Pete Ahlstrom Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I think Rongo has already addressed my primary concern, specifically the section I've bolded below: So, pretend you are writing the manuals. How would you teach this subject properly? Would it be an outline with a lot of outside reading assignments? Would you only dwell on the side most favorable to the church like has been done forever? Would you even talk about why it started or the politics behind lifting it? Link to comment
Bobbieaware Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 (edited) On 11/19/2017 at 11:04 PM, pogi said: Not necessarily. I think that he was technically right that a revelation was not necessary, but it certainly was helpful to assure the brethren and membership. Wishful thinking. There are two very significant sentences found in the caonoized but very short Official Declaration II that validate the legitimacy of the ban. These two lines clearly connect the reception of the heavenly revelation to end the ban with prophecies made by previous prophets and apostles of the Church who believed in the ban’s divine origin but who also promised it would one day come to an end when God willed it to be so. President Kimball’s meaning is clear and unambiguous and one must perform mental contortions in order to come up with some other explanation as to why the Church leaders in 1978 worded the Declaration the way they did. Either that or one might cynically conclude that President Kimball and the other prophets, seers and revelators of the Church were being disingenuous. Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance. HE HAS HEARD OUR PRAYERS, AND BY REVELATION HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE LONG PROMISED DAY HAS COME when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness. (Official Declaration II) Who confirmed the ban had come to an end? God himself did. The teacher whom Cinepro sites may have had many interesting quotes to discuss, but the only quotes available on this subject that are canonized scripture can only be found in Official Declaration II of the Doctrine and Covenants. Edited November 21, 2017 by Bobbieaware 3 Link to comment
Calm Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 15 hours ago, trim said: I taught lesson 42 (Continuing Revelation) this Sunday as well. To be honest, I shared a great deal more than what was captured in the opening post. The manual opens the opportunity to discuss the process that President Kimball went through before receiving this revelation. Kimball confided to F. Burton Howard that he had been praying about the issue of extending Priesthood to the African lineage for 15 years (that was in 1976). I traced the history of Kimball's association with the developments and attitudes around the Priesthood restriction from the David O. McKay era up through 1978. The spirit was strong as the class came to feel the long and difficult struggle that accompanied the revelation. Understanding the context and history is a powerful way to appreciate the magnitude of the event. I had many class members express gratitude for the insights and discussion that we had. I agree with the many opinions shared here, that adult members crave this knowledge and benefit greatly from lessons that fill our minds as well as our spirits. Well done. Do you plan following it up? 4 Link to comment
stemelbow Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 10 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Wishful thinking. There are two very significant sentences found in the caonoized but very short Official Declaration II that validate the legitimacy of the ban. These two lines clearly connect the reception of the heavenly revelation to end the ban with prophecies made by previous prophets and apostles of the Church who believed in the ban’s divine origin but who also promised it would one day come to an end when God willed it to be so. President Kimball’s meaning is clear and unambiguous and one must perform mental contortions in order to come up with some other explanation as to why the Church leaders in 1978 worded the Declaration the way they did. Either that or one might cynically conclude that President Kimball and the other prophets, seers and revelators of the Church were being disingenuous. Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance. HE HAS HEARD OUR PRAYERS, AND BY REVELATION HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE LONG PROMISED DAY HAS COME when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness. (Official Declaration II) Who confirmed the ban had come to an end? God himself did. The teacher whom Cinepro sites may have had many interesting quotes to discuss, but the only quotes available on this subject that are canonized scripture can only be found in Official Declaration II of the Doctrine and Covenants. OD II is interesting in that it doesn't read as revelation but is an announcement of the revelation with explanation thrown in. Thus, we don't really know what God had said, if anything. or if they just felt good about the change and wrote up an explanation to make the announcement and toss it in the scriptures. It's hard to read too much into it because of that. But then again, it makes ya wonder if all scripture is received similarly. Link to comment
