Scott Lloyd Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 I may be out of step here but I think that "optional" is not an inappropriate description for this basic course. It is generally a course for investigators, the newly converted and the recently activated where basic gospel precepts are taught.According to the link provided by Lachoneus to lds.org, it should not be regarded as optional, but rather, basic. A ward, say in Utah, may not have anybody who fits into the the first two classifications and those that are in the last group may be inclined to attend Gospel Doctrine with their close friends and neighbors. In a previous ward, I taught it for several years. It is not in the curriculum of my present ward.I think a ward would be very rare that did not have any members who could benefit from this course, even in Utah. Every ward should offer it, and the ward mission leader should be involved, if not actually called as the teacher of the course.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 If they are deciding to can the President's series, I could see why. I think there is just too much problematic stuff in the church history and in the past teachings of prophets that it just creates controversy among members and non-members alike, so maybe they've decided it was a bad idea.None of the material contained in the manuals was what you would call "problematic." All of it was orthodox, authoritative teaching relevant to the needs of today's adult Church members. If the Church has decided to discontinue the series for good (and it remains to be seen whether that is the case) I doubt this is the reason.For instance, people complained because the Brigham Young manual didn't mention more than one wife. The Joseph Smith manual didn't mention anything negative in his life.The complainers were largely anti-Mormons, apostates and ark steadiers who failed to understand the intent and purpose of the manual. It was never intended as a comprehensive history book, but rather, a compilation of selected teachings relevant to today's needs. As far as I can tell, very few of the people for whom the manual was intended were among the complainers.Its one of those things that if they put too much in, people will complain, but if they put too little in people will still complain. So, since they realize they can't satisfy everybody, maybe they want to just focus on specific doctrine in these classes now.It looks to me like they weren't quite ready with the next volume in the Presidents series, so they have interjected the Gospel Principles manual for a couple of years to buy some time. As I said, I'll try to find out the reason, if I can.
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Lightbearer has a ton of information on it. Who should I believe, you or him? I need a prophet to help me sort this out. Will one step forward?That's just it. It appears as though you aren't even familiar with the sources Lightbearer uses.
cinepro Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 The complainers were largely anti-Mormons, apostates and ark steadiers who failed to understand the intent and purpose of the manual. It was never intended as a comprehensive history book, but rather, a compilation of selected teachings relevant to today's needs. As far as I can tell, very few of the people for whom the manual was intended were among the complainers.The problem with the manual is that they actually changed some of the quotes, and others were taken way out of context. It's as if they wanted to make a manual of "what Brigham Young would teach if he were alive in our day, based on stuff he said when he was alive".If the Church couldn't honestly produce a good manual of unaltered quotes that applied in our day, then it would be logical to question the usefulness of the endeavor. It looks to me like they weren't quite ready with the next volume in the Presidents series, so they have interjected the Gospel Principles manual for a couple of years to buy some time. As I said, I'll try to find out the reason, if I can.That would be odd, since they've had at least 6 years notice that 2010 was coming and would need a prophets manual. I'm assuming this change came with the "encouragement" of President Monson, now that he's prophet. I know there are many, many Church members who aren't thrilled with the manuals (or the lessons they result in), and President Monson might be sensitive to those feelings.
katherine the great Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 If they are deciding to can the President's series, I could see why. I think there is just too much problematic stuff in the church history and in the past teachings of prophets that it just creates controversy among members and non-members alike, so maybe they've decided it was a bad idea. For instance, people complained because the Brigham Young manual didn't mention more than one wife. The Joseph Smith manual didn't mention anything negative in his life. Its one of those things that if they put too much in, people will complain, but if they put too little in people will still complain. So, since they realize they can't satisfy everybody, maybe they want to just focus on specific doctrine in these classes now.I've heard discussions among the sisters in my ward about the President's series, but I never heard any of those things mentioned. The biggest concern I've heard is that it simply has taken the "woman" out of Relief Society. Relief Society used to be a place where women could discuss topics that are specifically related to being an LDS woman and sharing ideas with other LDS women. The teachers try to put some of that into these lessons, but it is hard when the instructions are to try to not deviate from the lesson. I'm not sure what the point of breaking into gender specific groups is if there are not gender specific topics anymore.
