Priesthood Manual 2008 Joseph Smith

[maklelan]

I did not know the manual carried the title "All the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" or anything like it. This one is by far the thickest one the Church has produced yet but it would be thicker if we included everything--that is, if we had everything. Then, the historical summary would no longer be as short a summary, would it? Here is the stated purpose of the manual--from the manual:

Here is a quote from page 22 on the subject of plural marriage:

Nothing there looking whitewashed to me. It's just not relevant to us today per the intent of the manual.

I guess I was right on, and I haven't seen the manual yet. The reference will give an opportunity for discussion, but the manual will remain focused on contemporary issues.

[Thinking]

I did not know the manual carried the title "All the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" or anything like it. This one is by far the thickest one the Church has produced yet but it would be thicker if we included everything--that is, if we had everything. Then, the historical summary would no longer be as short a summary, would it? Here is the stated purpose of the manual--from the manual:

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet's teachings regarding the subject of the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. ... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.

Here is a quote from page 22 on the subject of plural marriage:

In 1841 the first sealings of couples were performed, and in 1843 the Prophet dictated the revelation that describes the eternal nature of the marriage covenant (see D&C 132). The doctrines in this revelation had been known to the Prophet since 1831. As commanded by God, he also taught the doctrine of plural marriage.

Nothing there looking whitewashed to me. It's just not relevant to us today per the intent of the manual.

I'm actually going to have to agree that the introduction handles the polygamy issue pretty well. Valid reasons for the omission were given while at the same time the doctrine is not hidden.

[wenglund]

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...contentLocale=0

I have just skimmed through the priesthood manual for 2008. I read the section on JS's ministry. I found that much was left out, ie: polygamy etc. Do you think that such omissions give the antis dry wood to burn? In my opinion it would have been wonderful to see a much more open manual.

Problem: should members who know more about the history of JS keep quiet when details left out of the manual are noticed by those members in priesthood meeting?

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 individual lessons, before judging whether certain content should have been included or not?

For example, should discussion rage over whether to include such scientific history as the beliefs in a geo-centric universe or spontaneous generation, in a text book on the basic of Einstein's theory of relativity?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[smac97]

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...contentLocale=0

I have just skimmed through the priesthood manual for 2008. I read the section on JS's ministry. I found that much was left out, ie: polygamy etc. Do you think that such omissions give the antis dry wood to burn?

Our critics will find fault with us regardless of what we do or don't do.

That's the pernicious nature of fault-finding: You'll always be successful at it.

In my opinion it would have been wonderful to see a much more open manual.

"Open" meaning what? A lesson about a practice we ceased 100+ years ago?

Are Jews faulted for not teaching in 2007 about Korbanot (animal sacrifices)?

Are non-LDS Christians faulted for not emphasizing the the practice of animal sacrifice in their sunday school lessons?

Are non-LDS Christians faulted for not discussing the practice of vicarious baptism in their sunday school lessons?

Are non-LDS Christians faulted for not discussing ancient Christian temple worship in their sunday school lessons?

No, no and no.

Why? Because non-LDS Christians believe that these practices, although once valid (and even commanded by God), are not to be practiced today. Consequently, the emphasis in sunday school lessons should be on the Gospel as it applies to contemporary believers.

That does not preclude contemporary believers from researching such things, but it seems unreasonable to demand that these practices of the past be emphasized now.

Problem: should members who know more about the history of JS keep quiet when details left out of the manual are noticed by those members in priesthood meeting?

Members of any persuasion should not try to hijack a priesthood meeting to discuss their own personal hobby horse topic.

If, say, polygamy is reasonably relevant to the lessons, then it can certainly be raised. Otherwise, there seems no legitimate reason to bring it (or any other sensitive topic) up.

-Smac

[MormonMason]

I guess I was right on, and I haven't seen the manual yet. The reference will give an opportunity for discussion, but the manual will remain focused on contemporary issues.

Yes, I would say so. I picked up my copy of the manual weeks ago. Ward Units should be receiving their copies shortly, if some of them have not yet already received them in preparation for this year's curriculum.

It is expected that Priesthood Quorum leaders or quorum instructors will use the material from this manual for their lessons rather than their own materials to teach lessons wholly other than those intended should be taught. It takes a lot of effort and time to put something together like this, particularly when using previously unpublished sources as this manual does. The least members of the Church could and should do is actually to use these materials for the lessons intended. I sat in quorum meetings in my own Ward and noted that the manual was used a total of less than ten times or so during this year alone. This is just not right. Well, I am ranting now so will close here.

[why me]

Hey why me--

I hope you'll forgive a dumb question from a never-Mo.

I assume that the Priesthood Manual is for, well, LDS priesthood holders.

But, what is the context in which it is used for instruction? When does it get taught? (During priesthood meetings on Sundays?)

Is it like a "Sunday School" manual for LDS priesthood holders?

Best.