RevTestament Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 20 hours ago, stemelbow said: I didn't say the spirit just confirms what we personally agree with. But it does turn out, oddly enough, that the spirit's workings on man has certainly not proven to be foolproof...and as it turns out, in comparison to God we are all just a bundle of fools. I mentioned the deplorable manuals because often they teach things as true, like in history, but the stories have been shown to be not true. And yet, as it turns out, I'd go ahead and offer a splitting of hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge and a pumpkin for a beetle for anyone who thinks that some Mormon didn't walk away having felt the Spirit when the false stories were told. But as I suggested, and it seems you disagree with, the Spirit is felt by many people in many situations confirming, often, many contradicting "truths". I believe the Spirit can confirm a parable as "true" or a fictional story as true if it teaches a true spiritual principle. I believe that is why many feel the Spirit in other churches - whether they be Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or other. I have felt the spirit present at an SDA retreat/hospital - or at least a serene peacefulness and desire to be there and learn. And I also believe God has used SDA materials to lead me towards the truth - to teach me some true biblical principles. However, at the same time I realized the material had errors. I realize Ellen White was not a prophetess - she incorrectly prophesied the coming of our Savior in 1846 and in 1847, and she plagiarized vast portions of her written materials - even using the writings of others in claiming that an angel has shown me such and such. I have heard the Lord speak to me while studying the Bible in Baptist Sunday School... That doesn't mean their belief about the Godhead is true. In the same way the Spirit guides the members of this Church towards the truth. There is little sense in getting all upset about some point of history interpreted differently by various church leaders. I accept what the Spirit has given me as true and move on. Speaking for myself the Spirit has never guided me on particular facts of LDS history, and there are certainly many places where it doesn't seem to agree. The Spirit confirms true principles and gospel concepts, and true interpretations of scripture. If BY was wrong about the priesthood ban, why get all upset about it? Does that really mean the Church is untrue? Yet, people leave the Church for these historical reasons which just are not that important to me, because I realize the Church is led by imperfect men. There was a lot of pressure put on the Church in his day from the eastern press on this issue lampooning the Church in polygamous mixed marriages. Like it or not most of our membership came from Protestant churches, and they were influenced by this press. The policy may have been for the wrong reasons, but helped the Church grow. It seems most of the membership came from Europe during BY's tenure - why? Did it have to do with the eastern press? The topic was hot and heavy leading up to the civil war, and even thereafter. The polygamy revelation too withered under the pressure of the eastern press and finally legislative pressure. Is that horrible? Does that make the principle of polygamy incorrect? The US threatened to disallow citizenship to those coming to join the LDS Church due to polygamy - under that circumstance is it reasonable for the Lord to temporarily suspend polygamy? Yet, to some it means the Church is untrue, and more left. The Jews had to suspend temple rites while they were in Babylon. It didn't make their temple rites untrue. Only 4 of the 24 courses of priests returned to Jerusalem, and the Jews had to adapt, and divide up the priesthood duties again. Our Church has to adapt too. People get all bent out of shape about Church history questions, apostatize, preach, and the like, and usually these historical points just aren't that important. But still to this day they are where the Church probably has the most trouble gaining US converts. I can understand why - I'm a convert myself, and I wanted everything to be clear, and to have no doubts. But people are messy and history is messy. In the end though the gospel principles are what converted me. Can people find faults in Joseph Smith? Yes. I can find faults in all Protestant leaders as well. Not one was perfect even in gospel teaching. At least there I seem almost to always agree with Joseph Smith. To try to depend on the Spirit for exactly what was said or done say regarding plural wives, is just probably not going to work, and probably should not be expected to. The Holy Spirit seems to be more of a truth confirmer than a history teacher. 1 Link to comment
Oliblish Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: OD II is interesting in that it doesn't read as revelation but is an announcement of the revelation with explanation thrown in. Thus, we don't really know what God had said, if anything. or if they just felt good about the change and wrote up an explanation to make the announcement and toss it in the scriptures. It's hard to read too much into it because of that. But then again, it makes ya wonder if all scripture is received similarly. OD I is similar. Maybe that is why they are called Official Declarations instead of being added as new sections of the D&C. 1 Link to comment
stemelbow Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 50 minutes ago, Oliblish said: OD I is similar. Maybe that is why they are called Official Declarations instead of being added as new sections of the D&C. Good point. But it brings into question some of the content, at least for me, I'm afraid. Link to comment
