The Church Hides Its History....

[tagriffy]

Well actually 1 and 6 were mentioned recently in a Sunday school class in our ward, and nobody hides polygamy. As to the other items not sure how that would assist in strengthening the Saints.

Good point. I would say that a consideration of relevancy and venue needs to be taken into account when we discuss what is reasonable in selecting what to say or not say. What is reasonable in Sacrament Meeting may or may not be reasonable in Gospel Doctrine, Seminary, or Institute.

[tagriffy]

I think his points rest on not what is just mentioned, but what is put in the manuals by the curriculum department to be taught.

A lot of stuff, good and bad, is added by teachers so mileage may vary in actual classes. It is the manuals themselves though that are at issue for some.

add-on: the only church manual (as found though a site google search on lds.org/manual?lang=eng) that contains a mention of Masonry is the Institute Church History. There is no mention of the terms "Alger" or "polyandry" or "scryer".

Yeah, every once in awhile we get a Sunday School teacher that follows the manuals. But after about a year of people falling asleep and snoring in class, or a mass migration of people to have discussions in the hallway they either quit doing so or get released. I swear the people who write those things have a target audience of third grade girls.

Good teachers adjust for the needs of the class. Even college professors adapt their material depending on how the discussion flows. I'm pretty sure I've been responsible for derailing a teacher's original plan in both church and college.

[Stone holm]

Good teachers adjust for the needs of the class. Even college professors adapt their material depending on how the discussion flows. I'm pretty sure I've been responsible for derailing a teacher's original plan in both church and college.

I feel it may well be our sacred duty to do so and thereby diminish the suffering. What kills me is when the teacher actually uses the smarmy suggested questions.

[tagriffy]

I feel it may well be our sacred duty to do so and thereby diminish the suffering. What kills me is when the teacher actually uses the smarmy suggested questions.

I've been out of it for awhile, but back in my time the questions seemed to be more about regurgitating the manual than they were about opening discussion.

[Stone holm]

I've been out of it for awhile, but back in my time the questions seemed to be more about regurgitating the manual than they were about opening discussion.

Absolutely. The manuals are not aimed at causing discussion, and the Gospel Doctrine class manuals are not actually about educating anyone in the sense of increasing their knowledge, they are about assisting in the rote memorisation of certain pat dialogues. The very best teachers read the lesson note the topic and scriptures quoted, and then sets the manual aside and gets a lively discussion going on the general point of the lesson, or if the point of the lesson is too inane, just gets a lively discussion going on the Scriptures covered.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Stone holm

[tagriffy]

Absolutely. The manuals are not aimed at causing discussion, and the Gospel Doctrine class manuals are not actually about educating anyone in the sense of increasing their knowledge, they are about assisting in the rote memorisation of certain pat dialogues. The very best teachers read the lesson note the topic and scriptures quoted, and then sets the manual aside and gets a lively discussion going on the general point of the lesson, or if the point of the lesson is too inane, just gets a lively discussion going on the Scriptures covered.

The one time I was asked to give a lesson, it was Gospel Principles and the topic was prayer. I threw out the manual entirely and cobbled my lesson together from Scripture and the Journal of Discourses. I emphasized our ability to take anything to God, including our fears, struggles, "unrighteous" feelings such as a desire for revenge, and so on. The part about Jacob praying for protection from Esau, "for I fear him" went over all right. The part about the Psalmist wishing someone would dash Babylonian babies against stones and Heber C. Kimball's (IIRC) rather violent desires for the destruction of the Gentiles went over less well. Overall, kind of a mixed reaction.

Oh well. At least I wasn't asked to talk about Jonah. I probably would have gotten myself lynched.

[canard78]

Paintings always involve a certain poetic license, people would expect to see the plates and JS's face in the painting, so it would make sense to have the plates clearly visible and not have JS's face in a hat....come on people get a grip.

The recent new bible videos tried their hardest to be as true to the scriptures as possible. They took very little poetic license except to fill in minor blanks.

There is no indication that his head was in a hat in any of our church manuals or art. Only a couple of brief references in Ensign articles. In our 'D&C and history of the church' materials this year, from primary up (I'm currently covering an absent Primary 5 teacher... and don't worry, towing the line) the reality of the translation process is hidden and instead, through both the church sanctioned gospel art kit and several passages in the manuals, we are sometimes teaching and being taught inaccuracies and misinformation.

