.
DBMormon wrote:I absolutely agree these “things” should be out there more. It would be easy to tell the seer stone story in Primary, Polygamy in YM/YW as a tidbit in one lesson, or polyandry in Adult Sunday School. But these things can not dominate the material and have to be a very small piece of the background.
They see that and if we give them time, it will happen.
I’m afraid that polygamy in its full, inexplicable Nauvoo-era glory is not going to be a tidbit. Of course, the church will present it however they choose, but the idea that they’ll just drop a few off-hand references to it and then ask, “Why does the Lord think marriage is so important?” or another question like that meant to bring it around to today, is unrealistic. The idea that you’d wait through all four years of high school before telling our kids about the polyandry is also just plain wrong, IMO. These kids go to school every day defending the church, its scriptures, its temple, its founding prophet, its bothersome-in-the-neighborhood missionaries. They’re smart, and so are their non-LDS friends. Tons of credible information is a keystroke away, but the LDS kid is very likely to call bogus anything he hasn’t been taught. My daughter came home one day and was very proud of herself for having set her misinformed friend straight. (“Mom, he thought we did secret handshakes in the temple!”)
Not trying to be snarky. When you say. “if we give them time,” what do you mean?
Ann wrote:
Not trying to be snarky. When you say. “if we give them time,” what do you mean?The 15 men at the top are not responsible for the problem. Most of them inherited it and have only been leaders in the church’s top hierarchy for 10 years or less.
While the problem has existed for a long long time, the internet has pushed it past flashpoint. These 15 men are aware of the problem they inherited, and while the church’s worldwide membership and the mass of the church will make the changes slower then we wish, the changes are coming and it is happening. In the next 4 years I expect to see a new adult sunday school curriculum that addresses some of this, new links on LDS.ORG that assist members with faith damaging issues, more awareness and training.
It is coming
Bill
I respectfully disagree that the difficult parts of church history should be tidbits or footnotes in lessons, although I do agree they don’t necessarily have to be the primary focus. For example, mentioning polyandry in passing might be worse than omitting it altogether because it would be a) obvious that the topic is being avoided b) not enough information would be shared for either the TBMs to maintain their faith or for “middle-wayers” to get any real information. For example, when teaching about the 1st vision – a teacher can explain that there are multiple versions over the years and that each has a different focus, maybe even briefly teaching about the differences. We don’t have to focus on the other versions, but we have to acknowledge them and answer questions about them if there are any. At a minimum provide resources where people can research – if they request them. When Brigham Young was the topic of the RS / Priesthood lessons why couldn’t we have a lesson about polygamy. It explains soooo much about how the church evolved over the years and why people struggle with it even today. It’s a single lesson, certainly not the focus of the entire year…
The analogy is imperfect, but I started teaching my kids about sex ed when they were 8 so they would have reliable information from the very beginning, not learning about it in bits and pieces from unreliable sources. If we are frank with historical inconsistencies and doctrinal contradictions, I think in the long run there will be fewer people finding themselves in faith crises. I’d rather a teacher admit “I don’t know” or “I don’t understand either, but I’m trying to” than making up something to cover up.
Why don’t they teach a class in the MTC about Historical Issues. It is relevant, missionaries are likely to come across such issues while on their mission. It is in a supportive setting where they are at a time of high faith and have a lot of resources to ask questions to. It will reach a lot of people. With record numbers passing through the MTC now would be a perfect time to get the information “out there”
I only mean it can’t take be a large part of the lesson. While sharing this info relieves anxiety, it does not teach the gospel and thereby bring the spirit into the lesson, which is and should be top priority I think if members are taught
– Joseph used a seer stone
– Joseph was a scryer
– Joseph practiced Polygamy
– Joseph was involved in what we call polyandry though it is complicated and we know very little of the reasons
– Book of Abraham is a Egyptian Funeral text that Joseph still received revelation from to give us scripture
– Some church leaders have made wrong pronouncements of opinion which lead to corrections of the following
– world can be any age
– Church has no opinion of Evolution
– There is no Doctrine on Who was or wasn’t here when Lehi’s party arrived
If they do that and a few others then much of what we have anxiety over on historical issues will dissapate and likely not be an issue for the next generation.
DBMormon wrote:I only mean it can’t take be a large part of the lesson. While sharing this info relieves anxiety, it does not teach the gospel and thereby bring the spirit into the lesson, which is and should be top priority.