CKS

Your question was answered. However, although it is taught in priesthood it is also taught in Relief Society for the women of the church. The manual is certainly interesting. If there is a lds church near you, you will be able to pick up a copy for free some time in the near future.

[smac97]

Is it like a "Sunday School" manual for LDS priesthood holders?

As I understand it, these manuals are used in A) Elders' Quorum lessons; B) High Priests' Group lessons; and C) Relief Society lessons.

My wife and I have always had two copies of the manual (one for her, one for me). We frequently exchange thoughts on how the material in the manual was treated in our respective lessons.

-Smac

[solomarineris]

We go to Church to learn of Christ, His teachings and ministry. Joseph Smith's role in that part is essential, but what Joseph did outside it is not of our concern.

Then why publish a presthoo manual about him?

[why me]

Our critics will find fault with us regardless of what we do or don't do.

That's the pernicious nature of fault-finding: You'll always be successful at it.

"Open" meaning what? A lesson about a practice we ceased 100+ years ago?

Are Jews faulted for not teaching in 2007 about Korbanot (animal sacrifices)?

Are non-LDS Christians faulted for not emphasizing the biblical practice of animal sacrifice in their sunday school lessons?

Are non-LDS Christians faulted for not discussing vicarious baptism in their sunday school lessons?

Are non-LDS Christians faulted for not discussing Christian temple worship in their sunday school lessons?

Why? Because non-LDS Christians believe that these practices, although once valid (and even commanded by God), are not to be practiced today. Consequently, the emphasis in sunday school lessons should be on the Gospel as it applies to contemporary believers.

That does not preclude contemporary believers from researching such things, but it seems unreasonable to demand that these practices of the past be emphasized now.

If, say, polygamy is reasonably relevant to the lessons, then it can certainly be raised. Otherwise, there seems no legitimate reason to bring it (or any other sensitive topic) up.

-Smac

The problem is simple: the manual does have history inside it. It is not just a religious manual. It is also a historical manual. The whole JS story is historical and parts of it are in the manual. And this is the problem. I think that the manual should have given some carrots as to history. If one reads the martyrdom of JS in the manual, both you and I know that somethings have been left out. Why? I have no idea. But certainlyJS defending himself would have been helpful in putting the situation in context. History can not be hidden but it can be discussed. However, I only skimmed through it and perhaps I have missed something. But certainly historical facts are important when discussing parts of JS's history.

[cinepro]

I agree with Pa Pa. The anti's aren't interested in perfecting the Saints, which is the purpose of the R.S. and Melchizedek priesthood. They want to tear the Church down. They can take their criticisms and . . . . .

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 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? If it makes us less perfect to read biographies that discuss controversial issues, then shouldn't books like that be shunned? If it makes us more perfect, then it would seem such knowledge might be an appropriate part of a Church lesson.

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).

[why me]

If, say, polygamy is reasonably relevant to the lessons, then it can certainly be raised. Otherwise, there seems no legitimate reason to bring it (or any other sensitive topic) up.

-Smac

Since some things are not in the manual it is very difficult to bring it up. For example, there is a part where the JS story is related in terms of Carthage Jail. To my understanding, polygamy did play a role in the persecution of the saints. How to bring such a thing up in priesthood when it is not in the manual?

Also, the manual does contain the notion that the saints were not perfect at that time and were admonished by god. That is a good point. But when discussing history such as the persecution, how to bring up the Expositer newspaper if it is not in the manual?

[why me]

I'm actually going to have to agree that the introduction handles the polygamy issue pretty well. Valid reasons for the omission were given while at the same time the doctrine is not hidden.

I missed page 22. What section of the manual is that in?

[maxrep12]

If, say, polygamy is reasonably relevant to the lessons, then it can certainly be raised. Otherwise, there seems no legitimate reason to bring it (or any other sensitive topic) up.

-Smac

In which lessons then, should we discuss polygamy? Should we just wait for the media to bring it up?

[cksalmon]

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

[selek]

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

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

[why me]

I have the read the bottom of the introduction and it does mention polygamy. I read the Life and Ministry section (not very well in the computer) and skimmed through the other sections and saw no mention of polygamy in JS's life ministry. I think that it is wonderful that it is in the introduction since the antis are already commenting on how polygamy has been omitted on their boards. This may put a dent in their sails.

However, I do not know how many people will read the introduction but since it is in the introduction I see no reason not to bring up the issue as the manual lessons progress if someone thinks that it may be relevant.

I will take my hat off to the writers of the manual for putting something in the introduction.

[MormonMason]

I missed page 22. What section of the manual is that in?

The Life and Ministry of Joseph Smith, just after the historical summary.

[juliann]

Sure polygamy is a contemporary issue. D&C 132 is in our scripture, the doctrine of eternal marriage is rooted in polygamy and men can still be sealed plurally in the temple in certain situations.

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.

[smac97]

The problem is simple: the manual does have history inside it.