[canard78]

I feel it may well be our sacred duty to do so and thereby diminish the suffering. What kills me is when the teacher actually uses the smarmy suggested questions.

A few years back we had a long-term SS teacher who would simply open the manual and read each paragraph, quote and unengaging question straight out of the manual. They'd take one answer (any answer, however meaningless) and trudge on.

[canard78]

The one time I was asked to give a lesson, it was Gospel Principles and the topic was prayer. I threw out the manual entirely and cobbled my lesson together from Scripture and the Journal of Discourses. I emphasized our ability to take anything to God, including our fears, struggles, "unrighteous" feelings such as a desire for revenge, and so on. The part about Jacob praying for protection from Esau, "for I fear him" went over all right. The part about the Psalmist wishing someone would dash Babylonian babies against stones and Heber C. Kimball's (IIRC) rather violent desires for the destruction of the Gentiles went over less well. Overall, kind of a mixed reaction.

Oh well. At least I wasn't asked to talk about Jonah. I probably would have gotten myself lynched.

I would pay good money to attend your next one.

[Tacenda]

The recent new bible videos tried their hardest to be as true to the scriptures as possible. They took very little poetic license except to fill in minor blanks.

There is no indication that his head was in a hat in any of our church manuals or art. Only a couple of brief references in Ensign articles. In our 'D&C and history of the church' materials this year, from primary up (I'm currently covering an absent Primary 5 teacher... and don't worry, towing the line) the reality of the translation process is hidden and instead, through both the church sanctioned gospel art kit and several passages in the manuals, we are sometimes teaching and being taught inaccuracies and misinformation.

I'm a co-teacher in Primary but don't teach, but help a boy with disabilities. When we were discussing a while back the BoM translation or something about it, I brought up that JS also looked into a hat and looked at a stone. The teacher was like "Oh, cool!". Was I crossing the line here? I really don't want to do that anymore, bring up stuff that isn't in the manual. I'm still feeling guilt over it. The class is made up of all 10 yr. old boys, who are always goofing off (not listening), but it makes the boy who is disable, really laugh (he doesn't talk) so we let it go.

[Stone holm]

A few years back we had a long-term SS teacher who would simply open the manual and read each paragraph, quote and unengaging question straight out of the manual. They'd take one answer (any answer, however meaningless) and trudge on.

Yeah a fine example of LDS teaching -- I threw my back out so wasn't at Church today, but my wife came back and said it was a good Sunday school class and then with no prompting from me said the purpose of SUnday school was to repeat over and over again the same points till we had them drilled into our heads. She feels that is necessary for the members.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Stone holm

[tagriffy]

A few years back we had a long-term SS teacher who would simply open the manual and read each paragraph, quote and unengaging question straight out of the manual. They'd take one answer (any answer, however meaningless) and trudge on.

I had some classes like that. As you may know from my blog, I've been engaging in discussions with a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses ministers. Their material is pretty much the same. The questions are aimed at regurgitating the manuals as well. I've tried to avoid simply giving the regurgitated response (easy enough to do where our beliefs don't agree), but I've found myself often giving up and just using the expected response. That was one of the main reasons I threw out the manual altogether.

[tagriffy]

I would pay good money to attend your next one.

No charge, just follow my blog. I still have to finish my series on the origin of death. But I also have plans for essays demonstrating exactly how subversive the book of Jonah really is and a meditation on 2 Peter 1:20. I may not bring up every point I raise in a Church class, but probably would cover the same ground.

[tagriffy]

I'm a co-teacher in Primary but don't teach, but help a boy with disabilities. When we were discussing a while back the BoM translation or something about it, I brought up that JS also looked into a hat and looked at a stone. The teacher was like "Oh, cool!". Was I crossing the line here? I really don't want to do that anymore, bring up stuff that isn't in the manual. I'm still feeling guilt over it. The class is made up of all 10 yr. old boys, who are always goofing off (not listening), but it makes the boy who is disable, really laugh (he doesn't talk) so we let it go.

