"Priesthood Ban" in Gospel Doctrine - What Happens When a PhD Historian Teaches...

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What do you disagree with or believe that she got wrong?  Can you be more specific?

It seems members here blame those members who do not know true history and yet when a teacher makes an effort to teach more in depth, they are criticized.  

So please tell us what you are not impressed with regarding the lesson....

It's a vicious circle, and the reason that whitewashed church history stays that way.

[The Nehor]

Just now, ALarson said:

Ok.  What did she get wrong?

Nothing that I can see. I have seen lessons with this kind of info and presentation taught by the Spirit and people learn a lot and are edified. I have also seen lessons like this that are spiritually dead and engender more confusion than understanding.

I have no idea which this was.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, 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

 

 

Awesome.  Did if feel like the spirit was there?  (I only ask because some people seem to feel that you can't have these kinds of discussions and have the spirit present so i'm wondering if that worked out for your class).

[ttribe]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What do you disagree with or believe that she got wrong?  Can you be more specific?

It seems members here blame those members who do not know true history and yet when a teacher makes an effort to teach more in depth, they are criticized.  

So please tell us what you are not impressed with regarding the lesson....

 

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  What did she get wrong?

Because it's correlated, or nothing. Duh?  [/sarcasm]

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What do you disagree with or believe that she got wrong?  Can you be more specific?

It seems members here blame those members who do not know true history and yet when a teacher makes an effort to teach more in depth, they are criticized.  

So please tell us what you are not impressed with regarding the lesson....

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).

 

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, cacheman said:

Did he provide a reference for the 1847 Brigham Young claim that skin color did not matter for priesthood ordination?  Maybe somebody else here knows and could share that.  Thanks!

Here is the source:

"BY: It's nothing to do with the blood, for of one blood has God made all flesh. We have to repent and regain what we have lost. We have one of the best Elders an African in Lowell, a barber" (punctuation added).

 — Brigham Young, Historian's Office General Church Minutes, March 26, 1847, Church History Library, CR 100 318, box 0001, folder 0052, image 28.

Brigham Young said this to reassure a mixed-race member, William McCary, who had asked: "We were all white once. Why have I the stain now?" They weren't discussing priesthood ordination specifically, but Young's response seems to indicate that he didn't (yet) view African ancestry as an impediment to receiving the priesthood.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Nevo

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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).

 

This is a question that needs to be asked about every Sunday school lesson though.  

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is a question that needs to be asked about every Sunday school lesson though.  

It is.

[nuclearfuels]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

When that happens presumably ressurrected beings will finally feel comfortable

logging on to this board.

 As usual, my hope aligns with yours.

And I must ask- is the hellish, slithering, mutatious...thing you'd liek to twist God's work into Cthulu--esque? 

That would be beyond awesome, if it was.

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, 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).

 

True.  But events from church history are used regularly to teach Sunday School.  Are you ok with them being taught in an inaccurate manner (such as with the milk strippings story told over and over again) or is it better to teach accurate church history?  Can't that be faith promoting as well?

I feel that members are starved for lessons such as the one described in the OP.  I'd like to hear cinepro's opinion on whether or not it was faith increasing....

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

True.  But events from church history are used regularly to teach Sunday School.  Are you ok with them being taught in an inaccurate manner (such as with the milk strippings story told over and over again) or is it better to teach accurate church history?  Can't that be faith promoting as well?

I feel that members are starved for lessons such as the one described in the OP.  I'd like to hear cinepro's opinion on whether or not it was faith increasing....

History is a basis for many church lessons.  It should, however, not be the focus.  And yes, I do think that when history is being taught that it should be as accurate as possible.  But if obtaining that accuracy overshadows other aspects of the lesson then I think we have lost focus.

The stated purpose of the lesson in question was "To show class members that the Lord continues to guide the church through revelation to latter-day prophets, seers, and revelators."  (I'm assuming it was gospel doctrine lesson 42 being taught.)  While some background into the priesthood ban would be helpful, if that history becomes the dominant feature of the lesson then focus on the purpose of the lesson has been lost.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

History is a basis for many church lessons.  It should, however, not be the focus.  And yes, I do think that when history is being taught that it should be as accurate as possible.  But if obtaining that accuracy overshadows other aspects of the lesson then I think we have lost focus.

The stated purpose of the lesson in question was "To show class members that the Lord continues to guide the church through revelation to latter-day prophets, seers, and revelators."  (I'm assuming it was gospel doctrine lesson 42 being taught.)  While some background into the priesthood ban would be helpful, if that history becomes the dominant feature of the lesson then focus on the purpose of the lesson has been lost.

In your opinion. Given you don't know the circumstances or the specifics of the class, I can't imagine how you can make a blanket statement.

[jkwilliams]

49 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's a vicious circle, and the reason that whitewashed church history stays that way.

