Coming Revisions To Church Curriculum

[Calm]

IIRC, there is actually an injunction to avoid the topic in the manual.

Not really:

6. Plural marriage

The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson.

The Lord’s purpose for commanding His people to practice plural marriage

In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Jacob taught: “For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife. … [but] if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things” (Jacob 2:27, 30). At various times throughout biblical history, the Lord commanded people to practice plural marriage. For example, He gave this command to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon (D&C 132:1).

The revelation to practice plural marriage in this dispensation

In 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.

The Church’s position on plural marriage today

In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that the leaders of the Church should cease teaching the practice of plural marriage (Official Declaration 1, pages 291–92 in the Doctrine and Covenants; see also the excerpts from addresses by President Woodruff that immediately follow Official Declaration 1).

In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement about the Church’s position on plural marriage: “This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. … If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, 92; or Ensign,Nov. 1998, 71).

http://www.lds.org/m...ernity?lang=eng

Edited April 5, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

Thank you for your expression of ideological loyalty. The reality is that, in its proper context, the truth about the Church of Jesus Christ is always "faith promoting."

Regards,

Pahoran

Rubbish. The truth of the Gospel is faith promoting. The truth of the Church is mixed.

The church and the gospel are different.

[wenglund]

Who are you to say what ought/ought not factor into one's progression of faith?

It isn't me who is saying. I am simply and logically acknowledging what has been revealed.

What may be irrelevant to you may not be irrelevant to others.

What may be correctly understood by me, may not be correctly understood by others.

A love you obviously don't share for "those certain members".

How do you figure? (I am just trying to learn how you jumped to this false judgment of me)

And I take comfort in the fact that the church doesn't share your resentment in having to do it.

CFR in regards to my alleged "resentment."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 6, 2012 by wenglund

[DBMormon]

Glad to see this happening long overdue. Correlation ran it's course long ago and has been destructive for the last 10 years. In my mind, the closer we can get to the openess before correlation, the better. Should have happened long before it became nessacary due to the internet and access to information.

[DBMormon]

Rubbish. The truth of the Gospel is faith promoting. The truth of the Church is mixed.

The church and the gospel are different.

oooohhh can you say that here or will you have to re-write that later with coughs in the backgound?

There is no point to this other than to mock. Any more of it will get you thread banned.

[Stargazer]

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!

Hey, what about me? I'm a Romney shill, too!

And tomorrow I will be attending our county party convention as a delegate. That will be new.

[Stargazer]

Hey, what about me? I'm a Romney shill, too! And tomorrow I will be attending our county party convention as a delegate. That will be new.

Well, turned out I got up and got ready to go, and then discovered it is NEXT week.

[DBMormon]

Do we know how soon these will be finished? how soon before they are in use?

[Scott Lloyd]

Do we know how soon these will be finished? how soon before they are in use?

I've not read every post on this thread, but it seems this question is premature. Has it been establshed that what is described in the OP is anything other than rumor at this point?

[cinepro]

I've not read every post on this thread, but it seems this question is premature. Has it been establshed that what is described in the OP is anything other than rumor at this point?

To add, the current Gospel Doctrine manuals are relatively recent, with "English Approval" and updating having been given in the last ten years.

I think we can all agree that the institute manuals for the Old and New Testaments are in dire need of updating, and to a lesser degree the D&C manual, but I don't see anything that needs changing in the Gospel Doctrine courses and am skeptical that they would get an overhaul just 10 years after their original publication.

Edited April 12, 2012 by cinepro

[David T]

I've not read every post on this thread, but it seems this question is premature. Has it been establshed that what is described in the OP is anything other than rumor at this point?

Unless Elder Jensen, of the 70 and Church Historian (until recently released), was making things up or repeating rumors, I think it's safe to say this is indeed happening.

[Scott Lloyd]

Unless Elder Jensen, of the 70 and Church Historian (until recently released), was making things up or repeating rumors, I think it's safe to say this is indeed happening.

I scanned through the posts and found your mention of Elder Jensen, but I didn't see a link, quotation or a cite. Until I do, I have to regard your comment as hearsay.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

Rubbish.

Don't be so shy about stating your views. Take a stand!

The truth of the Gospel is faith promoting. The truth of the Church is mixed.

