Priesthood Manual 2008 Joseph Smith

[smac97]

What about those who are faithful members of the Church but wish to adopt the attitude of "inoculation", where issues are brought up in a safe environment? These people aren't anti's, but they may also wish to see a broader scope of discussion in the manuals.

I think that such faithful members have a reasonable and principled point. Take a look at the sidebar for the online version of the manual:

Your comments and suggestions about this book would be appreciated. Please submit them to Curriculum Development, 50 East North Temple Street, Room 2420, Salt Lake City, UT 84150-3220 USA. E-mail: cur-development@ldschurch.org

Please list your name, address, ward, and stake. Be sure to give the title of the book. Then offer your comments and suggestions about the bookâ??s strengths and areas of potential improvement.

And in addition to mailing or emailing the Curriculum Development folks, faithful members could write a letter to their bishop and stake president outlining their views.

Heck, critics can do all of this stuff, too.

But I would hope that "faithful members" would not adopt the fault-finding attitude exhibited by so many of our critics.

I also wonder about the LDS who read "Rough Stone Rolling". Would you consider those readers to have been a little more perfect or a little less perfect for the knowledge they gained?

I think they are better off having read the book. But that book is hundreds upon hundreds of pages long. It provides a historical account of Joseph Smith. The lesson manual under discussion here, OTOH, is intended as a religious manual, to be used in a sunday school class.

I think it is unreasonable to expect the latter book to have the same amount of historical information in it as the former.

If it makes us less perfect to read biographies that discuss controversial issues, then shouldn't books like that be shunned?

What in the world are you talking about? Who here has suggested that reading historical resources "makes us less perfect?"

If it makes us more perfect, then it would seem such knowledge might be an appropriate part of a Church lesson.

Exactly. It might be an appropriate part of a Church lesson. But there is an endless supply of "knowledge" that might be appropriate, so the Curriculum Department has to pick and choose those portions of historical information that are most conducive to the lesson being taught.

It is unreasonable to expect all all information that might be appropriate to be included.

Also, there are sins of omission and commission. I can understand and support sins of omission on the part of a lesson manual. But I'm less tolerant for sins of commission, where they state something that isn't true (including changing quoted remarks to alter their meaning).

So now we're onto finding fault for things "sins of commission" that nobody has found yet.

-Smac

[why me]

Good grief, how many pages and pages of whining and tongue clucking about polygamy not being mentioned are we going to be subjected to this week. If the countermos want a class why don't they create their own or better still..get a life of their own.

[selek]

I edited my original post. I hope that the people reading my edit will take my words to heart.

I forgive you.

[wenglund]

In the flury of exchanges I am not sure the question of my prior post was viewed, let alone addressed, so I hope you don't mind me posting it again:

One of the fundamental principles of effective instructional design (and this applies to secular as well as religion instructional material) is to structure the content of the lesson so as to meet the lesson objective(s).

With that in mind, wouldn't it make more sense to first accertain what the objective(s) of the lesson manual is, as well as for each of the individual lessons, before judging whether certain content (historical or otherwise) should have been included or not?

If, as cinepro suggests, were one of the objectives of the lesson material to "innoculate" some members against a loss of faith due to their not being previously aware of certain supposed "troublesome" aspect of Church history, then it may make at least some sense to include those "troublesome" aspects in the lesson material. However, if the objective is to encourage growth in salvific faith, and if the "troublesome history" is thought by the Church not to be relevant to salvation, then it wouldn't make sense to include it. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[smac97]

why me and smac--

Thanks for your info.

There is an LDS chapel in my town. But, I'm afraid the experience of going to get a copy might turn into some sort of joke...

"Baptist walks into an LDS chapel and says, 'I'd like a Priesthood manual, please...'"

I don't know where it'd go after that.

Seriously, though, I probably will go pick one up. I do so hate to read off a screen.

Best.

CKS

Well, you could always order one online ($3.00 plus shipping isn't too bad).

[juliann]

I edited my original post. I hope that the people reading my edit will take my words to heart.

[Teancum]

CFR that eternal marriage is rooted in polygamy. It's actually the other way 'round.

If marriages aren't eternal, then there is no polygamy except in mortality, which would obviate it's relevance.

