- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
vickzorz wrote:
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….
I’m with you on this. It bothers me that on the one hand you have the apologists like FAIR/FARMS (NAMI) who seem to think that it’s common knowledge that seer-stones were used or that JS (not BY) started polygamy. But the rank and file membership have almost no knowledge of this.
Urgggghhh. Strugglin’ today.
vickzorz wrote:…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….
That’s interesting considering the official church website says:
Quote:After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church…
Shawn wrote: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.
Your doing fine, no offense taken.. I agree we can cover it… a little, but as I have done so, I have made people nervous and some have been turned off by it. So is it worth losing those members to keep the other side of the spectrum content?
a very touchy issue
hawkgrrrl wrote: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?
good idea.
maybe all members get a textbook to go with curiculum
DBMormon wrote:
Your doing fine, no offense taken.. I agree we can cover it… a little, but as I have done so, I have made people nervous and some have been turned off by it. So is it worth losing those members to keep the other side of the spectrum content?a very touchy issue
Good to hear!So I am talking about introducing tidbits in lesson manuals rather than ward leaders and/or teachers covering things here and there. Such tidbits have already appeared online, like the information about Joseph’s marriage cited above….or maybe information like that has been online for a long time. I don’t know.
Everything but polyandry is at least mentioned in church magazines ex: seer stones, polygamy, book of abraham doesn’t match egyptian translation, ect…
DBMormon wrote:Everything but polyandry is at least mentioned in church magazines
ex: seer stones, polygamy, book of abraham doesn’t match egyptian translation, ect…
I am very interested in this issue right now. By “issue” I mean members of the church being blind-sided and shocked by information they find online despite there being information published by the church. Of course, the questions are:-how much detail has been published?
-how frequently is such information published?
-how easy is it to find?
I am going to do some research. Maybe there is less of a cover-up than many suspect.
Book of AbrahamEnsign article from 1988“Why doesn’t the translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price?”
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/07/i-have-a-question?lang=eng The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual from 2000“Why Did the Prophet Joseph Smith Say He Translated the Writings of Abraham When the Manuscripts Do Not Date to Abraham’s Time?”
https://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng Seer StonesEnsign article from 1974“Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone.”
http://www.lds.org/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart Ensign article from 1977 BY RICHARD LLOYD ANDERSON“On the means of translation Stevenson reported, ‘He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.’”
“David Whitmer’s idea of translation …’Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light…’”
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god Ensign article from 1987“Thirty years earlier, Wilford Woodruff had recorded Brigham Young’s version of ‘the seer stone which Joseph Smith first obtained’ by digging ’15 feet underground’ after seeing it first in another seer stone.”
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/08/the-alvin-smith-story-fact-and-fiction Ensign article from 1993 BY ELDER RUSSELL M. NELSON“The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote: ‘Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear…'”
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament Plural MarriageDoctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual from 1999 updated in 2003“
The revelation to practice plural marriage in this dispensationIn this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood.”
From Church History In The Fulness Of Times Student Manual, (2003), 422–434“A large part of the persecution experienced by the Latter-day Saints centered around the practice of plural marriage, which was instituted under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The law of plural marriage was revealed to the Prophet as early as 1831, but he mentioned it only to a few trusted friends. Under strict commandment from God to obey the law, the Prophet began in 1841 to instruct leading priesthood brethren of the Church concerning plural marriage and their responsibility to live the law. The Prophet Joseph Smith dictated the revelation to William Clayton in 1843, when it was first written. Nine years passed, however, before the revelation was read in general conference and published.”
Shawn, What’s your conclusion after posting those church sources?
mine
– they didn’t hide it.
– They didn’t avoid it.
– Could they have talked about it more? absolutely
– Did not talking about it more do a lot of damage? in hindsight…. absolutely
I didn’t see anything about the BOA papyri appearing to be funerary stuff, but I didn’t read the articles completely. I’m just not concerned about the BOA. I don’t feel like opening that can so I don’t explore it. You are right about the church not hiding or avoiding polygamy, except for the polyandry aspect.
