Faith Crisis Training For Stake Leaders

[Bikeemikey]

I loved that last few posts.

When I came to the church at the age of 17 I was lead to think the Church was in the business of giving me truth. It claimed to share with me things no one else would. As I grasped the gospel, I loved it. After Praying, I was sold.

Yes, I made a bad assumption which is that the Church seeks to offer me all truth (at least as much as it had). I naively thought these guys would never withold the truth from me. But that assumption was taught to me by missionaries and Sunday School Teachers and Ward Leaders.

Then One day I woke up and realized that they (the Curriculum Department and Top Leaders) had withheld a lot from me. They only chose to share with me information that would lead to faith. They choose not to share any information that would cause me to see the Church History is not black and white, not cut and dry, Not as simple as they wanted me to think.

So Yes, they have articles about seer stones, and mentions of polygamy, and a brief mention about the Book of Abraham; it is worded in a way that prevents the reader from ever understanding the problem (without reading on their own outside of Church). You read those articles and they in and of themselves never say why something is truly problematic. Oh they brush at it just close enough to say they addressed it but not in a way that someone says that doesn't seem to fit. The Church would like to prevent members from encountering why it is also reasonable to not believe. Yet once one encounters these issues they have to come to grips with Faith being a choice. That makes sense (Faith being a choice), except the Church never posed it that way. The Church taught it like it was a done deal - Critical material is Anti-Mormon Lies, Things out of Context, not sharing the full story - Only to find that at least some of that applies to what the Church says too and too also discover that at least some of what the critics say is truth, are facts, are in a real sense problematic to the Church's version of events.

Elder Holland is the first person I can remember hearing (since 1996 when I joined) say "to not know is ok, to doubt is ok, to ask hard questions is ok"

Disclaimer

I acknowledge that the Church has the right to censor information within it's manuals and magazines as it sees fit. All I am getting at is what/how/why we are taught what we are and the reality of Faith being messy and a choice didn't mesh until Elder Holland's Conference Talk (again since 1996). So I am not saying their motives are evil, as there job is to push Faith. But in many ways they defined Faith for me.... incorrectly -

1.) Everybody in Testimony Meeting says "I KNOW", even the 12 year old Deacon or even younger. (while I have no right to say who knows or who doesn't not everyone of them knows- because I am not alone in my journey)

2.) Until Recent Doubt was taboo. Questions were Taboo. Reading anti mormon material is still taboo (While many disagree with that, check out what some said in my first threads when I would pose a question that came from an anti mormon source)

In Conclusion the Framework the Church would prefer we establish doesn't fit once we have more information- It is that shift that many find to be too great to reconcile

I think it might be over stating things to claim the curriculum withholds truth from people.

As a Sunday school teacher (Gospel Doctrine) who has taught pretty much every week over the last four years I have effectively been able to teach what ever I want. We have had lessons that have reviewed certain historical data about polygamy, including JS participation.

The curriculum is a handbook tailored to lay/non-professional teachers with an emphasis on promoting faith an building testimony.

We live in a challenging church environment, not simply because of the "teaching handbooks" but because of the huge variety of people who are called into positions to teach. Producing a teaching handbook for that spectrum of teacher is very difficult, and in all honesty the church does a decent job with it.

The teacher just called to Sunday School, I am now in Young Mens, is a very conservative man. I am very liberal (especially by US standards, less so in NZ where I grew up). He is a physical therapist with and went to medical school. I run a small family business with a background in liberal arts and business studies. We are very different. His classes will be very different to mine. That is all healthy.

As for the institute programs of the church. I think there is more legitimate cause for criticism of these programs for not rigorously addressing many of these questions... partly because these programs are often taught/overseen by professionals who are sometimes paid. But mostly because it seems like the logical place for more detailed investigation of Church history and doctrines than would be possible with larger class sizes and the different emphasis of the Sunday School program.

[Bikeemikey]

I think the church would love everyone to know ALL of the history, but are definitely afraid of losing members or investigators. My two cents, maybe when God was instituting polygamy, according to Gerald Lund in the Work and Glory, He was sifting the members, and now once again through the FAIRS and ASH's, and the DB's etc. Maybe He wants the strongest members possible to remain in the church or maybe this isn't the case and I'm no detective and definitely not a good judge.

