- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m really struggling today. I’m a primary co-teacher with my wife, and this year’s primary theme is all about families. The Sharing Time curriculum this year centers heavily on the Family Proclamation, which is fine. I understand.
However, the way it is being presented in lessons really bothers me.
As I’m sure is the case in many wards, each opening and closing exercises features a child standing up and giving a scripture. In our ward, the scripture is the same for a whole month. This month, it is not a scripture, but an excerpt of the Proclamation.
I first noticed this last week and it really bothered me since, oh I dunno, the Proclamation IS NOT SCRIPTURE.
But I let it roll off my back. I’ve been trying very hard to focus on the positive and try and let the negative stuff not bother me so much.
This week, however, the sharing time lesson really pounded the point home. The teacher spent 10 whole minutes talking about how the Proclamation is modern scripture, comparing it to the 10 commandments and saying that it was direct revelation from God to his prophets. I honestly had to get up and walk out.
I was already considering talking to my bishop about it last week. Today just strengthened my resolve, and so this afternoon after church I shot off a quick but respectful email outlining my concerns about how the primary was teaching about the Proclamation, and that it makes me uncomfortable having my kids being taught things that aren’t accurate.
He shot me back what I took to be a very snotty response:
Quote:Seriously? How many times did the family proclamation get quoted in Conference? No, I will leave the teaching to the Primary Presidency.
This is the same bishop who asked to meet with me a few months ago when I abruptly resigned as seminary teacher and scoffed/laughed at me when I suggested that my faith crisis made me feel uncomfortable coming to church because of the new way I looked at things.
I’m trying not to take this personally, but it really seems like he is all talk when it comes to caring about my concerns, and I feel powerless in that I have to send my kids to church feeling uncomfortable with the doctrine they are being taught, but there is nothing I can do about it.
Anyway, thanks for letting me vent.
jhp33 wrote:
As I’m sure is the case in many wards, each opening and closing exercises features a child standing up and giving a scripture. In our ward, the scripture is the same for a whole month. This month, it is not a scripture, but an excerpt of the Proclamation.
Hi, i just wanted to reply about your post. In our ward we do have an excerpt from the Proclamation on our bulletin board, as the monthly scripture reference, but we dont read it. The children in both the Junior and Senior groups recite the Theme in opening exercises. Then one child in each group is assigned to read a scripture of their choice. We dont recite any part of the Proclamation. I guess every ward is different? Im pretty sure the Presidency is following the guidlines set forth in the Sharing Time manual.
Tough one. Good luck. I don’t know the best avenue to approach; I fear there might not be any ‘good’ way ahead. It’s not scripture and its not doctrine, by the very nature of statement. It, at most, can be policy. It has never been presented as a revelation from God, as far as I know. I think I’d pursue a meeting with the Bishop to clarify concerns. In GC, there have been all kinds of quotes from the writing of others. Quoting something or saying something in GC doesn’t make it scripture. You aren’t asking for anything that the General Authorities wouldn’t approve, IMO. Beyond that, I don’t know. I might have a conversation with the SP about whether you have any avenue to voice your concerns, and then if he is friendly to the idea, set up a meeting with the bishop and SP. At the same time, I went to the SP once, over some stuff that was very dissatisfying to me, and while the problem was resolved, I was still sort of treated like an outcast. If you do have any further conversations at any level, I suggest staying away from anything suspect in the POTF. Your only complaint should be in teaching that something that is not in the scriptures is scripture, and the precedent that will set up for the children in primary. We all know crazies that latch onto non-doctrine and then teach it as doctrine to validate what they are saying, at that isn’t good. We should arm the kids with the strength to stand up to false teachings when they encounter them, and if that means that we can’t treat the POTF as scripture, then that is a worthy price to pay. The kids should be taught what is scripture is scripture, what is doctrine is doctrine, and we should stand by what we know and not confuse the issue, because it is so important. I would offer that I love the POTF, even if that isn’t entirely true, and that it is wise counsel from good men, just so that these separate issued don’t become conflated. It’s a good thing for the kids to understand about what makes scripture, and this is undermining that very important construct.