ttribe Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: I believe the Spirit can confirm a parable as "true" or a fictional story as true if it teaches a true spiritual principle. I believe that is why many feel the Spirit in other churches - whether they be Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or other. I have felt the spirit present at an SDA retreat/hospital - or at least a serene peacefulness and desire to be there and learn. And I also believe God has used SDA materials to lead me towards the truth - to teach me some true biblical principles. However, at the same time I realized the material had errors. I realize Ellen White was not a prophetess - she incorrectly prophesied the coming of our Savior in 1846 and in 1847, and she plagiarized vast portions of her written materials - even using the writings of others in claiming that an angel has shown me such and such. I have heard the Lord speak to me while studying the Bible in Baptist Sunday School... That doesn't mean their belief about the Godhead is true. In the same way the Spirit guides the members of this Church towards the truth. There is little sense in getting all upset about some point of history interpreted differently by various church leaders. I accept what the Spirit has given me as true and move on. Speaking for myself the Spirit has never guided me on particular facts of LDS history, and there are certainly many places where it doesn't seem to agree. The Spirit confirms true principles and gospel concepts, and true interpretations of scripture. If BY was wrong about the priesthood ban, why get all upset about it? Does that really mean the Church is untrue? Yet, people leave the Church for these historical reasons which just are not that important to me, because I realize the Church is led by imperfect men. There was a lot of pressure put on the Church in his day from the eastern press on this issue lampooning the Church in polygamous mixed marriages. Like it or not most of our membership came from Protestant churches, and they were influenced by this press. The policy may have been for the wrong reasons, but helped the Church grow. It seems most of the membership came from Europe during BY's tenure - why? Did it have to do with the eastern press? The topic was hot and heavy leading up to the civil war, and even thereafter. The polygamy revelation too withered under the pressure of the eastern press and finally legislative pressure. Is that horrible? Does that make the principle of polygamy incorrect? The US threatened to disallow citizenship to those coming to join the LDS Church due to polygamy - under that circumstance is it reasonable for the Lord to temporarily suspend polygamy? Yet, to some it means the Church is untrue, and more left. The Jews had to suspend temple rites while they were in Babylon. It didn't make their temple rites untrue. Only 4 of the 24 courses of priests returned to Jerusalem, and the Jews had to adapt, and divide up the priesthood duties again. Our Church has to adapt too. People get all bent out of shape about Church history questions, apostatize, preach, and the like, and usually these historical points just aren't that important. But still to this day they are where the Church probably has the most trouble gaining US converts. I can understand why - I'm a convert myself, and I wanted everything to be clear, and to have no doubts. But people are messy and history is messy. In the end though the gospel principles are what converted me. Can people find faults in Joseph Smith? Yes. I can find faults in all Protestant leaders as well. Not one was perfect even in gospel teaching. At least there I seem almost to always agree with Joseph Smith. To try to depend on the Spirit for exactly what was said or done say regarding plural wives, is just probably not going to work, and probably should not be expected to. The Holy Spirit seems to be more of a truth confirmer than a history teacher. 1 Link to comment
Bobbieaware Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, stemelbow said: OD II is interesting in that it doesn't read as revelation but is an announcement of the revelation with explanation thrown in. Thus, we don't really know what God had said, if anything. or if they just felt good about the change and wrote up an explanation to make the announcement and toss it in the scriptures. It's hard to read too much into it because of that. But then again, it makes ya wonder if all scripture is received similarly. There are contemporary accounts by some of the Church leaders who were there present and engaged in the process that culminated in the publication of Official Declaration II. In those accounts, the leaders involved make it clear the revelation was simultaneously received by all present in the Temple that day, that it was a spiritual experience of such overwhelming power that it was likened to a modern-day day of Pentecost, and that it was, by far, the greatest spiritual experience of all their lives. From Scott Woodward’s website: “After a two-hour discussion (in the Salt Lake City Temple), President Kimball asked the group (the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve there gathered) to unite in formal prayer and modestly suggested that he act as voice. He recalled: I told the Lord if it wasn't right, if He didn't want this change to come in the Church that I would be true to it all the rest of my life, and I'd fight the world ... if that's what He wanted.... I had a great deal to fight, myself largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life till my death and fight for it and defend it as it was. But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it. (Church News , 6 January 1979, p. 4) Elder McConkie further described the occasion: It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. . . . And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord. (McConkie, "The New Revelation on Priesthood," p. 128) Reflecting on this experience, President Spencer W. Kimball and President Ezra Taft Benson and others of the Twelve concurred that none "had ever experienced anything of such spiritual magnitude and power as was poured out upon the Presidency and the Twelve that day in the upper room in the house of the Lord" (ibid.). Edited November 21, 2017 by Bobbieaware 4 Link to comment