Hello Bishop,
Yes, I understand your point about not being a larger point of the lesson and that it doesn’t teach the gospel. My point is that we have to address it sufficiently to actually “relieve the anxiety” which might mean it takes up more time than anticipated. I think that teaching the “official gospel” when it is incorrect or incomplete isn’t teaching the “real gospel.” When I read this post, it seems that it promotes teaching the “official gospel.” Perpetuating false history may avoid contention but it probably doesn’t invite the spirit either.
Look, it’s a difficult thing and a balancing act, and I get that. If I were to get up and teach an entire lesson about polyandry in Sunday School, only a small portion of the class would actually appreciate it and it would drive the spirit away for everyone else. I just get hung up when we automatically say something can’t be a large part of the lesson. It seems to promote business as usual. I would rather counsel that we teach the lessons in a meaningful and constructive way, including difficult topics.
You and I may be agreeing here just using different symantics and words to express a similar feeling.
I agree that if the church comes clean that it will be stronger for the next generation. These things will be attributed to”the kooky things people do” and a reminder that nobody is perfect. This is a much healthier perspective imho. I do believe it will be a tough decade or two though. This generation and previous have been taught to revere Joseph and have been pushed to hang on the fab 15’s every word. There will be a lot of fallout ….as there is currently..when this comes to light. The fallout will increase if the church came clean. I think it needs to happen hence the duct tape analogy mentioned earlier. I think the dancing around it causes more problems to be fixed later.
I just get pissed off when I read apologists attained explanations trying to make crazy sound normal and I don’t think I am unique in my reactions
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
Heavy sigh. So many issues and so many claims that they are kept hidden. I must disagree and I will use an example, how the Book of Mormon was translated. Sure, it isn’t widely discussed or taught in our lesson manuals what the process was, seer stone in a hat for at least some of the translation, but it is taught. Here are a couple of examples from The Ensign. Sorry, couldn’t copy and paste with the iPad. You’ll have to follow the links.
Roadrunner wrote:DBMormon wrote:I only mean it can’t take be a large part of the lesson. While sharing this info relieves anxiety, it does not teach the gospel and thereby bring the spirit into the lesson, which is and should be top priority.
Hello Bishop,
Yes, I understand your point about not being a larger point of the lesson and that it doesn’t teach the gospel. My point is that we have to address it sufficiently to actually “relieve the anxiety” which might mean it takes up more time than anticipated. I think that teaching the “official gospel” when it is incorrect or incomplete isn’t teaching the “real gospel.” When I read this post, it seems that it promotes teaching the “official gospel.” Perpetuating false history may avoid contention but it probably doesn’t invite the spirit either.
Look, it’s a difficult thing and a balancing act, and I get that. If I were to get up and teach an entire lesson about polyandry in Sunday School, only a small portion of the class would actually appreciate it and it would drive the spirit away for everyone else. I just get hung up when we automatically say something can’t be a large part of the lesson. It seems to promote business as usual. I would rather counsel that we teach the lessons in a meaningful and constructive way, including difficult topics.
You and I may be agreeing here just using different symantics and words to express a similar feeling.
We are and I agree with you. It has to be there, we have to make it understandable to all without making it the focus. We may have to stay after class to have some extra discussion. We also can not continue to allow others to teach false doctrine.
I had a member recently say Church Doctrine states Jesus was born on April 6th. I then proceeded in Private to let this member know that was incorrect and sent the person some links to flush out that false teaching. I assume it is resolved. If it is a big issue, I will correct publicly in a talk.
We all have to be kind in doing so, but quick to dispel false teachings. Not the one we personally think are false but those that the evidence directly says so.
Thoreau wrote:Heavy sigh. So many issues and so many claims that they are kept hidden. I must disagree and I will use an example, how the Book of Mormon was translated. Sure, it isn’t widely discussed or taught in our lesson manuals what the process was, seer stone in a hat for at least some of the translation, but it is taught. Here are a couple of examples from The Ensign.
Sorry, couldn’t copy and paste with the iPad. You’ll have to follow the links.
Agreed but the average LDS will hear 100 times about the spectacle Urim and Thummim before he ever hears about a seer stone or treasure digging. That has to change. If the Church was concerned that the seer stone be well known, it would be. Though I agree it is not hidden, just largely ignored and maybe with good reason. Joseph himself said it was not for the orld to know, and suffice it was translated by the “Gift and Power” of God
I must have missed the not for the world to know part Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.