The people who think this type of discussion is inappropriate for a lesson at church are often the same people who say that any members surprised or shocked by church history are "lazy and intransigent" because they should have dug deeper into church history and doctrine. So, the standard is, "Study on your own so you won't be surprised by anything, but don't do it at church!"

 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

The people who think this type of discussion is inappropriate for a lesson at church are often the same people who say that any members surprised or shocked by church history are "lazy and intransigent" because they should have dug deeper into church history and doctrine. So, the standard is, "Study on your own so you won't be surprised by anything, but don't do it at church!"

 

Hey, don’t judge me for always finding a way to condescendingly dismiss or disapprove of others no matter what the situation. It is my personal spiritual gift and  by divine command cannot hide my light under a bushel.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

History is a basis for many church lessons.  It should, however, not be the focus.  And yes, I do think that when history is being taught that it should be as accurate as possible.  But if obtaining that accuracy overshadows other aspects of the lesson then I think we have lost focus.

The stated purpose of the lesson in question was "To show class members that the Lord continues to guide the church through revelation to latter-day prophets, seers, and revelators."  (I'm assuming it was gospel doctrine lesson 42 being taught.)  While some background into the priesthood ban would be helpful, if that history becomes the dominant feature of the lesson then focus on the purpose of the lesson has been lost.

We have been instructed to begin teaching about and using the material in the essays.  That will be difficult to do without discussing church history.  What part would you have left out of the lesson in the OP?  

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

In your opinion. Given you don't know the circumstances or the specifics of the class, I can't imagine how you can make a blanket statement.

I said "if."  As I don't know the specifics of that particular class I was speaking in general terms. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

In your opinion. Given you don't know the circumstances or the specifics of the class, I can't imagine how you can make a blanket statement.

Within a 40 minute class period if the white board and surrounding wall space is plastered with text posters on what amounts to about 20 percent of the lesson's content, it's a reasonable conclusion.

 

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We have been instructed to begin teaching about and using the material in the essays.  That will be difficult to do without discussing church history.  What part would you have left out of the lesson in the OP?  

As I wasn't there I can make no judgement as to what was or what wasn't appropriate for that particular lesson in that particular class.  In general though,  I have seen teachers re-purpose lessons to teach what they want to teach.  We are all probably guilty of this to a greater or lessor extent in lessons we've taught in the past.  But when we do that we run the risk of loosing focus on what should be taught. 

As I said earlier, if faith was not increased and the doctrine of the kingdom was not taught then the lesson did not fulfill it's purpose.

[Gray]

Just now, ksfisher said:

As I wasn't there I can make no judgement as to what was or what wasn't appropriate for that particular lesson in that particular class.  In general though,  I have seen teachers re-purpose lessons to teach what they want to teach.  We are all probably guilty of this to a greater or lessor extent in lessons we've taught in the past.  But when we do that we run the risk of loosing focus on what should be taught. 

As I said earlier, if faith was not increased and the doctrine of the kingdom was not taught then the lesson did not fulfill it's purpose.

If the instructor dispelled false notions about about the priesthood ban, the lesson fulfilled its purpose.

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I said "if."  As I don't know the specifics of that particular class I was speaking in general terms. 

I thought you said "if" about being the dominant part of the discussion.  Your if-then was the blanket I objected to.

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Within a 40 minute class period if the white board and surrounding wall space is plastered with text posters on what amounts to about 20 percent of the lesson's content, it's a reasonable conclusion.

 

In your opinion.

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We have been instructed to begin teaching about and using the material in the essays.  That will be difficult to do without discussing church history.  What part would you have left out of the lesson in the OP?  

It appears, from the pictures, that a little more than material from the essays was used.

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

If the instructor dispelled false notions about about the priesthood ban, the lesson fulfilled its purpose.

The purpose of the lesson was not to dispel false notions.  The stated purpose was " To show class members that the Lord continues to guide the Church through revelation to latter-day prophets, seers, and revelators." 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-42-continuing-revelation-to-latter-day-prophets?lang=eng

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

In your opinion.

Um, isn't "a reasonable conclusion" by definition an opinion?

And not all opinions are created equal.

[thesometimesaint]

49 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

I feel that members are starved for lessons such as the one described in the OP.  I'd like to hear cinepro's opinion on whether or not it was faith increasing....

Those are not mutually exclusive goals.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, 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's a fair point (and when I teach, I'm always very aware of those goals.)  I certainly don't think we need 48 lessons each year that go into this kind of depth.

But maybe it's not a bad thing to cover this specific subject with a little more rigor once every four years in the class about "Church History".  In the past, it may have been well and good to give the Hallmark-card version of this lesson, but based on the comments from different class members, this is a subject that continues to be brought up by non-LDS in conversations about the Church, and it might not be a bad thing for LDS to be prepared with the best information.