He sounds like someone who has a clear vision of what he believes and doesn’t understand or try to understand any other perspective. Unfortunately, challenging him probably won’t do any good – none at all. I wish I could give you concrete advice, but the only thing I can offer is to keep teaching the kids so someone with that view doesn’t teach them, instead. Quote:Im pretty sure the Presidency is following the guidlines set forth in the Sharing Time manual.
The guidelines are to recite scriptures. There is nothing that identifies the Proclamation as scripture, but if someone see it that way, I can understand why they might allow it to be quoted. As the primary reference? That would bother me – a lot.
-sigh- Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
How many times does Dickens get cited in GC? Maybe share a Dickens quote if you ever have to share a scripture as an adult in the primary. đ Just kidding, I’d definitely try to stick to the high road.I get where your bishop is coming from, I see it all the time. To many the proclamation and GC talks
arescripture. I don’t think you’ll see any fruits trying to convince people otherwise, that’s just of how it is. Your primary teacher has elevated the proclamation to the level of the 10 commandments in their mind and your bishop likely believes every talk in GC is scripture. We’ve all heard that lesson in church, right? What is scripture? The bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP and the words of the prophet and apostles in GC and in the ensign. Any manual with TCoJCoLDS stamped on the back will occasionally get lumped in with those as well. I don’t know how good disagreeing vocally will do in those situations so I chose to just ignore it.
Did your bishop really laugh at your reasons for resigning from the seminary teacher post? That’s unfortunate. I also view his response to your concerns over the primary lesson as being uncaring and dismissive. I’ll pull a quote from a different thread:
Old-Timer wrote:…In fact, when he asked about how the Lord runs the Church, one of the former Bishops in the group said,
Quote:Through imperfect people. We have to deal with the results.
Not to strip the quote from all context but the church operates through the efforts of imperfect people… and there are lots of them (all of us).
nibbler wrote:Did your bishop really laugh at your reasons for resigning from the seminary teacher post? That’s unfortunate.
Well, the conversation was a bit more complicated than that, but that’s the general feeling I got.
I went into the meeting with him with only one main question: is someone who thinks the way I do and believes the way I do really welcome in this ward and in this church?
I asked him that question directly and he gave a response similar to the email above. He laughed out loud (I mean, literally threw his head back laughing) and said “Don’t be ridiculous.”
Here’s a line of scripture for you (JR Holland, April 2013): Quote:…imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we.
jhp33, Two followup questions:
– What part of the POTF is being quoted? Just curious, it doesn’t change anything, I would just like to know what the primary thinks the kids should hear from it.
– When the quote is made, do they say it is scripture? In other words, do they say, “We will now have our scripture…”? Or is it just a quote that in the past has been a scripture and is now a statement from the POTF, and next month could be a quote from TSM? What I’m asking, really, is whether the kids are set up to receive the POTF as a part of the scriptures.
On Own Now wrote:jhp33,
Two followup questions:
– What part of the POTF is being quoted? Just curious, it doesn’t change anything, I would just like to know what the primary thinks the kids should hear from it.
It is this part, as outlined in the Sharing Time manual: âMarriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and ⌠the family is central to the Creatorâs plan for the eternal destiny of His childrenâ (âThe Family: A Proclamation to the Worldâ).
https://www.lds.org/manual/2014-outline-for-sharing-time-families-are-forever/april-the-family-is-central-to-gods-plan?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/manual/2014-outline-for-sharing-time-families-are-forever/april-the-family-is-central-to-gods-plan?lang=eng Quote:– When the quote is made, do they say it is scripture? In other words, do they say, “We will no have our scripture…”? Or is it just a quote that in the past has been a scripture and is now a statement from the POTF, and next month could be a quote from TSM? What I’m asking, really, is whether the kids are set up to receive the POTF as a part of the scriptures.
Yes, one of the presidency members stands up and says “Now Johnny will give our scripture” and Johnny stands up and recites that line from the Proclamation. No other actual scripture is given either in conjunction with or relating to the quote.