I almost agree. I would say that the truth of the Gospel is entirely and unequivocally faith promoting. I also agree that, since the truth of the Church involves imperfect people acting with imperfect understanding of the Gospel, it is not uniformly good.

But I stand by what I said: in its proper context, the truth about the Church of Jesus Christ taken as a whole is always "faith promoting."

The church and the gospel are different.

True, but not actually on point.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

I almost agree. I would say that the truth of the Gospel is entirely and unequivocally faith promoting. I also agree that, since the truth of the Church involves imperfect people acting with imperfect understanding of the Gospel, it is not uniformly good.

I would add that there is a hazard that imperfect people will act on what they have convinced themselves is the gospel (as opposed to the Church) when their personal conception of the gospel may or may not coincide with the authentic gospel in its truth and purity. The Church exists in part to help one keep from confusing his own conception of the gospel with the true gospel.

[David T]

[Edit failure. Repost below]

Edited April 12, 2012 by David T

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's an mp3 of his remarks.

Can you quote in writing the relevant passage?

[selek1]

I would add that there is a hazard that imperfect people will act on what they have convinced themselves is the gospel (as opposed to the Church) when their personal conception of the gospel may or may not coincide with the authentic gospel in its truth and purity. The Church exists in part to help one keep from confusing his own conception of the gospel with the true gospel.

I wonder (okay, not really) what that tell us about people who insist on telling us what the Church really means when it says, "X".

[David T]

I scanned through the posts and found your mention of Elder Jensen, but I didn't see a link, quotation or a cite. Until I do, I have to regard your comment as hearsay.

Here's an mp3 of his Q&A. (here's the facebook page for the event at Utah State University) - this was widely covered - and links were given reporting on it. I'm really surprised you hadn't heard of it.

[David T]

Can you quote in writing the relevant passage?

I had a transcript linked, but it appears to have been taken down. If you're not wanting to listen to it, I'll see if I can find time and listen to the whole thing again and do it for you.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's an mp3 of his Q&A. (here's the facebook page for the event at Utah State University) - this was widely covered - and links were given reporting on it. I'm really surprised you hadn't heard of it.

I was aware of news coverage of the event but my memory of it has grown dim in ensuing weeks. I'm not certain without listening to it whether Elder Jensen was specifically announcing a coming revision to the curriculum materials (as the OP implies) or whether he was referring merely to a concern among the Brethren as it pertains to future development of curriculum.

Thank you for providing the link. I have to run right now. Perhaps I'll get a chance to listen to it later.

[Cobalt-70]

To add, the current Gospel Doctrine manuals are relatively recent, with "English Approval" and updating having been given in the last ten years.

I think that revision was pretty good for its time, and the BM, NT, and OT manuals still hold up pretty well.

The D&C manual is the one that needs the most work to align it with what a consensus of Mormon scholars have become willing to admit. For example, I get a kick out of the passage that asks whether young people of today can benefit by modeling their behavior on the young Joseph Smith's example (lesson 3). So maybe today's youth should go out and mingle with all kinds of society, fall into foolish errors, display the weakness of youth, and fall prey to divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. They should take jobs leading treasure quests, get arrested for using a seer stone, and then elope with their girlfriends because their father-in-laws think they are listless drifters.

But I can't see any great change in the character of these manuals. The purpose of Sunday School is much different from CES manuals, because people don't come to church to learn--they come to church to reassert their faith.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Scott Lloyd]

The D&C manual is the one that needs the most work to align it with what a consensus of Mormon scholars have become willing to admit. For example, I get a kick out of the passage that asks whether young people of today can benefit by modeling their behavior on the young Joseph Smith's example (lesson 3). So maybe today's youth should go out and mingle with all kinds of society, fall into foolish errors, display the weakness of youth, and fall prey to divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God.

You neglect to mention here that Joseph assured the reader that he was not guilty of any "great or malignant sins," but rather, engaged in joviality and unseemly associations. I think he sounds a great deal like many of the active and spirited LDS youth of today. Obviously, I don't take the dim view that you do of Joseph's youthful behavior.

We named our eldest son Joseph after Joseph Smith. I would be very pleased and grateful if he, in any way, were to emulate the Prophet's example of overcoming frailties of personal background and human nature, exercising great faith and courage, and earnestly seeking and receiving gifts of the Spirit.