I don't think the Church cares if you come or go because of concerns with how you understand history...

I think the Church is expressly concerned with helping people live morally virtuous lives so the spirit can help them develop a strong and deep relationship with the Holy Ghost and a deep seated testimony of Christ.

The positive focus of the church on testimony development is driven by the power a personal relationship with God and the Holy Ghost produces in our lives, not a fear of our own history and doctrines.

Now having said all that... I think many individuals are actually negatively driven by fear of, not positively driven by respect for, and those individuals when but in positions to teach can be very restrictive in what they share...

I also think we are entering a period where the Church needs to maintain its primary focus of Faith and Testimony development while also being seen to increase the engagement and way in which we talk about our own history and controversies within the institution... at the moment it seems that most of these hard conversations are pushed from outside the Church not...

It would be good to change this a little.

[Storm Rider]

His work and his glory is to bring to pass the Eternal Life of man. It is true that this mortal existence is a journey of trials and tribulations for a purpose; we are not made to be weaklings, but children of God with a faith made strong through Jesus Christ. There is a refiner's fire through which we all must walk, but its purpose is to bring us back into his presence. If we are so easily blown off the path; so quickly release the iron rod; we demonstrate that we are not his own.

[mercyngrace]

lol you got me. but it seems safe to say that people feel guilty about having doubts. Based on what I"ve heard that seems to be true.

Stem,

I think there are some who have felt the uncomfortable distancing of fellow congregants and family members just for raising questions - long before actual doubts surface. I don't think the intent of your original comment was off, just the specific wording.

I've had several friends over the years go through faith crises during which they started out just asking questions because they felt they needed answers. Unfortunately, the mere act of raising questions sometimes draws a negative response. When that experience is repeated, it leaves the struggling member feeling isolated. Then, after a while of wading through the crisis alone or worse yet, with only negative voices responding to their questions, they finally declare that they doubt.

At that point, it is, in my experience, just about what Scott said. By the time folks firmly speak out, they've become fairly "confident" in their position for or against belief.

I had an experience where I raised a question to a Priesthood leader about something in the scriptures that I couldn't quite correlate to the reality of early church history. I wasn't doubting, just curious, and his response was "You ask too many questions." He didn't have an answer and I don't fault him for that but it would have been much better for me if he'd said "That's a great question. I don't know the answer. Let's find out." Even my most steadfast confidante has reacted negatively when I've asked questions he felt were threatening. And of course, I pulled back and stopped being completely honest in my questions with him also. Because of these kinds of experiences, I stopped asking questions in real life and started posting on message boards. Even here though, I raised a tough question (not publicly) with a friend whose background was perfect for answering the question, and I never got a response. And these aren't even questions coming from a position of doubt. they are just hard questions.

I really appreciated Elder Holland's talk for the very reason that he acknowledged the questioning and validated belief while also distinguishing belief from knowledge. I thought his talk was quite powerful and found myself hoping that some of my struggling friends were listening.

[Bikeemikey]

Stem,

I think there are some who have felt the uncomfortable distancing of fellow congregants and family members just for raising questions - long before actual doubts surface. I don't think the intent of your original comment was off, just the specific wording.

I've had several friends over the years go through faith crises during which they started out just asking questions because they felt they needed answers. Unfortunately, the mere act of raising questions sometimes draws a negative response. When that experience is repeated, it leaves the struggling member feeling isolated. Then, after a while of wading through the crisis alone or worse yet, with only negative voices responding to their questions, they finally declare that they doubt.

At that point, it is, in my experience, just about what Scott said. By the time folks firmly speak out, they've become fairly "confident" in their position for or against belief.

I had an experience where I raised a question to a Priesthood leader about something in the scriptures that I couldn't quite correlate to the reality of early church history. I wasn't doubting, just curious, and his response was "You ask too many questions." He didn't have an answer and I don't fault him for that but it would have been much better for me if he'd said "That's a great question. I don't know the answer. Let's find out." Even my most steadfast confidante has reacted negatively when I've asked questions he felt were threatening. And of course, I pulled back and stopped being completely honest in my questions with him also. Because of these kinds of experiences, I stopped asking questions in real life and started posting on message boards. Even here though, I raised a tough question (not publicly) with a friend whose background was perfect for answering the question, and I never got a response. And these aren't even questions coming from a position of doubt. they are just hard questions.

