Priesthood Manual 2008 Joseph Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

You got me! It just so happens that all of the above mentioned authors works reside in my ward library, and are consistently used as resources for lessons, talks, etc.

"Graduate Seminars", indeed..... a little over the top there. Funny how the mention of teaching church history has the apologists comparing that task to setting up the school of the prophets in every ward.

Must be a drag to live someplace where the only repository of knowledge one can access is the ward library.

Here's hoping Internet service comes to your area one day.

[juliann]

I believe the Church teaches that a local ward member should seek answers to her questions from her Bishop, and when a members skips the Bishop, I think the practice has been to respond by sending a letter to the Bishop to counsel the member. So, apparently, as far as Silver Dragonfly is concerned, her Bishop is the "Church" for purposes of her questions, no?

Nice try but unfortunately, I never said to skip the bishop. I said to inform him that reporters are sometimes referred to FAIR material as well as other outside sources by "the church". And as far as a member being told to get historical information exclusively from a bishop....CFR.

And you can try to make church members look as ill-informed as your heart desires...but any church member who has not even read church scripture is not considered well informed even by "run of the mill" members.

[mms]

Nice try but unfortunately, I never said to skip the bishop. I said to inform him that reporters are sometimes referred to FAIR material as well as other outside sources by "the church". And as far as a member being told to get historical information exclusively from a bishop....CFR.

And you can try to make church members look as ill-informed as your heart desires...but any church member who has not even read church scripture is not considered well informed even by "run of the mill" members.

You have sidestepped my question and are now arguing with an argument you have created, not one I have made.

To whom are members counseled to address their questions regarding the Church's position on matters? Exactly. Their Bishop. And when they take their Bishop's response as the Church's position, people like you call them "absurd." Nice.

[wenglund]

Not sure wade. What do you think? I know you want to do good and right things. I think maybe a special church history course or maybe an institute course like we have for YSAs but for adults that they could come to on a week night. Advanced Church History. I think Bushmans book would be a great text. A faithful active LDS who has dealt with tough issues and wrote about them and is still faithful.

I don't know that I differ much from your well-intended suggestions. However, I prefer that the non-salvific aspects of history (including the "troublesome" aspects) be addressed in official/unofficial Church history books similar to Bushmans, and perhaps in institute classes, and web sites such as FAIR and FARMS. That way, the objective of "innoculation" may be handled in a venue less focused on salvation, and which lend themselves better to some measure of apologetics. However, this will not eliminate certain members at some point learning things that may try their faith, and being suprised by the information, and perhaps then holding the Church responsible for not telling them sooner--though I am not sure this could be avoided any way it may be handled, unless avoiding faith-challenging "surprises" becomes the primary objective of the Church (which I don't think is practical or wise).

What do others think? Would you be satisfied if the Church published the "troublesome history" in the venues I suggested? If not, where would you advise it be addressed, and what is your reasoning for wanting it addressed there? And, what do you suppose will be accomplished in so doing?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the PA dept, in the recent online news conference, in response to a question regarding who may speak authoritatively for the Church, referred the media to local Bishops and Stake President's for local matters. I believe the Church teaches that a local ward member should seek answers to her questions from her Bishop, and when a members skips the Bishop, I think the practice has been to respond by sending a letter to the Bishop to counsel the member. So, apparently, as far as Silver Dragonfly is concerned, her Bishop is the "Church" for purposes of her questions, no?

But the counsel given by a bishop may be specific to an individual, in which case it should not be construed as applying to the Church generally.

QUOTE(juliann @ Oct 8 2007, 04:02 PM) *

Anyone who is unaware of LDS scripture is not "run of the mill".

I would not be so sure.

Church members are expected to read the scriptures, not just once but throughout their lives.

We are in sad shape indeed if those who ignore this teaching are run-of-the-mill.

[juliann]

I am not attempting to make my Bishop's reaction a reflection of the Church's position. I believe that he has tried to answer my questions with whatever knowledge and insight that he has. I am not feeling satisfied with the answers he gave, and some may say that this is a result of my lack of humility and feeling intellectually superior to my Bishop. In this case, I feel that I have received more information on the topic than he was aware of, and he actually thanked me for sharing it with him, as it may help him direct others when they come across it too. I don't feel that he was properly aware of FAIR's existence, and I also get the feeling that he would like me to keep FAIR's existence to myself, for now at least.

You "get the feeling"? In other words, he didn't really say to keep anything to yourself. When I had questions that weren't being addressed I went to institute classes, I read everything I could get my hands on, took college courses but I didn't expect one person to know everything. I didn't even expect my college profs to know everything about every topic. I have no idea why you are expecting your bishop to be an encylopedia while ignoring everything that is out there. It seems very unfair to put anyone in that kind of position and then complain about what you get.