Well of course one needs marriage to have eternal marriage. But in LDS chronology D&C 132 came and with it plural marriage eternal celestial marriage. If plural marriage is not contemporary why is D&C 132 still in our scripture and what would happen if it were removed?

[smac97]

I edited my original post. I hope that the people reading my edit will take my words to heart.

It's all good, brah!

I'm reasonably confident that we will have critics show up and gripe about this in the near future. You simply pre-empted an inevitable discussion.

Now we can just link to this one rather than re-plow old ground.

-Smac

[why me]

It's all good, brah!

I'm reasonably confident that we will have critics show up and gripe about this in the near future. You simply pre-empted an inevitable discussion.

Now we can just link to this one rather than re-plow old ground.

-Smac

Not to mention the lurkers who are lurking at the anti site and coming here to see answers. I tend to believe that much happens for a purpose. Maybe we saved a soul out there. Lets hope so.

[cksalmon]

But did you have a camel under one arm.........?

No, it was a "horse."

Ah, my. I kill myself. Perhaps I missed my calling in life?

No. Guess not.

Best.

CKS

[Teancum]

This is where I agree with you and MMS. There should be some room for history- if only for context.

Yes, there is room for the history and practice of polygamy- when you're discussing polygamy. A general manual teaching the tenets of the faith, however, is a different story.

Unfortunately, Charity is correct. No amount of history will be sufficient to the critics unless it is crafted to convey a negative impression of the Church. No discussion of polygamy will suffice unless it paints Joseph as a lecherous predator.

These people do not care about the education of the Church- at the very core, they are agitating for the Church to teach their propoganda and will settle for nothing less.

I could care less about the rabid critics especially the ones from other Christian groups. I do care about the member, and the current members and presenting a more full view of the history so there are not dissaffections when people run into stuff on their own and become upset that the Church did not do a better job and presented more "faithful"history and never dealt with the difficult issues. Why not discuss it in a Church setting where there could be some control and a friendly environment. Or would you rather have these things taught by Quinn and Vogel and the internet?

[selek]

Well of course one needs marriage to have eternal marriage. But in LDS chronology D&C 132 came and with it plural marriage eternal celestial marriage. If plural marriage is not contemporary why is D&C 132 still in our scripture and what would happen if it were removed?

Actually, it could readily be argued that D&C 132 is superceded in practice by the Manifesto.

The principle is eternal, even if the practice is not.

Nonetheless, your duck didn't answer my question.

CFR that eternal marriage is rooted in polygamy, rather than the other way around.

Straight answers and citations, please!

[why me]

Thank you sister Juliann.

[wenglund]

Exactly. It might be an appropriate part of a Church lesson. But there is an endless supply of "knowledge" that might be appropriate, so the Curriculum Department has to pick and choose those portions of historical information that are most conducive to the lesson being taught.

It is unreasonable to expect all all information that might be appropriate to be included. -Smac

This puts me in mind of Elder Oak's conference talk on not making decisions based soley on what is "good", but more so on what is "better" and "best". ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

In the flury of exchanges I am not sure the question of my prior post was viewed, let alone addressed, so I hope you don't mind me posting it again:

One of the fundamental principles of effective instructional design (and this applies to secular as well as religion instructional material) is to structure the content of the lesson so as to meet the lesson objective(s).

With that in mind, wouldn't it make more sense to first accertain what the objective(s) of the lesson manual is, as well as for each of the individual lessons, before judging whether certain content (historical or otherwise) should have been included or not?

If, as cinepro suggests, were one of the objectives of the lesson material to "innoculate" some members against a loss of faith due to their not being previously aware of certain supposed "troublesome" aspect of Church history, then it may make at least some sense to include those "troublesome" aspects in the lesson material. However, if the objective is to encourage growth in salvific faith, and if the "troublesome history" is thought by the Church not to be relevant to salvation, then it wouldn't make sense to include it. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Teancum]

I think they are simply tired of trying to explain it to individuals who are not really interested in understanding the answer.

Please show me where the explain it and cover early plural marriage, polyandry, the views that it was essential for exaltation as taught by 19th century leaders, the actual history of the ceasing of the practice including post manifesto plural marriage and the apparent subterfuge the leaders of the Church practiced in this regards from 1890 to about 1905.

I may have missed it but I have never seen anything from the Church leadership on this topic nor nothing in an official church manual or publication.