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 The problem with the manual is that they actually changed some of the quotes, and others were taken way out of context. It's as if they wanted to make a manual of "what Brigham Young would teach if he were alive in our day, based on stuff he said when he was alive".While the BY manual made some bad editorial decisions, I don't believe they were as egregious as you are making them out to be.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 While the BY manual made some bad editorial decisions, I don't believe they were as egregious as you are making them out to be.As I recall, there were some complaints about some of the quotes having ellipses, but I don't remember a strong case being made that they were taken out of context. That's a subjective judgment I suppose. Also, some people carped because "wives" in some instances became "wife." That doesn't bother me, as plural marriage is no longer a practice in the Church.Again, the manual is not primarily designed to satisfy the quibbles of apostates and anti-Mormons.
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 Wives is never changed to wife without the use of editorial brackets. http://en.fairmormon.org/Brigham_Young_and_polygamy/Hiding_history
Scott Lloyd Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 Wives is never changed to wife without the use of editorial brackets. http://en.fairmormon.org/Brigham_Young_and_polygamy/Hiding_historyThat's my understanding. Yet some still choose to quibble about it, as though President Young's remarks about marital relationships in general could not have transcendent application beyond the polygamy era in the Church.
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 The complaint is that we should be teaching current monogamous Saints about plural marriage in-depth. While I would appreciate more info in Church publications on the subject, I also understand why it isn't more detailed. http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08/plural-marriage-as-discussed-in-church.html
Scott Lloyd Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 The complaint is that we should be teaching current monogamous Saints about plural marriage in-depth. While I would appreciate more info in Church publications on the subject, I also understand why it isn't more detailed. http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08/plural-marriage-as-discussed-in-church.htmlI'm not opposed to accurate information about it being given in some Church publications and settings. I'm not persuaded that it needs to happen in priesthood meeting and Relief Society, nor do I buy into the notion that the absence of such information in those particular settings translates into the Church doing a whitewash or a cover-up.
Tsuzuki Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 I'm liking the additional cowbell I hear is being included.
structurecop Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 I'm liking the additional cowbell I hear is being included.Overwhelmingly, Gospel Principles revision focus groups called for more cowbell.
ERayR Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 Lightbearer has a ton of information on it. Who should I believe, you or him? I need a prophet to help me sort this out. Will one step forward?A prophet I am but my authority extends only to my family. A check of my family records does not find a listing for you so sorry I can't help you.
robuchan Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 http://www.mrm.org/gospel-principlesIs this true? If so, ypu guys owe me a major apology and someone owes me $200.
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. Can you find a canonized scripture or statement from Joseph Smith that makes this claim?
robuchan Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 Can you find a canonized scripture or statement from Joseph Smith that makes this claim?What's your point? Are you saying Cinepro and Lightbearer are incorrect in their doctrinal understanding of exaltation?
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 What's your point? Are you saying Cinepro and Lightbearer are incorrect in their doctrinal understanding of exaltation?Who cares what their position is? I'm interested in what the revelations say.
robuchan Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Who cares what their position is? I'm interested in what the revelations say.So it sounds like we're both on the same page. We both think a lot of the deification doctrine that was taught so forcefully 100 years ago is false doctrine or at least unrevealed speculation. We believe righteous priesthood holders in this life most likely WILL NOT have spirit children that worship them in the same relationship that we do to Heavenly Father (and are in direct opposition to Cinepro and Lightbearer in this regard). We are pleased that the new manual is deemphasizing (better word than dumb down) this doctrine. And we're probably both frustrated with the old generation that won't let go of this doctrine and move ahead with the church.
