- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I just finished listening to Bill Reel’sinterview with FAIRpart 2
Quote:P.S. I am worried that may have come across as overly critical of Bishop Reel, so I want to emphasize that I respect him and I actually agree with most of what he says. He speaks with much more knowledge and experience than I do. Shawn, I love what Bishop Reel is doing and I agree with you that the church could introduce this stuff gradually. I have faith that during Christ’s reign all truth in its purity will be revealed. What a wonderful joy that will be! Well instead of repeating the same curriculum every 3-4 years, they could add some more material in the side bars to clarify historical or grey area subjects. It would help end a lot of false doctrine, doctrines of tradition, and false opinion from spreading around. If I hear one more grape juice claim…
There’s definitely room in my lesson manual for more material. Here’s what we’ve been doing: Lesson 4 Joseph Smith Prepares to Receive the Gold Plates
Lesson 5 Joseph Smith Receives the Gold Plates
Lesson 6 Joseph Smith Begins to Translate the Gold Plates
Lesson 7 Joseph Smith Translates the Gold Plates
Me and my team teacher just laughed. I teach 11-12 year old boys, so I don’t how much “stuff’ we would teach them, though.
I have always felt fortunate that I’ve been gradually exposed to many of the more complicated aspects of LDS history over the years. I remember in seminary learning that Joseph Smith had multiple wives. (Obviously, much of the controversy surrounding that was not discussed but at least I knew that fact). I remember reading a biography of Juanita Brooks as a twentysomething that discussed her investigations into the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I remember speaking with a wonderful Institute teacher when I came across “From Housewife to Heretic” by Sonia Johnson and having a great discussion of the Church’s position on the ERA. I don’t want to suggest that every question was answered but at least I was exposed to some of this information. As I’ve come across other details about our Church’s history, I don’t find them particularly shocking or dismaying. However, this was before the Internet was as ubiquitous as it is today and so it was harder and required more effort to seek out this kind of information. In a way, it’s a shame we can’t learn about the controversies in the same way we learn the Gospel (line upon line, precept upon precept). Coming across this kind of information unexpectedly could really be a blow. You are right. This stuff does need to be talked about and the sooner the better IMO. The church is really going to have a creditbility issue the longer it goes without it being addressed. We aren’t the first one here on this site to feel blindsided and for sure we won’t be the last. I like your idea about adding ideas about the issues we all know are troubling to the already existing material and get some new lesson stuff out there. I think the new edition of the scriptures is a good start. I do think conference talks and CES firesides would work also. It would get member at least talking about some of this things and as lessons are taught about marriage and priesthood etc more questions will be asked. I would actually have more of an issue if the manual talked about “the approximate number of women JS was sealed to.” I think there are legitimate reasons to doubt many of those records anyways. I’ve been pondering this a lot lately and sometimes I really think that “we don’t know” about church history is a legitimate answer when the authorities in charge of the church really don’t know. I’d rather the “i don’t know” answer than speculation à la McConkie. I think there’s a truth to the opinion of Bishop Reel in that talking about these things detracts from the general message. Especially when all of the facts on the controversial stuff isn’t really known.
And frankly, we already spend so little time talking about Jesus in church I don’t want anything else taking away from Him!
😡 Anyways, I do think there is a concern when the church
actively teaches something incorrectly. This would be such things as showing pictures of him reading off of the golden plates as he translates in various pictures/movies/etc. In that case the church isn’t just not teaching something, they’re purposely teaching something inaccurate. My problem wasn’t that JS translated with a stone in a hat. It was that I learned it from a cartoon show instead of my years of primary, mutual, and seminary. It was that the movie shown at temple square shows him tracing his fingers across the plates and reading them. But perhaps everyone that wrote, filmed, edited, and produced that movie had just never heard that he didn’t translate using the plates because all they taught in church was that he used the urim and thummim at first and then didn’t need them and just translated it. But how to be the one to teach primary kids that stuff when it’s contrary to what most of the ward probably believes? That’s a hard question… But I think the largest problem is that there is no feeling of openness generally. If you question what is being taught then you are obviously a sinner.