So a manual must have either all historical information about Joseph Smith or none at all?

Where do you come up with that?

It is not just a religious manual.

Yes, it is just a religious manual. It's a religious manual for a religious class.

It is also a historical manual.

No, it's not. It is not intended to teach history. It is not intended to be used in a history class.

The whole JS story is historical and parts of it are in the manual.

Exactly. Parts of it are in the manual.

What parts? That parts that are relevant to the purpose of the manual, which is to teach religious principles.

And this is the problem. I think that the manual should have given some carrots as to history.

It does. MormonMason Pointed out two excerpts from the book:

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet's teachings regarding the subject of the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. ... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, xii, bold emphasis mine)

And here (quoting page 22 of the manual):

In 1841 the first sealings of couples were performed, and in 1843 the Prophet dictated the revelation that describes the eternal nature of the marriage covenant (see D&C 132). The doctrines in this revelation had been known to the Prophet since 1831. As commanded by God, he also taught the doctrine of plural marriage.

So the answer is spelled out, plain as day. But now you'll come up with the inevitable rejoinder: "But that's just not enough! The manual should include more. The manual should include [iNSERT FAVORITE HOBBY HORSE ABOUT POLYGAMY HERE]..."

As I said in one of my previous posts, our critics will find fault with us regardless of what we do or don't do. That's the pernicious nature of fault-finding: You'll always be successful at it.

If one reads the martyrdom of JS in the manual, both you and I know that somethings have been left out. Why? I have no idea.

Really? You have no idea whatsoever?

You've been given the answer already: The manual is not a historical textbook. It is intended to teach religious principles relevant to us in our day. As such, it incorporates historical information to the extent that information is useful in teaching religious principles relevant to us in our day. Otherwise, individual members can study history to their heart's content.

Somehow, you seem to think that LDS are forbidden or discouraged from reading anything other than this manual. That is, frankly, an absurd implication.

But certainly JS defending himself would have been helpful in putting the situation in context.

You can say that about anything. Of course it could be helpful. Lots of helpful things are omitted from the manual. There just isn't room enough to include them all.

You, of course, feel that your hobby horse topic is absolutely essential to any discussion of Joseph Smith. Well, reasonable minds can disagree about that, wouldn't you say?

History can not be hidden but it can be discussed.

Yes, it can be. But that's a judgment call.

Unfortunately, our critics are loathe to admit that. They are also loathe to admit that Latter-day Saints can make principled, reasoned decisions about what sort of issues to talk about in religious manuals.

They are fault-finders. They will damn us regardless of what we do or how we do it.

However, I only skimmed through it and perhaps I have missed something. But certainly historical facts are important when discussing parts of JS's history.

Certainly. But the only issue here is that critics are griping because their pet peeve isn't sufficiently discussed in an LDS religion manual.

It boggles the mind that they are pre-occupied with such things, but there you are.

Meanwhile, you glossed over my questions. Here they are again (slightly revised for your convenience):

Do you fault Jews for not teaching in 2007 about Korbanot (animal sacrifices)?

Do you fault non-LDS Christians for not emphasizing the biblical practice of animal sacrifice in their sunday school lessons?

Do you fault non-LDS Christians for not discussing vicarious baptism in their sunday school lessons?

Do you fault non-LDS Christians for not discussing Christian temple worship in their sunday school lessons?

-Smac

[juliann]

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

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

[why me]

So a manual must have either all historical information about Joseph Smith or none at all?

Where do you come up with that?

-Smac

Actually smac, I made a small blunder. I missed the polygamy thing in the introduction and in the life and ministry section. Here is what happened and I believe that there is a lesson in what I am about to write. I was on a exer board and a thread mentioned how the manual omits polygamy. I then went to the manual and did a skim through and a read of the life and ministry section. I missed it.

Lesson: Do not trust anything that the antis may post and read carefully.

[juliann]

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet's teachings regarding the subject of the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. ... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, xii, bold emphasis mine)

In 1841 the first sealings of couples were performed, and in 1843 the Prophet dictated the revelation that describes the eternal nature of the marriage covenant (see D&C 132). The doctrines in this revelation had been known to the Prophet since 1831. As commanded by God, he also taught the doctrine of plural marriage.

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.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I think that it is a fine line that the lds church walks in this case. I agree with the two lds posters. However, in this day and age, it might have been wise to mention something here and there. Now the kirkland bank failure is mentioned. That's good. It is mentioned in the apostacy chapter. But perhaps a little more information about other controversial items from an historical perspective could have been good to read in the manual.

I have taught Sunday School (Gospel Doctrine) for 20 years on and off (been in the Church 28). Every time the course of study was D&C and we came to 132 we never ducked anything concerning polygamy. Now if the Church takes D&C 132 out of D&C?????

Pa Pa

[captain-jack]

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.

Why, without you, Ms. Juliann dear, they'd have nothing to do.

[why me]

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