[wenglund]

By the way, does any defender of the faith have the courage to point out to Selek that he has has not defended the faith in this post, but has erred in making the judgments that he has , here? (I.e., "You'll have all eternity in hell to ponder the number of innocent windmills you accosted.")

I have found that so many of you seem so afraid to point out the obvious in those with whom you regularly agree and are so quick to criticize those with whom you disagree. Might someone be willing to show some consistency, despite that you will subject yourself to the judgment of all mighty Selek?

[Yeah, I will. Selek, tone it down, please. That's the second time today. ~mods]

For my part, I am not looking to judge or condemn, but to focus on finding solutions. You are more than welcome to join me in that discussion. I would be particularly pleased if you would address the question I posed three times earlier in the thread. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

To whom are members counseled to address their questions regarding the Church's position on matters? Exactly. Their Bishop. And when they take their Bishop's response as the Church's position, people like you call them "absurd." Nice.

See my response above. Personal counsel by a bishop to an individual member of the Church should not necessarily be construed as binding on the Church at large.

This should be a no-brainer.

[mms]

But the counsel given by a bishop may be specific to an individual, in which case it should not be construed as applying to the Church generally.

So, as I said, as far as Silver Dragonfly is concerned, her Bishop speaks for the Church, no?

[Daniel Peterson]

You got me! It just so happens that all of the above mentioned authors works reside in my ward library, and are consistently used as resources for lessons, talks, etc.

No bookstores or public libraries in your area? Barred from Amazon.com? No mail service?

You should move.

"Graduate Seminars", indeed..... a little over the top there. Funny how the mention of teaching church history has the apologists comparing that task to setting up the school of the prophets in every ward.

The portion of the curriculum devoted to Church history is about as large as its feasible to make it, and the time permitted for it allows only the most cursory treatment of the history of the Church.

As it is, I don't sense any all-consuming desire to study more Church history among most of the members that I know. But those who want to study more have typically managed to stumble across Deseret Book, Amazon.com, and/or the Mormon History Association.

I have very little sympathy for people who, having emerged for a few minutes from Blockbuster Video, discover that they have been betrayed by the Church because it failed to inform them of things that, in fact, are mentioned in Institute manuals, discussed in publications from Deseret Book, and treated in the Ensign.

Am I satisfied with the level of historical and scriptural understanding among Latter-day Saints? Absolutely not. Do I think it's the fault, primarily, of the institutional Church? No. Do I think that members of the Church would be less vulnerable to apostasy if they knew more? Certainly. Am I doing anything to change the situation? I'm pedaling as fast as I can.

[juliann]

You have sidestepped my question and are now arguing with an argument you have created, not one I have made.

To whom are members counseled to address their questions regarding the Church's position on matters? Exactly. Their Bishop. And when they take their Bishop's response as the Church's position, people like you call them "absurd." Nice.

You are trying to create something out of nothing. I'm going to ask one more time...CFR. Where are we counseled to take all of our questions about history to a bishop to the exclusion of self-study? Where has it ever been claimed that any one bishop knows everything there is to know? Where is it stated that a bishop's personal counsel is to "the church" rather than the individual it is given to?

CFR!

[mms]

See my response above. Personal counsel by a bishop to an individual member of the Church should not necessarily be construed as binding on the Church at large.

This should be a no-brainer.

Who said it was binding for the church as a whole? The question is, can it be taken as the church's position when a local ward member wants the church's position on something?

[Daniel Peterson]

Who said it was binding for the church as a whole? The question is, can it be taken as the church's position when a local ward member wants the church's position on something?

No.

Sincerely,

Daniel Peterson

(Bishop)

[mms]

You are trying to create something out of nothing. I'm going to ask one more time...CFR. Where are we counseled to take all of our questions about history to a bishop to the exclusion of self-study? Where has it ever been claimed that any one bishop knows everything there is to know? Where is it stated that a bishop's personal counsel is to "the church" rather than the individual it is given to?

CFR!

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Are you actually needing a reference for the fact that members are taught to take their questions regarding the church's position on matters to their Bishop?

I said nothing of taking all of our questions about church history to a ishop to the exclusion of self-study or that a Bishop knows everything there is to know, etc. The simple fact is that Silver Dragonfly did exactly what she has been counseled to do and if the Bishop cannot answer, he is to seek answers from authorities above him and bring the answer back to her. He may believe he answered her sufficiently. So be it.

No.

Sincerely, Daniel Peterson

So, if a member has a question about the Church's position on something, and cannot find an answer satisfactory on his or her own, who should he/she take the question to?

[Silver Dragonfly]

Your comment was about Church-published sources.