I really appreciated Elder Holland's talk for the very reason that he acknowledged the questioning and validated belief while also distinguishing belief from knowledge. I thought his talk was quite powerful and found myself hoping that some of my struggling friends were listening.

I agree with what you have said.

[stemelbow]

Stem,

I think there are some who have felt the uncomfortable distancing of fellow congregants and family members just for raising questions - long before actual doubts surface. I don't think the intent of your original comment was off, just the specific wording.

I've had several friends over the years go through faith crises during which they started out just asking questions because they felt they needed answers. Unfortunately, the mere act of raising questions sometimes draws a negative response. When that experience is repeated, it leaves the struggling member feeling isolated. Then, after a while of wading through the crisis alone or worse yet, with only negative voices responding to their questions, they finally declare that they doubt.

At that point, it is, in my experience, just about what Scott said. By the time folks firmly speak out, they've become fairly "confident" in their position for or against belief.

I had an experience where I raised a question to a Priesthood leader about something in the scriptures that I couldn't quite correlate to the reality of early church history. I wasn't doubting, just curious, and his response was "You ask too many questions." He didn't have an answer and I don't fault him for that but it would have been much better for me if he'd said "That's a great question. I don't know the answer. Let's find out." Even my most steadfast confidante has reacted negatively when I've asked questions he felt were threatening. And of course, I pulled back and stopped being completely honest in my questions with him also. Because of these kinds of experiences, I stopped asking questions in real life and started posting on message boards. Even here though, I raised a tough question (not publicly) with a friend whose background was perfect for answering the question, and I never got a response. And these aren't even questions coming from a position of doubt. they are just hard questions.

I really appreciated Elder Holland's talk for the very reason that he acknowledged the questioning and validated belief while also distinguishing belief from knowledge. I thought his talk was quite powerful and found myself hoping that some of my struggling friends were listening.

Great. I think we're agreed.

[Calm]

Even here though, I raised a tough question (not publicly) with a friend whose background was perfect for answering the question, and I never got a response.

If you used the PM system, some people don't understand how it works and may not realize someone PMed them.

[Calm]

And these aren't even questions coming from a position of doubt. they are just hard questions.

I think this can be an issue in any part of life, most people in my experience don't like being reminded they don't know all that is necessary to be known to make sense of the world...it's not that they think they know everything, they just prefer not to worry about it because of anxiety that such lack of knowledge might be harmful sometime in the future. This is the reason why people don't go in for medical tests or read the news or other stuff. And most time that works out because the more unusual/uncommon stuff usually doesn't end up affecting us...so the habit can be self-reinforcing. And it does save a lot of time and effort that can be put into other things that tend to have a more immediate effect on life.

OTOH, there are those who seem to delight in exploring such and even some that do the opposite of the above and wallow in uncertainty to the point of causing issues rather than solving them.

Edited April 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[mercyngrace]

If you used the PM system, some people don't understand how it works and may not realize someone PMed them.

No - I sent a private message via facebook....

[Calm]

No - I sent a private message via facebook....

Well, if it was me (which I suspect it wasn't) or someone like me...I signed up and visited it for a few days and have promptly forgotten about it so I wouldn't completely rule out unintentional neglect as a reason.

I like the board's PM system because it sends me an email when someone PMs me so even if I accidentally miss it here, I won't miss it there.

Edited April 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[mercyngrace]

I think this can be an issue in any part of life, most people in my experience don't like being reminded they don't know all that is necessary to be known to make sense of the world...it's not that they think they know everything, they just prefer not to worry about it because of anxiety that such lack of knowledge might be harmful sometime in the future. This is the reason why people don't go in for medical tests or read the news or other stuff. And most time that works out because the more unusual/uncommon stuff usually doesn't end up affecting us...so the habit can be self-reinforcing. And it does save a lot of time and effort that can be put into other things that tend to have a more immediate effect on life.

OTOH, there are those who seem to delight in exploring such and even some that do the opposite of the above and wallow in uncertainty to the point of causing issues rather than solving them.

