129 replies to this topic

[blooit]

A close relative of mine works in the church public relations and marketing department. He said that, starting with seminary and institute curriculum, the church will be making revisions. He said that the outright intent of these revisions is to openly and honestly address controversial subjects in Mormon history so that youth and young adults are not surprised when they come across them. He specifically mentioned polygamy and the priesthood ban.

Very wise IMHO, and shows how things are continuing to move forward.

[BCSpace]

They will be quite good.

[Duncan]

I await to see how this will all happen-What if the teacher now has the floor to say their opinion on the matter? are we free to disagree?

[BCSpace]

Quote

I await to see how this will all happen-What if the teacher now has the floor to say their opinion on the matter? are we free to disagree?

One always is.  If you do it publically of course the teacher will steer the conversation back to a believing one because the official publications are official doctrine and that is what the time is allotted for; teaching the doctrine.  I wish it could be otherwise because there is also value in debate, but the problem has been people get offended or misunderstand and if that's going to happen, it might as well be they are offended by the Church's doctrine rather than someone else's opinion.

[Log]

I am trying to teach my children from their youth the harder sayings of the Gospel and occurrences in our history.  It's good that the Lord is doing this, too.

[BCSpace]

Somehow I always knew about the doctrines surrounding plural marriage and the ban from an early age.  I knew that JS was plurally married.  I don't remember my parents teaching me those, but I do remember asking about them.  So I'd say the manuals and magazines in general probably have been doing a good job already.  The difference I think is that such has not been front and center and I don't think it unreasonable that they weren't.

[Duncan]

BCSpace, on 01 April 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

One always is.  If you do it publically of course the teacher will steer the conversation back to a believing one because the official publications are official doctrine and that is what the time is allotted for; teaching the doctrine.  I wish it could be otherwise because there is also value in debate, but the problem has been people get offended or misunderstand and if that's going to happen, it might as well be they are offended by the Church's doctrine rather than someone else's opinion.

true, true and you NEED to get someone who is open to discussion and can take opposing views on matters without taking personal offense. I know a guy that has taught that drinking coke is the first step to leaving the Church, I just wonder how he would react with someone saying that he is indeed nuts and you know should whatever

[cinepro]

Log, on 01 April 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

I am trying to teach my children from their youth the harder sayings of the Gospel and occurrences in our history.  It's good that the Lord is doing this, too.

Dan Peterson has some entertaining stories about his time working on the curriculum for the Church, and the assumptions of some Church members regarding the degree of inspiration involved in forming said curriculum.

[Log]

I take it on faith the good ship Zion is helmed by God, and I don't concern myself with its administration outside of my callings.  As for Dan's level of inspiration, he's shills for Romney, and that's enough for me to draw a few conclusions of my own.

Love ya, Dan!

[BCSpace]

Quote

Dan Peterson has some entertaining stories about his time working on the curriculum for the Church, and the assumptions of some Church members regarding the degree of inspiration involved in forming said curriculum.

Probably because the inspiration was already done before they got to it judging from what I heard.


In any event, someone(s) judged the work good ala the 2007 Newsroom statement.  Plus, all the quotations considered "controversial" have been around too long for the apostles and prophets not to know what is being taught.  Indeed some of the questions some members have who won't accept the word of local leaders come back to us answered by them (if not just an outright "please refer to your local leaders").

Save your copies for comparison.  I predict, like the new Gospel Principles manual, no changes in doctrine and no apologies.  The very recent (2009) Book of Mormon Institute manual should give you a good idea of what's to come.  Check out it's section on 2 Nephi 5:20–25. Very concise and very up front.  Compare with the doctrine on Moses 7:22.  There isn't any, but I think there will be in the future.  There is doctrine on OD 2.

Edited by BCSpace, 01 April 2012 - 10:30 PM.

[BCSpace]

Quote

One always is. If you do it publically of course the teacher will steer the conversation back to a believing one because the official publications are official doctrine and that is what the time is allotted for; teaching the doctrine. I wish it could be otherwise because there is also value in debate, but the problem has been people get offended or misunderstand and if that's going to happen, it might as well be they are offended by the Church's doctrine rather than someone else's opinion.

Quote

true, true and you NEED to get someone who is open to discussion and can take opposing views on matters without taking personal offense. I know a guy that has taught that drinking coke is the first step to leaving the Church, I just wonder how he would react with someone saying that he is indeed nuts and you know should whatever

Ostensibly, boards like this should fill that need but as you can see, they don't because conversations can be externally controlled even to the point of steering people away from what the Church actually teaches so you never can tell if you're getting the full and complete truth.

As for Coke. I can certainly see how that can be true in some cases.

[Freedom]

The seminary material may be ready this summer for the New Testament. I was involved in a discussion on the matter (not that I am in any sort of position of authority on the matter, more of the right time/write place) where I voiced my concerns about the absolute lack of  history in the Church History curriculum, and the outdated videos (many films dating from the 1980's). The challenge, of course, is the tremendous cost of updating. My suggestion was to get rid of the student manuals since, from what i was told, less than 5% of students use them.

[BCSpace]

I wonder what a modern-day Johnny Lingo would be like and how many people would be offended by it.  Not that I would care.  It's a good message.

[David T]

BCSpace, on 02 April 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

I wonder what a modern-day Johnny Lingo would be like and how many people would be offended by it.  Not that I would care.  It's a good message.

Well, it's right here if you want to find out!

[Alan]

BCSpace, on 01 April 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Somehow I always knew about the doctrines surrounding plural marriage and the ban from an early age.  I knew that JS was plurally married.  

These changes could be a little difficult for me because, unlike nearly every member of the church I know, I do not believe Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

[Gohan]

Freedom, on 01 April 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

The seminary material may be ready this summer for the New Testament. I was involved in a discussion on the matter (not that I am in any sort of position of authority on the matter, more of the right time/write place) where I voiced my concerns about the absolute lack of  history in the Church History curriculum, and the outdated videos (many films dating from the 1980's). The challenge, of course, is the tremendous cost of updating. My suggestion was to get rid of the student manuals since, from what i was told, less than 5% of students use them.

Same with the Institute manuals, I've only had about two classes that have actually used them.

[jskains]

This could go both ways. It could accelerate people leaving the Church if it isn't presented in a special Anti-Mormon approved manner. If the Priesthood ban isn't presented as evil white men keeping the black community down or some other ideology, I am sure it will be earmarked as "whitewashing".

[cinepro]

jskains, on 02 April 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

This could go both ways. It could accelerate people leaving the Church if it isn't presented in a special Anti-Mormon approved manner. If the Priesthood ban isn't presented as evil white men keeping the black community down or some other ideology, I am sure it will be earmarked as "whitewashing".

FWIW, the Church did mention the ending of the priesthood ban in the "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball" manual:
Revelation: “A Continuous Melody and a Thunderous Appeal”

Granted, the wording was catastrophically imprecise ("all worthy members" could now have the priesthood?  Really?), but "A" for effort!

It is also mentioned in the Gospel Doctrine Doctrine and Covenants teacher's manual.

[Freedom]

Alan, on 02 April 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

These changes could be a little difficult for me because, unlike nearly every member of the church I know, I do not believe Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

Why not?

[Buzzard]

David T, on 02 April 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Well, it's right here if you want to find out!

I loved the original Johnny Lingo, but the remake was an infomercial for a juice marketed via MLM. Arrgh! Worst.Church.Movie.Ever.  Even worse than "Sons of Provo".  Just thinking of it makes me nauseous.