The Institute manual I cited is available at Church Distribution Centers and, from what I can tell, is available all of the time. Many teachers and students purchase this and other CES student manuals as enrichment material for their gospel doctrine classes.

As I have pointed out numerous times, I have not participated in Gospel Doctrine classes for many years, because I have been in Primary callings for a large portion of my time. The few glimpses I get are during VT times, which don't happen regularly where I live, and during the fourth year when the D&C is taught in the lesson manuals.

I am not arguing that the Church has never published material on the subject. I am stating that we as members are not always aware that it is available, or talked about, because it is not brought up in our routine Sunday activities. If a member wants to know, they seek it out. But if we don't have a reason to ask about it, because we have been content with the limited information we were given, then we wouldn't seek out additional information unless we had a reason to, like unanswered questions.

Institute courses are available to any adult member of the Church, and often, classes are scheduled expressly for non-college students.

I have to travel 30 miles to the nearest chapel every Sunday. It is sometimes a hardship to add additional classes into the week when one works full time and holds multiple callings while raising children. And, as I mentioned before, I didn't feel the need to learn additional Church history because I didn't know it would be any more revealing than what I have received as a lifetime member.

It's not like it's advertised as: "Come learn all about the history of polygamy, this month in Institute Class! All the stuff you never knew about Joseph Smith will be discussed, along with lengthy question and answer sessions that will surely satisfy your hunger for knowledge!"

Yet, this is the attitude I receive from those who insist that if I didn't know about it, that was my fault, not the Church.

I have never heard it said in the Church that one should be contented merely with the teaching that is given on Sundays. If I ever encountered such a sentiment in a class setting, I would certainly challenge it, and as a gospel doctrine teacher, would not allow it to be expressed in any class I taught without countering it.

And this is your experience, (which is completely valid), compared to mine, (which is just as valid). Sometimes people are not publicly chastised for speaking out in Gospel Doctrine class when they don't necessarily agree with a principle or a doctrine or have questions concerning it. But sometimes a Bishop is made aware of those who question lots of times, and that person is either admonished to seek the Bishop's guidance and not disrupt the flow of the lesson, or given a calling that will keep them from attending the Gospel Doctrine class. I think back on the time I was trying to make a point in Relief Society class on eternal progression, and I got the RS president very flustered. I was called as Primary Music Director the very next week and I haven't been to Relief Society much since then.

On the contrary, Church doctrine on this point seems to be expressed in Doctrine and Covenants 88:118, "Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith."

This would cover all aspects of knowledge and learning, but would certainly include Church history and doctrine.

I have not been as diligent as I could or perhaps should be in this respect, but I do not hold the Church accountable for choices I have made or priorities I have set.

I take issue with those who would tell me that I have always been presented with the information and always had access to it, and that it was my own laziness, carelessness, or lack of attention that caused me to be misinformed. I know now that these things are available, but why would my Bishop tell me that I can't share it with others, and that they can come to him when they happen upon it? All I want to do is tell my mom the things you have told me, like the Institute manual and B.H. Robert's book, but my Bishop doesn't want me to trouble her with these things. Why would he tell me that if that isn't the Church's position as well?

[Scott Lloyd]

So, as I said, as far as Silver Dragonfly is concerned, her Bishop speaks for the Church, no?

But you are endeavoring to make his counsel binding on the entire Church, are you not?

[juliann]

So, if a member has a question about the Church's position on something, and cannot find an answer satisfactory on his or her own, who should he/she take the question to?

Oh, clever switch. You are askign the church's position Let's see...the church's position is that polygamy never happened and 132 was put in the D&C by the printer? Who do you think you are kidding?

This is an historical matter and you darn well know it.

[mms]

But you are endeavoring to make his counsel binding on the entire Church, are you not?

Nope. I am only trying to demonstrate that as far as SD is concerned, and that is who we are talking about, here, it is not absurd at all for her to consider the Bishop's statement as the church's position on the matter.

[Daniel Peterson]

So, if a member has a question about the Church's position on something, and cannot find an answer satisfactory on his or her own, who should he/she take the question to?

On most practical and ordinary issues, it's perfectly fine for a member to turn to his or her bishop.

If a member needs to know what the Church's position on adoption is, the bishop is a good source. He has a copy of the General Handbook of Instructions, he's probably reasonably experienced in Church matters, and he has access to his own priesthood file leaders if he needs to send the question up the line. If a new member wants to know whether the Church favors praying the rosary or permits women to wear pants, asking the bishop is almost certainly enough.