They should take jobs leading treasure quests, get arrested for using a seer stone, ...

The arrest, as I recall the story, was a trumped up charge -- borne of neighborhood ill will and bigotry -- that didn't hold up in a preliminary hearing.

You strike me here as having a presentist mindset: taking Joseph out of his cultural milieu and then judging him. Even today, many people, especially in their youth, get involved in enterprises that are not particularly praiseworthy.

As a modern-day example, I would mention that most multi-level marketing schemes of today seem foolish to me. Yet I don't necessarily hold in contempt people who get involved in them, because many participants are relatively innocent in being misguided.

... and then elope with their girlfriends because their father-in-laws [sic] think they are listless drifters.

As I recall and understand the story, Joseph and Emma were justified in their action and the antagonist father-in-law, driven by his own ignorant prejudice, is the one who was in the wrong.

But maybe you are one who feels all of-age children who marry against the wishes of any of their parents are wrong to do so. My attitude is not that rigid.

But I can't see any great change in the character of these manuals. The purpose of Sunday School is much different from CES manuals, because people don't come to church to learn--they come to church to reassert their faith.

I would phrase it differently: The purpose of Sunday School is to provide a setting where faithful believers can gather and, through intelligent discussion sustained by the Holy Spirit, strengthen the faith of one another.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Deborah]

I would phrase it differently: The purpose of Sunday School is to provide a setting where faithful believers can gather and, through intelligent discussion sustained by the Holy Spirit, strengthen the faith of one another.

This is what the critics who complain we don't teach enough history in church don't get. Sunday services aren't universities but gathering places to strengthen the faith of one another. There are so many other sources for advanced study, including, shockingly, studying and praying on one's own.

[cinepro]

This is what the critics who complain we don't teach enough history in church don't get. Sunday services aren't universities but gathering places to strengthen the faith of one another. There are so many other sources for advanced study, including, shockingly, studying and praying on one's own.

It's my impression that it has always been so. That there was a time when "Sunday School" wasn't viewed solely as a faith-delivery mechanism but also to teach.

As a Sunday School teacher myself, I'm mystified by the idea that we must choose between teaching facts or "strengthening faith". I find there is plenty of time in each class to cover the "who", "what", "when" and "where" of each story we're covering, and then discuss the "why".

If you want an eye-opening (and depressing) experience, try going into any youth Sunday School class and ask the following questions:

What book of scripture are we studying this year?

Draw a timeline from 4,000 B.C to 3,000 AD on the board. Put up a map of the world.

Ask the following questions:

When and where does the Old Testament take place? Who is it about, generally?

When and where does the New Testament take place? Who is it about, generally?

When and where does the Book of Mormon take place? Who is it about, generally?

When and where does the Doctrine and Covenants take place? Who is it about, generally?

What is in the Pearl of Great Price, and where did those books come from?

I've done this a few times over the years in classes of several different age groups when I sub or teach, and the results are always very surprising for how little the students know. Especially for classes that already have a few years of seminary under their belts.

I don't know how we can expect the Church members to understand or care about the scriptures when they know almost nothing about them. The kids tend to have a general familiarity with the basic scripture stories and scripture mastery verses, but they have no idea about the context for who these people were and where they were living, and how their stories fit into the "big picture" of the scriptures.

Here are some things that I've found helpful:

Start every class by reviewing which book of scripture we're studying, where in the world it takes place, and what the time frame is.

Then, review the story that we've covered so far during the year. For example, today we're starting the Book of Jacob, so we'll briefly review Lehi's family leaving Jerusalem in 600 B.C., coming to the new world, splitting into two different groups, Lehi dying, and now Nephi dying. We do this every week, so by the end of the year, we'll be summarizing the entire book, and they'll have heard this summary 48 times!

Obviously Sunday School shouldn't be entirely devoted to scholarly pursuits, but I think we're missing out on an important part of the process, since I don't think people can "love" the scriptures if they don't know or understand them.

Edited April 15, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Another thing I did was on the first day of class this year, I had the kids name as many people from the Book of Mormon as they could. They named 10 people. And that was with me helping them with specific names when they could only describe a person.

At the end of the year, I'll do it again to see how many more they can remember.

I wish I had asked them to name as many people as they could from "Harry Potter" or "Twilight", just to compare.

Edited April 15, 2012 by cinepro