🙄 I’m not sure teaching these things regularly is as important as providing an environment where people can voice their concerns and opinions without being ostracized. Instead the calculation is “if I ask this question will they take my temple recommend away?” We need to accept that more than one viewpoint is ok.I guess the tl;dr is that we don’t need to hide from the problems of the past, but we don’t really need to focus on them either. Just let them be there in the open and if someone wants to talk about them, fine. If not, fine.
As much as part of me would enjoy the schadenfreude of watching a class full of TBMs have a FC at the same time from learning something weird from church history, that really wouldn’t help anyone.
I think the church is making an effort with the Ensign. I was specifically happy to see seer stones mentioned in the January edition (the hat was still left out, but progress is progress).
One of the major issues the Church deals with his historical recency. In short, LDS history is so recent and there’s a relative bounty of historical documents from the era that we simply know a whole lot more about our early history than many other churches. The Orthodox Christians venerate St. Irene of Athens – she was the Empress of the Byzantine Empire in the eigth century. By all accounts, she was a brutal, cunning dictator. She could give political manipulation lessons to Machiavelli. But do you ever hear any Orthodox folks saying “Why wasn’t I taught about St. Irene’s history? I don’t know if I can accept a church that venerates her as a saint.” In 800 years when JS’s history is even more mythical and foggy than it is now, no one will care that he thought he might find Indian gold in upstate New York.
wuwei wrote:I would actually have more of an issue if the manual talked about “the approximate number of women JS was sealed to.” I think there are legitimate reasons to doubt many of those records anyways. I’ve been pondering this a lot lately and sometimes I really think that “we don’t know” about church history is a legitimate answer when the authorities in charge of the church really don’t know. I’d rather the “i don’t know” answer than speculation à la McConkie.
Maybe I provided a poor example. However, it is a fact that Joseph was married/sealed to multiple women. We don’t know the example number, but no one would contend that it’s under 20. Bushman wrote “the total figure is most likely between twenty-eight and thirty-three” (Rough Stone Rolling, c 25). It’s a fact that some of those women had another husband. These things could be mentioned.
wuwei wrote:I think there’s a truth to the opinion of Bishop Reel in that talking about these things detracts from the general message. Especially when all of the facts on the controversial stuff isn’t really known.
I don’t think short factual additions to lessons would detract too much. And they would be added to help avoid faith crises.
wuwei wrote:And frankly, we already spend so little time talking about Jesus in church I don’t want anything else taking away from Him!
Yes, I would also like to talk about Jesus more! Seriously, though, don’t we talk about things in Sunday School that don’t don’t matter much? There can be time to learn more about the Savior AND mention some things about church history.
wuwei wrote:It was that the movie shown at temple square shows him tracing his fingers across the plates and reading them. But perhaps everyone that wrote, filmed, edited, and produced that movie had just never heard that he didn’t translate using the plates because all they taught in church was that he used the urim and thummim at first and then didn’t need them and just translated it.
FWIW, I believe Joseph really did tranlate the plates like the pictures and movies showat first. After the 116 pages of manuscript were lost, it was done differently. This could be discussed more on another thread.
wuwei wrote:I’m not sure teaching these things regularly is as important as providing an environment where people can voice their concerns and opinions without being ostracized.
That’s a good point.
wuwei wrote:I guess the tl;dr is that we don’t need to hide from the problems of the past, but we don’t really need to focus on them either. Just let them be there in the open and if someone wants to talk about them, fine. If not, fine.
I also don’t want thefocusto be on the problems, I just want some things at least mentioned. Are these things already “there in the open”? I maintain that some issues need to be addressed in church. It’s like parents teaching their kids about sex before the kids hear about on the playground. I am going to check out the Ensign because I hadn’t heard about it mentioning seerstones. Thanks for your input!
I’ve never been so thoroughly parsed. It’s an honor. 
Shawn wrote:Maybe I provided a poor example. However, it is a fact that Joseph was married/sealed to multiple women. We don’t know the example number, but no one would contend that it’s under 20. Bushman wrote “the total figure is most likely between twenty-eight and thirty-three” (Rough Stone Rolling, c 25). It’s a fact that some of those women had another husband. These things could be mentioned.