There's definitely a wide spectrum of human reaction to the new or discomforting information. I believe though, that as part of our discipleship, we have a commission to pastoral care. As one who delights in questions, I don't take offense when I can't find an answer. I just look farther and wider for clues! Looking back on my experiences, though, I recognize that some of the responses I've gotten would feel like a shunning or shaming, to someone who was confused or wavering.

[Kenngo1969]

Except for that extensive article by Milton V. Backman in 1985, tucked carefully away in The Ensign, where members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were sure never to see it!

http://www.lds.org/e...vision?lang=eng

Tacenda, perhaps you never saw it, but this response to this particular criticism was pointed out to you on a previous thread ... not once, but twice. (Or perhaps I never saw your acknowledgement of it.) While I'm not inclined to be unduly critical of those who are struggling, perhaps you should consider how much of your problem stems from a lack of responses to the issues that are important to you by the Church of Jesus Christ, and how much stems simply from your lack of exposure to the responses which already do exist.

While, again, I don't wish to be unduly critical of those who are struggling, I don't think attempting to respond to every question or criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ is an effective method to help most gain or preserve a testimony. It's as though the questioning ask, "What about [x]?", whereupon the apologists reply, "This question was actually addressed in [source]." Whereupon the questioning then ask (essentially, even if not in so many words), "Oh, yeah? Well, that only addresses what Critic A said about [x]. What about what Critic B said about [x]?" And then, if, by some miracle, the person's doubts are assuaged about [x], s/he then says, "But what about [y]?" Whereupon the whole cycle is repeated. And so it goes. (This endless cycle of "What abouts ... ?", I think, is exactly what Elder Holland was referring to in speaking of attempting to stuff a turkey through the beak.)

Bottom line, do I have questions? Sure, I have questions! One cannot have a reasonably well-functioning brain and not have questions about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But has it borne good fruit in my life? Yes, it has, and it continues to do so. Why would I want to throw that away? I don't. I would consider such an approach seriously counterproductive. Questions are one thing; but doubt and faith are choices. I choose to believe.

[Insert "Whistling and Twiddling Thumbs" Icon Here]

[DBMormon]

And yet there is no 'tiered' form of presentation.

I would hope that you do not include your assumptions such as this one in your presentation.

Absolutely would not include this or any other assumption I can not back up without a words of a prophet or apostle. This is my view and it's one that is not helpful to trying leaders and strugglers who are at varying degrees of faith and understanding.

[DBMormon]

I think it might be over stating things to claim the curriculum withholds truth from people.

Answer this then

1.) how many times have you been taught through the Sunday lesson manuals that Joseph was brave during a leg surgery, How many times was it mentioned he was a treasure digger? Do both contribute to his development into a prophet and both speak to his character? Which one was more influential in his story? Which one covered a longer period of time?

2.) Show me one reference to polyandry in the manuals? You could argue it is not a current doctrine therefore no reason to discuss it but it is withheld none the less.

The argument The Church has sought to be completely open with it's history throughout it's history doesn't hold water. We can argue motives and I am ok with why it happens, but I also know why people get ticked when they learn otherwise. It's a double edged sword.

[ERayR]

Answer this then

1.) how many times have you been taught through the Sunday lesson manuals that Joseph was brave during a leg surgery, How many times was it mentioned he was a treasure digger? Do both contribute to his development into a prophet and both speak to his character? Which one was more influential in his story? Which one covered a longer period of time?

2.) Show me one reference to polyandry in the manuals? You could argue it is not a current doctrine therefore no reason to discuss it but it is withheld none the less.

The argument The Church has sought to be completely open with it's history throughout it's history doesn't hold water. We can argue motives and I am ok with why it happens, but I also know why people get ticked when they learn otherwise. It's a double edged sword.

In other words the curriculum needs to meet your approval? Why don't you just contact President Monson and explain why you should head up the curriculum committee?

[DBMormon]

The most unbiased way to say it is that

The Church at any given time chooses to share information that contributes at that time to the mission of the Church, and any information that does not contribute to the mission of the Church is ignored and left out

Also While Critics may seek to diminish Faith it would be fair to say Critics do the same thing as the Church.