Jeanne Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 I believe the teachers who go above and beyond in their time, talents and desire to serve..should be so welcomed. Go that extra mile with info infers that they believe their audience is intelligent and really want to learn something...! What greater gift can you give in a class than to set aside persuasion and discover together new questions..ideas...and the wealth of learning. Everyone remembers a time when they had such a testimony..that they craved knowledge..I did..in a big way. I remember asking my mother in law for all her old RS books so that I could just underline and remember every word! Somehow, over the years..that seems to go away..but only because of the sameness. The same lesson...a new lesson with the same conclusion...and we realize we are so tired ..(not of learning)...but learning as a child. We forget to think unless someone takes us out of the box and gives us a burn. Link to comment
RevTestament Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 11 hours ago, ttribe said: Glad to give you the opportunity to drop this fine little syntax bomb - hopefully, you were able to scratch your itch. 1 Link to comment
Bernard Gui Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) On 11/20/2017 at 7:47 AM, cinepro said: Ahem, she did a good job. As I said, the toughest aspect was that some of the older members of the ward who grew up during that era wanted to contribute the ways in which they had justified the ban, so they helpfully explained that "it was probably better for the blacks not to have the priesthood at the time" or "the Church members weren't ready for it" (the same reasoning we've heard here over the years.) Luckily, a class member towards the end of the lesson read Elder Holland's quote where he said: http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html Speaking of those older members who grew up in that era, I think they should be heard and not dismissed cavalierly. Wisdom comes from experience. They lived through the turmoil preceding the revelation and rejoiced when it was lifted by revelation. Sister Gui and I remember exactly where we were and what we were doing when we heard about it. It was one of the most significant events of our lives. Elder Holland’s quote should be a guide for both the older members and for those who mistakenly think they know better, including Sunday School teachers Quote ....we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place. Edited November 22, 2017 by Bernard Gui 2 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Speaking of those older members who grew up in that era, I think they should be heard and not dismissed cavalierly. Wisdom comes from experience. They lived through the turmoil preceding the revelation and rejoiced when it was lifted by revelation. Sister Gui and I remember exactly where we were and what we were doing when we heard about it. It was one of the most significant events of our lives. Elder Holland’s quote should be a guide for both the older members and for those who mistakenly think they know better, including Sunday School teachers The experience of you and Sister Gui is similar to mine. The events of that day are clearly and forever etched in my memory, as is the context of the times. Elder Holland’s quote is the truth, and it expresses the position of the Church as I understand it. Edited November 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) "Wisdom comes from experience." And for those members who were were black or close friends with black members and nonmembers before and during the aftermath of lifting the ban, I would be very interested in their experiences and insights. For those members who had little direct interaction with blacks in or out of the Church during that time, I don't think just living through that era or even experiencing some of the blowback against the Church for its position automatically qualifies as experience that brings significant insight into the deeper impact of the Ban on those most affected by it. Edited November 22, 2017 by Calm 3 Link to comment
smac97 Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 On 11/20/2017 at 3:02 PM, rongo said: What Reeve didn't address in his essay (he's supposed to be the actual author of the Gospel Topics essay), and which is the 800 pound gorilla in the living room, is: what do we do with prophetic statements when they are later disavowed? I think we'd need to get down to brass tacks. Which statements? Offered where? In what context? When? By whom? To whom? What is the subject matter? Was the statement declared to be specifically revelatory? When was it disavowed? By whom? When? On 11/20/2017 at 3:02 PM, rongo said: To cover the board with cards with quotes pounding away at how wrong past prophetic statements were is one thing (that appeared to be the lesson some are ga-ga over), but then what are the implications of that (both looking back and looking forward and in the present)? We still look at the pre-existence as impacting mortality in positive ways (Abraham 3, foreordination, Alma 13, etc.). What effect does disavowing statements that tie mortality to the