[juliann]

Well of course one needs marriage to have eternal marriage. But in LDS chronology D&C 132 came and with it plural marriage eternal celestial marriage. If plural marriage is not contemporary why is D&C 132 still in our scripture and what would happen if it were removed?

What does that have to do with you trying to make plural marriage synonymous with celestial marriage? Call for references, again.

[charity]

I can see this point too. However, as you know Charity, the common mantra today is: the church lied to me.

I may be a little touchy about this. My recent experience among the anti's on two other message boards has been to be called a liar, and to hear that members of the Church are all liars and the Church lies.

Not all people on those message boards were saying that, but for those who were, nothing the Church can publish or put out in lesson manuals is going to change their attitude. They WANT to believe that the Church is false, they WANT to believe that Joseph Smith did all the horrible things any rabid anti has ever accused him of doing. Nothing we can or do will persuade them as long as their hearts are hardened.

My opinion on what we should do, both as the leadership of the Church, as apologists, as members, is to just let them alone in their hatred and mean lives. Pray for them, okay, that their hearts will be softened, and leave it in God's hands.

But as for us we don't change anything the Lord tells us to do because of what they are saying.

[selek]

Please show me where the explain it and cover early plural marriage, polyandry, the views that it was essential for exaltation as taught by 19th century leaders, the actual history of the ceasing of the practice including post manifesto plural marriage and the apparent subterfuge the leaders of the Church practiced in this regards from 1890 to about 1905.

I may have missed it but I have never seen anything from the Church leadership on this topic nor nothing in an official church manual or publication.

Missed the last hundred years or so of lesson manuals, huh?

The Church teaches (and has taught) that eternal marriage, not polygamy, is essential for exaltation.

You keep dodging this issue. Final warning: CFR that eternal marriage has it's roots in polygamy rather than the other way 'round.

[selek]

I may be a little touchy about this. My recent experience among the anti's on two other message boards has been to be called a liar, and to hear that members of the Church are all liars and the Church lies.

Not all people on those message boards were saying that, but for those who were, nothing the Church can publish or put out in lesson manuals is going to change their attitude. They WANT to believe that the Church is false, they WANT to believe that Joseph Smith did all the horrible things any rabid anti has ever accused him of doing. Nothing we can or do will persuade them as long as their hearts are hardened.

My opinion on what we should do, both as the leadership of the Church, as apologists, as members, is to just let them alone in their hatred and mean lives. Pray for them, okay, that their hearts will be softened, and leave it in God's hands.

But as for us we don't change anything the Lord tells us to do because of what they are saying.

Hmmm......looks like old Lehi had it right in that silly dream of his.

[why me]

Not all people on those message boards were saying that, but for those who were, nothing the Church can publish or put out in lesson manuals is going to change their attitude. They WANT to believe that the Church is false, they WANT to believe that Joseph Smith did all the horrible things any rabid anti has ever accused him of doing. Nothing we can or do will persuade them as long as their hearts are hardened.

My opinion on what we should do, both as the leadership of the Church, as apologists, as members, is to just let them alone in their hatred and mean lives. Pray for them, okay, that their hearts will be softened, and leave it in God's hands.

I agree with you, Charity. Praying for them is good advice. Cyberworld is an interesting place. I also feel sorry for the angry crowd. Anger is not the solution. As I said on a different thread, the apologists do have answers, true, not complete answers at times, but answers are there. Much in the lds church depends on faith as it does for other christian churches. To absolutely prove the book of mormon true through evidence that is conclusive would prove the validity of god and That will not happen yet.

[Teancum]

Women are also sealed plurally. For some reason, it is done after they are dead and not before but the end result is exactly the same....plural husbands.

Women can only be sealed to all husband if she and they are all dead. And those sealings are I believe, if she was never sealed to one of them while living. If she was that is it for her.

[cdowis]

Then why publish a presthoo manual about him [joseph smith]?

For the same reason we study the Bible and learn the teachings of Peter, Paul, John, etc who teach about Christ.

[Teancum]

Pretending that "celestial marriage" is polygamy is getting tiresome and lame. CFR indeed.

Tell that to Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and D&C 132.

[selek]

Tell that to Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and D&C 132.

Still ducking, and weaving, eh? So you, rather than the Church, speak authoritatively for these men?