Except one is dishonest and the other isn't which makes no sense to me. Keep in mind in my framework Lying is not always wrong. I do not see black and white on that issue

[DBMormon]

In other words the curriculum needs to meet your approval? Why don't you just contact President Monson and explain why you should head up the curriculum committee?

didn't say it needed to meet my approval CFR

I even acknowledged it is a double edged sword and Their reasons for doing so protect people's faith as well....

Good ole ERAYR - Good to see you. Wenglund - You have your first example that you asked for!!!

Now this thread meets my statement

Edited April 18, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

The podacast on this issue has over 200 listens. I usually get about 100 the first day and 50 a week after that. That means many of you have listened to it. Some have even asked for the Powerpoint. Feedback. Where am I off on the ideas? concepts? principles?

I agree to mention the Lead by Faith and I need to include scriptures and more quotes from leadership. Aside from that?

[Scott Lloyd]

The podacast on this issue has over 200 listens. I usually get about 100 the first day and 50 a week after that. That means many of you have listened to it. Some have even asked for the Powerpoint. Feedback. Where am I off on the ideas? concepts? principles?

I agree to mention the Lead by Faith and I need to include scriptures and more quotes from leadership. Aside from that?

I think it would be a very good idea to find and include Elder M. Russell Ballard's story wherein he counseled one of his returned missionaries who had gotten hold of some anti-Mormon literature. Elder Ballard said he would need some time to do some research and study in order to counter the claims to which the young man had been exposed. But he asked him how long it had been since he had read the scriptures. He replied that it had been a good long while. Elder Ballard gave him an assignment in the meantime to read the scriptures for a specified period of time each day.

When the young man returned later for their appointment, he told Elder Ballard it was no longer necessary to get his responses to the anti-Mormon claims. He had followed the assignment to read the scriptures, his faith had been restored and his testimony was intact. Elder Ballard replied that was all well and good, but he was going to get the responses anyway, because he had spent a lot of time researching the answers.

Elder Ballard asked the young man what he had learned. The response: "Always give the Lord equal time."

Of course, someone like John Dehlin would say that the scriptures are the very thing that drives him away from the Church. But in some ways, I regard Dehlin as jaded and being an example of the type of individual I spoke of earlier who have been so entrenched in their negativity and doubts for so long that they won't be dislodged from them.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

I think it might be over stating things to claim the curriculum withholds truth from people.

You may be aware that the Church just released the new Book of Mormon curriculum for seminary. This new curriculum was supposed to be part of a new generation of Church materials that would be more open and honest about difficult historical issues. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.

The Church knows very well that Joseph Smith used seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon (often the plates weren't even present) but instead seminary students are shown this (on page 6 of the student guide):

Is there really any excuse for this in 2013?

The manual is no more forthcoming about other sensitive issues. Polygamy gets the following brief notice:

"Point out that at certain times in the history of the world, the Lord has commanded His people to practice plural marriage. For example, plural marriage was practiced in Old Testament times by Abraham and Sarah (see Genesis 16:1–3; D&C 132:34–35, 37) and by their son Isaac and grandson Jacob (see D&C 132:37), and it was also practiced for a time during the early days of the restored Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith (see D&C 132:32–33, 53). However, in 1890, God commanded His prophet Wilford Woodruff to end the practice of plural marriage (see D&C, Official Declaration 1)."

Nothing to see here, move along.

Regarding the Book of Mormon teachings connecting dark skin with a divine curse, the manual has this to say:

"As students study Alma 3, they might have questions about the mark and the curse placed upon the Lamanites. You may want to explain that there is a difference between the mark and the curse. The mark placed upon the Lamanites was dark skin (see Alma 3:6). The purpose of this mark was to distinguish and separate the Lamanites from the Nephites (see Alma 3:8 ). The curse, which was more serious, was the state of being “cut off from the presence of the Lord” (2 Nephi 5:20). . . . Although dark skin was used in this instance as a mark of the curse placed upon the Lamanites, the Book of Mormon teaches that the Lord “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33)."

In a later chapter we read:

"Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God. The changing of their skin was only a mark or sign of the curse. To clarify this point, have a student read the following statement by President Joseph Fielding Smith: 'The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. . . . The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts are delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord” (

Answers to Gospel Questions

, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66], 3:122–23).