pre-existence have on selectively using these scriptures for things that don't involve race? I think there are correct, less correct, and flatly incorrect applications of concepts such as we find in Abraham 3. For example, the "blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence" was, as I see it, not a part of the text per se, but rather an extrapolated application of it. And that extrapolation was presented in lieu of a more basic (and, I think, honest) response to (or rationalizations about) the Priesthood Ban. That said, the Priesthood Ban was, in many ways, a doctrinal outlier. Unlike other controversial or difficult-to-accept topics, like polygamy, the Ban had no revelatory provenance. The members of the Church, including the leaders, were then left to "defend" or explain/rationalize a policy which lacked coherent origins, and which arose in such a way as to make the Ban understandably suspect. Still, it seemed to be "part" of the Gospel, and so was treated as such. Thereafter came ad hoc explanations, including those which were later disavowed. I regret very much these ad hoc explanations. They have caused much offense and injury. I hope those who were/are understandably offended and injured by these disavowed statements can seek to understand the context in which they arose, forgive those at fault, and proceed in their study and application of the Restored Gospel. But again, the Priesthood Ban was a doctrinal outlier. As regarding polygamy, it has a very strong and clear doctrinal/sciptural provenance. D&C 132 is canonized scripture. Jacob 2:30 is likewise canonized. It is quantitatively and qualitatively different from that other bugaboo that continues to haunt the Church: the Priesthood Ban. The Ban lacks any scriptural/revelatory provenance (at least that we know of). But polygamy . . . well, we're stuck with the concept. We own it (as did the Biblical patriarchs before us, but I digress...). As regarding same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior, the Law of Chastity (which restricts sexual conduct to marriage between husband and wife) likewise has a strong and clear doctrinal/sciptural provenance. Same-sex marriage is simply an innovated approach to an old idea. As regarding women being ordained to the priesthood . . . that's a bit less definitive in my book. It (that is, ordaining women to the priesthood) clearly has no doctrinal/sciptural provenance at all. Meanwhile, the limitation of the priesthood to men has . . . some. Gender-based limitations on priesthood ordination generally seem to be presumed rather than explained. Anyhoo, back to "disavowed" teachings. There do not seem to be a lot of instances of such "disavowals." Disavowal of statements which are or reasonably could be construed as "racist" have been. But what else? On 11/20/2017 at 3:02 PM, rongo said: The Reeve-ian / Darius Gray approach also dismisses many other statements out of hand that undercut the argument that this was all Brigham Young's fault (e.g., Zebedee Coltrin, Abraham Smoot, etc.). Shouldn't these statements also be considered and factored in in an ostensible rigorous treatment? I don't understand your point here. Could you elaborate? On 11/20/2017 at 3:02 PM, rongo said: The gospel topics essays are not "shovel ready" for teaching or discussing --- they still have large holes and gaps. The essays are, I think, intended to be introductory and broadly explanatory, not definitive and exhaustive. That being the case, they fulfill their intended role quite well. On 11/20/2017 at 3:02 PM, rongo said: They are a start, and are better than nothing, but it would be even better if we had prophets, seers, and revelators weighing in and sharing their thoughts and insights on these significant issues. I think they are. Perhaps it's more a question of degree of treatment by General Authorities, not presence or lack of treatment. On 11/20/2017 at 3:02 PM, rongo said: They are purposely silent, choosing to let third parties speak anonymously for them, and thus avoid getting dirtied by the fray (and possibly have to be "disavowed" in the future). This seems like a false accusation. The Gospel Topics Essays are explicitly presented as follows (emphasis added): Quote Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties. The essays have been approved by the highest quorums of the Church. They are published by the Church. They are maintained on the Church's website. They are not scribbled-down recollections by Brother So-and-So regarding what he heard his sister say about her discussion with Elder Such-and-Such. On 11/20/2017 at 3:02 PM, rongo said: I've been know for teaching "meaty" lessons when I have been a teacher, but I don't like this lesson as it has been represented. I think it pushed a specific agenda that is by no means settled, and in fact, has significant counterpoints that are purposely not considered. I can appreciate a sincere effort to substantively address this topic, but I am not sure the three-hour block is the best place for it, particularly when accusations about "a specific agenda" can be readily - and plausibly - asserted. Perhaps it would have been better to quote parts of the "Race and the Priesthood" essay, such as: Quote In theology and practice, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the universal human family. Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings affirm that God loves all of His children and makes salvation available to all. God created the many diverse races and ethnicities and esteems them all equally. As the Book of Mormon puts it, “all are alike unto God.” The structure and organization of the Church encourage racial integration. Latter-day Saints attend Church services according to the geographical boundaries of their local ward, or congregation. By definition, this means that the racial, economic, and demographic composition of Mormon congregations generally mirrors that of the wider local community. ... Despite this modern reality, for much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances. The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion. Many Christian churches of that era, for instance, were segregated along racial lines. From the beginnings of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity could be baptized and received as members. Toward the end of his life, Church founder Joseph Smith openly opposed slavery. There has never been a Churchwide policy of segregated congregations. ... In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members. The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.10 According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. ... The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings. ... Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. I think this would have alleviated concerns about "agendas" being pushed during Gospel Doctrine. Thanks, -Smac 2 Link to comment
ttribe Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 10 hours ago, RevTestament said: Glad to give you the opportunity to drop this fine little syntax bomb - hopefully, you were able to scratch your itch. Oh, lighten up. It was meant to elicit a chuckle. Being grimly humorless is not a requirement for the job of LDS defender. Link to comment
ttribe Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 4 hours ago, smac97 said: Perhaps it would have been better to quote parts of the "Race and the Priesthood" essay, such as: I think this would have alleviated concerns about "agendas" being pushed during Gospel Doctrine. Thanks, -Smac Did you see anything in the original post that wasn't true? Is speaking the truth about an event now an "agenda"? That seems to be such a bizarre criticism. 1 Link to comment
carbon dioxide Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 On 11/20/2017 at 9:59 AM, ksfisher said: According to the church these are the two purposes of Sunday School 1. Strengthen individuals’ and families’ faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ through teaching, learning, and fellowshipping. 2. Help Church members “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77) at church and at home. https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/sunday-school?lang=eng I would ask if a lesson such as this would accomplish those goals. Was faith increased? Was "the doctrine of the kingdom" taught. If not then the Sunday School hour just turns into a history lesson (at best). It depends on the the class. If it was an issue those in the class wanted to cover, then it was a successful lesson. If not then it was not. The priesthood ban was a practice or doctrine of the Church at one time. It is not anymore but explaining the issue can increase faith by answering questions or concerns a member might have but rarely ever get answered but these issues are almost never discussed in any meeting. How are members are supposed to teach the kids at home if if the kids have questions regarding issues they hear about? One can't teach something they don't know and telling people "not to worry about it" rarely ever results in people not worrying about it. Link to comment
smac97 Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 16 minutes ago, ttribe said: Did you see anything in the original post that wasn't true? Is speaking the truth about an event now an "agenda"? That seems to be such a bizarre criticism. I can't speak to that. I was not present at the lesson. I did not mean to assert that an agenda was being pushed, and I apologize for that misunderstanding. What I meant to communicate was that quoting from the essay would have alleviated concerns about "agendas" being pushed, whether those concerns were well-founded or not. I'm generally not a big fan of attempting complex and substantive discussion of difficult/sensitive topics during the three-hour block. There's just not enough time to give these topics the attention they deserve. And not everyone is prepared to meaningfully participate in these efforts. So touching on and generally acknowledging difficult/sensitive topics during the three-hour block has some merit, but it is limited. I think substantive discussion should be at the individual / family / trusted friend(s) / priesthood leader level. Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
smac97 Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 On 11/20/2017 at 9:59 AM, ksfisher said: According to the church these are the two purposes of Sunday School 1. Strengthen individuals’ and families’ faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ through teaching, learning, and fellowshipping. 2. Help Church members “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77) at church and at home. https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/sunday-school?lang=eng I would ask if a lesson such as this would accomplish those goals. Was faith increased? Was "the doctrine of the kingdom" taught. If not then the Sunday School hour just turns into a history lesson (at best). Well said! During the three-hour block the members are a "captive audience." I think teachers need to take care not to use that precious and limited time to expound upon "Gospel Hobby Horse"-type or difficult/sensitive topics that the teacher is personally interested in exploring. The three-hour block is the Church's time, which the Church delegates to teachers with the understanding that they will use it appropriately. Thanks, -Smac 1 Link to comment