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 So it sounds like we're both on the same page. We both think a lot of the deification doctrine that was taught so forcefully 100 years ago is false doctrine or at least unrevealed speculation. We believe righteous priesthood holders in this life most likely WILL NOT have spirit children that worship them in the same relationship that we do to Heavenly Father (and are in direct opposition to Cinepro and Lightbearer in this regard). We are pleased that the new manual is deemphasizing (better word than dumb down) this doctrine. And we're probably both frustrated with the old generation that won't let go of this doctrine and move ahead with the church.I should emphasize, we very well might have an eternity of that sort of thing, but I'm more interested in focusing on things we are more sure about. See my blog post earlier in the thread.
David T Posted July 27, 2009 Author Posted July 27, 2009 This is what I think:1. This understanding may be true, and the Church doesn't deny it. However:2. It is not the revealed official doctrine of the Church
BCSpace Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 So it sounds like we're both on the same page. We both think a lot of the deification doctrine that was taught so forcefully 100 years ago is false doctrine or at least unrevealed speculation. We believe righteous priesthood holders in this life most likely WILL NOT have spirit children that worship them in the same relationship that we do to Heavenly Father (and are in direct opposition to Cinepro and Lightbearer in this regard). We are pleased that the new manual is deemphasizing (better word than dumb down) this doctrine. And we're probably both frustrated with the old generation that won't let go of this doctrine and move ahead with the church.Sounds like you both reject what the Church itself says about it's own doctrine.
robuchan Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 This is what I think:1. This understanding may be true, and the Church doesn't deny it. However:2. It is not the revealed official doctrine of the ChurchThis reminds me of what Stephen Robinson taught in a class I took from him at BYU. re: Bruce R. being told to take out parts of Mormon Doctrine, especially that the Catholic Church was the Great Abominable Church of Devil. He mocked the saints who said "the church knows the Catholic Church is the church of the Devil, they just don't want anyone to think we think that. wink wink".
David T Posted July 27, 2009 Author Posted July 27, 2009 There's a good podcast on the official "The Mormon Channel" program "Mormon Identity" on the topic "Keeping the Doctrine Pure". It's the latest one. Discussing how the Church has been trying to divide past speculation from revealed "official" doctrine, whicih is defined. A McConkie quote in a conference talk is even used as an example of unofficial speculation. Very interesting timing for this discussion.
BCSpace Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 There's a good podcast on the official "The Mormon Channel" program "Mormon Identity" on the topic "Keeping the Doctrine Pure". It's the latest one. Discussing how the Church has been trying to divide past speculation from revealed "official" doctrine, whicih is defined. A McConkie quote in a conference talk is even used as an example of unofficial speculation. Very interesting timing for this discussion.Well, at about 11:20 it discusses the unanimity of the FP and Qo12 as per D&C 107 making the principles established by the Church in the link in my siggy as old as 1835. Something I've argued before.At 12:40 is an example of something that is not clear in the scriptures but is nevertheless official doctrine; gender the in premortal existence and (literal I assume) heavenly parents. Thus the notion that it must be in the scriptures to be doctrine is false. I agree.13:50 Handbooks, manuals etc. are official doctrine.17:10 The BRM example. Assuming the statement was published by the Church, he's not quite accurate about why it's not doctrine. It's not doctrine not because others haven't taught it or others haven't taught it recently but rather, it's because of the context BRM himself used "our tradition holds that...". In other words, there is context even in official publications. The introduction to the Bible Dictionary is another example of this. The Bible Dictionary, though published by the Church, is not doctrinal because the Church itself says it's not. In other words, the doctrine is that the Bible Dictionary is not doctrine.21:00 A good demonstration of how ethics have no power unless backed up by absolute doctrine.26:35 "Preoccupation with unworthy behavior will lead to unworthy behavior." Which is why we teach doctrine instead. (think Shade's board).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.