Wow, it does appear that it is presented in the sharing time plan as a scripture. That’s really sad. I wish I could tell you what you should do, but I can’t. jhp33 wrote:one of the presidency members stands up and says “Now Johnny will give our scripture” and Johnny stands up and recites that line from the Proclamation.
Yikes.At the same time, I think this helps bolster your stance with the Bishop, should you choose to pursue it. The proclamation isn’t scripture. Presenting it as such is diluting the concept of scripture. This is pretty Black & White
On Own Now wrote:jhp33 wrote:one of the presidency members stands up and says “Now Johnny will give our scripture” and Johnny stands up and recites that line from the Proclamation.
Yikes.At the same time, I think this helps bolster your stance with the Bishop, should you choose to pursue it. The proclamation isn’t scripture. Presenting it as such is diluting the concept of scripture. This is pretty Black & White
I decided to email the stake president, since I was getting nowhere with the bishop, who has now ignored multiple emails from me (I know he is ignoring them because he responded to my first email and has since been posting on Facebook).
I explained to the SP that I don’t have a huge problem with the Proclamation per se (I have small, sort of nitpicky problems with it, but I didn’t bring that up), but I do have a problem with it being presented as scripture and as “a revelation from God to his prophets” in primary. I added that I was very concerned by my bishop’s dismissive reaction (and CCed the bishop) and that I hoped the SP would take some sort of step to resolve my concerns.
Get ready for a firestorm. I’m afraid the Stake President will see this as nit-picking over a tiny thing and attacking a Bishop over it. I’m not saying it is unimportant, as I hope my comments have shown, but I think there is a good chance he will see it that way – especially given the magnitude of major things Bishops face in running a ward. I just want you to be prepared for what might happen.
I feel like I should add a little bit to my last comment, but please don’t take it as siding with your Bishop or Stake President. I don’t mean it that way – at all. I just want to explain a little more why they might be reacting and react in a way that doesn’t please you. Bishops face all kinds of issues, and some of them are incredibly serious from a strictly objective viewpoint. When dealing with members of their wards, they face potential divorce, abuse, addiction, internal feuds, disability, poverty, lack of education, total reliance on their counsel, open and blatant apostasy, sickness, missionary efforts, tithing, activities, staffing the organizations, teenage pregnancy, depression, bi-polar disorder, anxieties, attempted suicide, intolerance – and the list goes on and on and on and on. Many of them face pressures in their own marriages and families, as the time they spend serving others as the Bishop reduces the time they can spend with their wives and children. They still face pressures at work and with extended family and friends. They have to be VERY careful what they say publicly, even with things like never “liking” posts on Facebook that deal with controversial or even just political topics.
I can see and understand, intellectually, why a Bishop might dismiss something like a member complaining about the Proclamation being quoted in Primary – NOT that it’s not a valid concern when done to the extent you describe, but that it probably is about #648 on that Bishop’s natural concern list. It might be very hard for someone “in the tranches” to see that issue as life-threatening or serious, even if it is to you. That could explain why he said,
“Don’t be ridiculous.”He might have meant nothing more than, “I’m dealing with life and death issues and things that are tearing families apart, and you come to me complaining about this?”Again, I’m not saying he should have responded that way, but I hope you can understand why he might have done so.
By the same token, most Stake Presidents have been Bishops, so many of them might be prone to react the same way. The Stake President also might be incredulous that you “went over the Bishop’s head” over something he might see as trivial, and the Bishop might react that same way. In fact, part of your Bishop’s reaction (as you quoted him) might be a perception that you are criticizing and complaining about the Primary President over something he sees as trivial – and going to the Stake President over it might strengthen that impression. He might be concerned that, in the future, he is going to have to deal with other complaints that he sees as similarly trivial – and that if he doesn’t agree with you, the Stake President is going to hear about it each time.
I share this simply to say, try not to be surprised or hurt if neither your Bishop nor your Stake President respond favorably to your complaint. They might not be able to see your tree for their forests, and they might completely misunderstand your motive.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.