In the words of Stephen Colbert: “Facts may change, my opinion does not.”
Shawn wrote:Yes, I would also like to talk about Jesus more! Seriously, though, don’t we talk about things in Sunday School that don’t don’t matter much? There can be time to learn more about the Savior AND mention some things about church history.
I do agree lots of other stuff is taught that’s not about Jesus. That doesn’t necessarily mean we should replace “stuff” with “other stuff”… But I agree there is a place for it in Sunday School.I’ve been thinking about this more since my last post. Perhaps the problem could be resolved if we didn’t have just one main Sunday school class. Split it up more. At least in areas where the ward size can justify it. We do it for temple prep, marriage prep, new converts, etc.
I think if there was a 6-week course called something like “Responding to Faith in Crisis” that was especially for people struggling with issues and their friends/family or anyone curious it would go a long way.
Run it twice a year or whenever needed. Have a curriculum that combines teaching the hard issues as well as coping skills for both the person with the fc and their friends/family. And not the coping skills of ignore it or argue it away. But of acceptance.
Put simply:
Hard Issues:
-Polygamy
-Seer Stones
-BoA
-etc, etc, etc
Coping for person in FC
-Don’t immediately reject church
-Go slow and recognize the truth in other areas of the church
-Spend at least as much time exploring the good of the church as your doubts
-Feel free to express doubts in a constructive manner
-etc
Coping for friends/family
-The person is not broken and doesn’t need to be a project
-There are real issues behind these doubts
-Someone can have a different view of something than you and you can both be right in your own way
-etc
It would take quite the teacher to handle this class. I will admit that. But I think that this would really go a long way. Just imagining a manual resembling the “How to Stay in the Church” essay makes me happy. The cynic in me says it’ll never happen. But the idealist in me thinks it could. And having a separate class that anyone can attend would mean it’s not hidden but not forced on everyone.
I also like the idea of not just teaching the issues, but teaching coping skills… and teaching those on both sides of the issues to get along. Which is really what Jesus would want.
Just my $.02
I really wish the church had an official suggestion box sometimes.
wuwei wrote:
I think if there was a 6-week course called something like “Responding to Faith in Crisis” that was especially for people struggling with issues and their friends/family or anyone curious it would go a long way.In my opinion this can’t happen soon enough. But another thing that would go a long way is a
forthrightaddress in General Conference. Not the usual beware of the internet, we want everyone back, etc. One that contains enough representative specifics to signal that the church really understands the disillusionment and confusion some people feel. It would give everyone, strugglers and non-strugglers, an “approved” starting point for conversation. +1 Ann. The God that Weeps book may be helpful but it won’t turn the tide till someone at the top really publicly does. Otherwise everything else can be dismissed as opinion and hearsay. Here’s what I would suggest. Add footnotes or side notes to the curriculum with tidbits of information / facts, like they have in textbooks: “Did You Know?” type notes. They would have to be fairly concise, but positive. They could also indicate where we don’t know something so that people won’t speculate otherwise with certainty. That way they don’t dominate the manual, but they do give teachers enough information to keep from perpetuating falsehood. I agree that the worst thing isn’t that we don’t teach about this, but that we do in fact mislead or provide wrong information with regularity. I think what Bishop Reel is doing sounds great, but bear in mind that most bishops and SPs are as uninterested as anyone in history. Cuz if they knew more history, they wouldn’t be able to pass the “certainty” threshold in testimony bearing, and they wouldn’t get called to that in the first place. Right?
Honestly, if things like this could ever be acknowledged in manuals or even GC talks, that would be excellent. It is only recently that I ever heard of things like Mountain Meadows, ties with Masonry, seer stones, BoA issues, etc and it was very difficult for me to reconcile. I told my sister about JS having plural wives, and she thought that I had been reading anti-mormon literature and refused to believe that it was true historical fact. I think there is a tendency within some TBMs to discount any internet sources that aren’t directly Church-affiliated, call them anti-mormon, etc. But with today’s internet culture, I think it is vital that the church become a bit more honest and open about their past, something I think they are starting to do if the changes to the Standard Works are any indication. But still a long way to go…. - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