So seminary students are to understand that dark skin was a sign of divine cursing in the past, but should no longer be be regarded as such after a "Lamanite" joins the Church. Got it.

Anyway, I think a lot of the new curriculum is great. It's just disappointing to see another generation of seminary students being primed for disillusionment by trusted Church leaders and teachers.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Nevo

[Scott Lloyd]

The podacast on this issue has over 200 listens. I usually get about 100 the first day and 50 a week after that. That means many of you have listened to it. Some have even asked for the Powerpoint. Feedback. Where am I off on the ideas? concepts? principles?

I agree to mention the Lead by Faith and I need to include scriptures and more quotes from leadership. Aside from that?

If you are referring to Elder Holland's latest conference address, it should have more than a mention. The entire address should be part of a presentation of this nature, even if included in its entirety only in the accompanying information packet. It is, in my view, a landmark address on the subject of dealing with faith crises, more so than anything you have cited so far, and I, for one, would not approach that subject without including it very prominently. For one thing, it is timely (delivered only two weeks ago). For another, it deals almost exclusively with the subject you are approaching. For a third thing, it is from one of today's prophets, seers and revelators, delivered from a platform (general conference) the messages of which are meant to be disseminated to the world.

I was reading it this morning on the way to work. Here is a passage that I believe is absolutely vital for those facing challenges to their faith or for leaders who counsel them:

I am not asking you to pretend to faith you do not have. I am asking you to be true to the faith you do have. Sometimes we act as if an honest declaration of doubt is a higher manifestation of moral courage than is an honest declaration of faith. It is not! So let us all remember the clear message of this scriptural account [of the man who said "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief"]: Be as candid about your questions as you need to be; life is full of them on one subject or another. But if you and your family want to be healed, don't let those questions stand in the way of faith working its miracle.

[emphasis in original]

In fact, it is just such wording I would expect a kindly and wise leader to use in counseling one who is going through a faith crisis. What an ideal model to go by.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

The Church knows very well that Joseph Smith used seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon (often the plates weren't even present) but instead seminary students are shown this (on page 6 of the student guide):

Is there really any excuse for this in 2013?

The manual is no more forthcoming about other sensitive issues. Polygamy gets the following brief notice:

Nothing to see here, move along.

So seminary students are to understand that dark skin was a sign of divine cursing in the past, but should no longer be be regarded as such after a "Lamanite" joins the Church. Got it.

Anyway, I think a lot of the new curriculum is great. It's just disappointing to see another generation of seminary students being primed for disillusionment by trusted Church leaders and teachers.

I agree it is frustrating -

Members are going to hear it, read it, be confronted with it. We might as well be the ones telling our story and telling it accurately

[DBMormon]

duplicate

Edited April 18, 2013 by DBMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

You may be aware that the Church just released the new Book of Mormon curriculum for seminary. This new curriculum was supposed to be part of a new generation of Church materials that would be more open and honest about difficult historical issues. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.

The Church knows very well that Joseph Smith used seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon (often the plates weren't even present) but instead seminary students are shown this (on page 6 of the student guide):

Is there really any excuse for this in 2013?

Unless you can prove definitively that there never ever was an occasion when Joseph looked directly upon the plates (and I don't think you can), it needs no excuse. The picture conveys the essential truth that Joseph Smith received the record and translated it by the gift and power of God. The seer stones are merely added detail.

The manual is no more forthcoming about other sensitive issues. Polygamy gets the following brief notice:

It's quite enough for basic high school level instruction. For those who want further detail, it is available; many would lack interest.

Regarding the Book of Mormon teachings connecting dark skin with a divine curse, the manual has this to say:

In a later chapter we read:

So seminary students are to understand that dark skin was a sign of divine cursing in the past, but should no longer be be regarded as such after a "Lamanite" joins the Church. Got it.

Conditions can have different meanings depending on time and place.

I think a typical high school student would be mature enough to understand that.

Anyway, I think a lot of the new curriculum is great. It's just disappointing to see another generation of seminary students being primed for disillusionment by trusted Church leaders and teachers.

I think your fears in this regard are overblown.

[DBMormon]

Is this indeed a new manual or just the old one updated and online?