Seer stones have been mentioned several times at least and there are probably many references that I didn’t find. I searched for only a half hour.
The other thing to check is if the issues like the translation are said in the wrong way. For instance do all the references to the translation refer specifically the spectacles found with the plates?
And if there is an instance of the manual or lesson stating as much is it a bad curriculum writer or the direction of the top 15?
And if it only says uriom and thummim one must also explore if early church members understood the urim and thummim to be both the spectacles and seer stone.
What is being taught cosistently over the pulpit and in the missionary lessons? That is where the real message is being taught and at GC. Mentioning something ever five years in a magizine isn’t cutting it. Really how many member read the ensign from cover to cover every month? Those that do are all the TBMs. church0333 wrote:What is being taught cosistently over the pulpit and in the missionary lessons? That is where the real message is being taught and at GC. Mentioning something ever five years in a magizine isn’t cutting it. Really how many member read the ensign from cover to cover every month? Those that do are all the TBMs.
Well I would expect GC not to be the place to discuss theories on the kinderhook plates, or polyandry, or the Book of Abraham. I also would expect to see very little in Sacrament. Missionaries should teach issues like translation more accurately but they also should not give investigators a list of the tough issues.
On your first date did you tell the person all your flaws?
When a kids asks where babies are born do you tell them everything regardless of their age?
It sounds like it should happen that way but it isn’t realistic.
That said they must do better and are already moving quickly that direction
I wrote this on another site
Quote:so some thoughts.
One put yourself back 15 years ago. Computers were just coming on the scene. It was easy for false teachings and assumptions to be prevalent in church meetings.
Many members had gospel hobbies, speculative doctrine. There was no place to get straightened out. If one wanted to learn truth about church history one had to get books. Libraries weren’t connected, every Library had maybe 2-3 books on mormons and it was hard to connect with other libraries. Before the internet a book might give you 1,2, or maybe 3 new pieces of information. You were forced to learn a little at a time. This is why books like “no man knows my history” were so huge, they revealed a lot of unknowns in one fell swoop.
The church focused on Salvation knowing that if one wanted to learn the details they would encounter 1-3 new things at a time, a pace that was pretty safe to learn at and stay faithful.
As parents when your kids come to you at 8 years old, and ask “where do babies come from?” do you tell them? I mean do you really tell them? no why? could some 8 year olds handle it? maybe but you play the percentage and you reserve giving them meat before milk.
fast forward…… internet changed the game and the church is adjusting. It can no longer adapt to the less studious and naive. They must now cater to the informed (informed are now a much larger chunk of membership.) What wasn’t a big deal now is. I would be like waking up one day and realizing that not telling your 8 year about the “full on birds and bees” would be hurtful to them. How would you adjust?
Everyone wants to blame the church for not telling them, but until one understands this development of information and how we learned before the internet and how hard it was to ensure all information was available and then add on that those who develop curriculum and even church leaders were victims of this process as well. It is easy to see how we got here.
While we could have done better, the church is in part a victim of the internet as well. One day you wake up and information is all around you and you wonder why the church didn’t give it to you. How many of the leaders and curriculum makers had it themselves?
DBMormon wrote:On your first date did you tell the person all your flaws?
When a kids asks where babies are born do you tell them everything regardless of their age?
It sounds like it should happen that way but it isn’t realistic.
That said they must do better and are already moving quickly that direction
All good points but for example when we have a lesson that touches on the relationship of Joseph and Emma and their struggles we should at least acknowledge the other wives. When the lesson is on translation of the BoM we need to hear about the seer stone in the hat.
When the opportunity is there we need to hit the points.
Church0333, you make a good point – what is consistently taught is what matters. I guess it helps me to know that some issues are addressed in some way even if it was long ago and not repeated much. That says to me that there is not really a cover-up going on. What Orson said is how I am seeing it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.