Pete Ahlstrom Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well said! During the three-hour block the members are a "captive audience." I think teachers need to take care not to use that precious and limited time to expound upon "Gospel Hobby Horse"-type or difficult/sensitive topics that the teacher is personally interested in exploring. The three-hour block is the Church's time, which the Church delegates to teachers with the understanding that they will use it appropriately. Thanks, -Smac Do you think it is ok to exaggerate the past or leave out troubling aspects of leaders' lives (like leaving out polygamy in the BY manual) in order to have a faith promoting lesson? Isn't that promoting faith based on misleading facts? Is there a problem with this? Link to comment
carbon dioxide Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 On 11/20/2017 at 6:01 PM, JLHPROF said: I personally think the Church should provide forums for teaching things like this in detail over a reasonable amount of time. I do think the Church needs to teach its doctrine and history much more thoroughly than it does to its average members. Not sure this was the best attempt or time to do it. There is time if one is not in a hurry to do things. One of the things I have not liked about Sunday School is that everything is on a schedule. We rush through entire books in the scriptures just to keep up with the schedule. So the members get a lot of lessons but how much do they learn or retain from the lessons? Lots of good subjects are just skipped simply to make sure one stays up with the teaching schedule. Perhaps a better method would be to spend two or three weeks on a single subject. The members can think about the lesson, think of questions and come back and ask them since the lesson has not moved on to a new subject but may be still on the same subject. 1 Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: There is time if one is not in a hurry to do things. One of the things I have not liked about Sunday School is that everything is on a schedule. We rush through entire books in the scriptures just to keep up with the schedule. So the members get a lot of lessons but how much do they learn or retain from the lessons? Lots of good subjects are just skipped simply to make sure one stays up with the teaching schedule. Perhaps a better method would be to spend two or three weeks on a single subject. The members can think about the lesson, think of questions and come back and ask them since the lesson has not moved on to a new subject but may be still on the same subject. I'd be in favor of eliminating the manuals altogether, and expanding the study of any particular series to more than one year. Spend 2-3 years going through the D&C. That way some sections can be combined/or glossed over a bit, and those with deeper doctrine can take a few weeks. Don't study the teachings of the prophets in sound bites used to emphasize a Church teaching, but actually read their sermons and discourses in context and discuss. Oh, what I wouldn't give for a school of the prophets like they had in Brigham Young and John Taylor's day. Edited November 22, 2017 by JLHPROF 1 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 21 hours ago, Jeanne said: I believe the teachers who go above and beyond in their time, talents and desire to serve..should be so welcomed. Go that extra mile with info infers that they believe their audience is intelligent and really want to learn something...! What greater gift can you give in a class than to set aside persuasion and discover together new questions..ideas...and the wealth of learning. Everyone remembers a time when they had such a testimony..that they craved knowledge..I did..in a big way. I remember asking my mother in law for all her old RS books so that I could just underline and remember every word! Somehow, over the years..that seems to go away..but only because of the sameness. The same lesson...a new lesson with the same conclusion...and we realize we are so tired ..(not of learning)...but learning as a child. We forget to think unless someone takes us out of the box and gives us a burn. Again, you were a much better Mormon than I Jeanne! I never craved knowledge quite that much. I can't imagine the pain you had when you decided to leave Mormonism. I listened to part 1 of this podcast on Mormon Matters where they discuss a book called "Falling Upward", a spirituality for the two halves of life. It talks about learning as a child and learning as an adult. I might have to get the kindle version. And it talks about the burns in life help us grow and think. Here's the link if anyone is interested. http://www.mormonmatters.org/2017/11/07/424-426-celebrating-the-different-spiritualities-in-the-two-halves-of-life/ Link to comment
Tacenda Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I'd be in favor of eliminating the manuals altogether, and expanding the study of any particular series to more than one year. Spend 2-3 years going through the D&C. That way some sections can be combined/or glossed over a bit, and those with deeper doctrine can take a few weeks. Don't study the teachings of the prophet's in sound bites used to emphasize a Church teaching, but actually read their sermons and discourses in context and discuss. Oh, what I wouldn't give for a school of the prophets like they had in Brigham Young and John Taylor's day. This would be especially helpful in studying the bible too!! Link to comment
Recommended Posts