But the more the question approximates an academic one (e.g., about early nineteenth-century history, or Ptolemaic-era papyri), the less I would be inclined to regard a bishop as the most relevant authority. Simply being ordained a bishop doesn't make a farmer, a plumber, an accountant, an engineer, or even an Arabist an authority on, say, the Nauvoo period of Joseph Smith's biography. For such things, there are books, Institute classes, FAIR, the Maxwell Institute, the BYU Religious Studies Center, the Journal of Mormon History, etc., etc.

[shadowrun]

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?

Edit. I made a small blunder here. Polygamy is in the manual. I read on an anti site that polygamy was not mentioned. I skimmed through the manual and read the Life and Ministry section. I missed the mentioned of polygamy toward the end of the chapter. It is also mentioned in the introduction. Lesson: don't believe or take with a grain of salt what is written on an exer board. My blunder.

Hmm, thats very interesting. Well a friend of mine used to say "theres some truths in Anti-Mormon literature" which I do believe. Sort of like Checks & Balances. lol. Good to know that you found out the truth about polygamy mentioned in the manual, because I was like, wait a minute... I could'a sworn I saw it there somewhere.

[Pahoran]

So are we to conclude, then, that despite the cry of the disaffected, there is not all that large of an appetite for in-depth study of Church history?

No there's not, and most especially not among the disaffected.

The disaffected have not the attention span for in-depth study. They only want juicy tidbits to throw at people for shock value. The "pretty good job" Maxrep12 admires so much is tabloid stuff at best.

Regards,

Pahoran

[juliann]

I take issue with those who would tell me that I have always been presented with the information and always had access to it, and that it was my own laziness, carelessness, or lack of attention that caused me to be misinformed. I know now that these things are available, but why would my Bishop tell me that I can't share it with others, and that they can come to him when they happen upon it? All I want to do is tell my mom the things you have told me, like the Institute manual and B.H. Robert's book, but my Bishop doesn't want me to trouble her with these things. Why would he tell me that if that isn't the Church's position as well?

I have no idea what you are presenting to your bishop. You are vascillating about what you were actually told and we only have one side of the story here anyway. I find it impossible to beleieve any bishop would ask you to try and keep the comments from the upcoming Joseph Smith manual from anyone as just one example.

But who has said you were lazy? The truth is, however, that the information is available and you have been given several church sources where it is mentioned. It is a relatively easy step from that point to start finding out more just by googling for books. You have been given all kinds of information just in this thread and all you can do is talk about your bishop. That seems to be your focus, not the information itself. That is the way you are coming off.

[mms]

On most practical and ordinary issues, it's perfectly fine for a member to turn to his or her bishop.

If a member needs to know what the Church's position on adoption is, the bishop is a good source. He has a copy of the General Handbook of Instructions, he's probably reasonably experienced in Church matters, and he has access to his own priesthood file leaders if he needs to send the question up the line. If a new member wants to know whether the Church favors praying the rosary or permits women to wear pants, asking the bishop is almost certainly enough.

But the more the question approximates an academic one (e.g., about early nineteenth-century history, or Ptolemaic-era papyri), the less I would be inclined to regard a bishop as the most relevant authority. Simply being ordained a bishop doesn't make a farmer, a plumber, an accountant, an engineer, or even an Arabist an authority on, say, the Nauvoo period of Joseph Smith's biography. For such things, there are books, Institute classes, FAIR, the Maxwell Institute, the BYU Religious Studies Center, the Journal of Mormon History, etc., etc.

Okay, but if a member has an unresolved question about church history that is causing concern re testimony and has read the FAIRwiki, etc., to whom should the member address that question? The First Presidency?

[Daniel Peterson]

The disaffected have not the attention span for in-depth study. They only want juicy tidbits to throw at people for shock value. The "pretty good job" Maxrep12 admires so much is tabloid stuff at best.

I did think it was pretty telling that Maxrep12 expressed admiration not for the extensive literature produced by professional historians about the Mormon past, but, specifically, for the writings of "critics."

[mms]

I have no idea what you are presenting to your bishop. You are vascillating about what you were actually told and we only have one side of the story here anyway. I find it impossible to beleieve any bishop would ask you to try and keep the comments from the upcoming Joseph Smith manual from anyone as just one example.

But who has said you were lazy? The truth is, however, that the information is available and you have been given several church sources where it is mentioned. It is a relatively easy step from that point to start finding out more just by googling for books. You have been given all kinds of information just in this thread and all you can do is talk about your bishop. That seems to be your focus, not the information itself. That is the way you are coming off.

Here we go.

Oh, clever switch. You are askign the church's position Let's see...the church's position is that polygamy never happened and 132 was put in the D&C by the printer? Who do you think you are kidding?

This is an historical matter and you darn well know it.

Um. For whose position do you think SD was asking her Bishop?