I don't think you were. Was it this thread or another where the discussion was partly about the "normalization of information"? Even if it isn't in the manual it is probably better for them to get that information in a friendly source now rather than get it from an unfriendly source later.

[why me]

I'm a co-teacher in Primary but don't teach, but help a boy with disabilities. When we were discussing a while back the BoM translation or something about it, I brought up that JS also looked into a hat and looked at a stone. The teacher was like "Oh, cool!". Was I crossing the line here? I really don't want to do that anymore, bring up stuff that isn't in the manual. I'm still feeling guilt over it. The class is made up of all 10 yr. old boys, who are always goofing off (not listening), but it makes the boy who is disable, really laugh (he doesn't talk) so we let it go.

You did well. Why feel guilt? Guilt is such a negative emotion. The stone in the hat is from church sources, right? No problem.

[volgadon]

The recent new bible videos tried their hardest to be as true to the scriptures as possible. They took very little poetic license except to fill in minor blanks.

They failed when it comes to New Testament realia.

[canard78]

I'm a co-teacher in Primary but don't teach, but help a boy with disabilities. When we were discussing a while back the BoM translation or something about it, I brought up that JS also looked into a hat and looked at a stone. The teacher was like "Oh, cool!". Was I crossing the line here? I really don't want to do that anymore, bring up stuff that isn't in the manual. I'm still feeling guilt over it. The class is made up of all 10 yr. old boys, who are always goofing off (not listening), but it makes the boy who is disable, really laugh (he doesn't talk) so we let it go.

I don't there's anything wrong with that. When I raise it I really try to do it in a positive attitude. "Joseph used a variety of approaches to help him focus on being able to translate, including..."

[canard78]

They failed when it comes to New Testament realia.

Lol, even as I posted that I thought 'volgadon's not going to like this.'

Maybe they're a case in point. I never managed to get an answer from the head of wardrobe for the decision. It may have either been ignorance or a conscious decision to make it look like what an audience would expect it to look like and allow them to focus more on the message than the setting.

Maybe that should be a generosity I extend to the portrayals of the translation.

Edited June 3, 2013 by canard78

[Stone holm]

Lol, even as I posted that I thought 'volgadon's not going to like this.'

Maybe they're a case in point. I never managed to get an answer from the head of wardrobe for the decision. It may have either been ignorance or a conscious decision to make it look like what an audience would expect it to look like and allow them to focus more on the message than the setting.

Maybe that should be a generosity I extend to the portrayals of the translation.

Are we seriously suggesting depicting JS with his head in a hat for a movie , how would we ever get Charlton Heston to play that part?

[tagriffy]

Are we seriously suggesting depicting JS with his head in a hat for a movie , how would we ever get Charlton Heston to play that part?

We'd have to raise Heston from the dead first. I would consider that a significantly larger problem.

[Stone holm]

We'd have to raise Heston from the dead first. I would consider that a significantly larger problem.

No lets leave him there he lost his charm with the NRA.

[Closet Doubter]

I think that the critics want the church to teach their side of the story. If the church came out with a faith promoting history book with good details from a faith promoting perspective, the critics would counter with a counter history. What would be true and what would be false in that case?

I would like to see this case happen first before I would answer the question. I thoroughly enjoyed reading Rough Stone Rolling. It wasn't put out by the church and IMHO I think 30 years ago Bushman would have been tried for his Church membership for writing the book. He did however write what appears to me to be an thoroughly researched book with all the details left in but presented in the most faith promoting perspective he could. Granted, there are many things in the book that couldn't be presented in a faith promoting perspective without leaving out true and verifiable detais.

[cinepro]

You did well. Why feel guilt? Guilt is such a negative emotion. The stone in the hat is from church sources, right? No problem.

Here's a question I've never seen addressed. Was the "face in a hat" method of translation "no problem" for people even back in the 1800's? Meaning, most of the eyewitness accounts seem to come from interviews years later, and probably weren't widely circulated. Most Church members probably didn't know about the actual manner of translation (we probably know more than they did, right?) And most of the post-1830 statements from Joseph or Oliver refer to the U&T as a euphemism for the seer stone, let alone acknowledging the lack of plates being in the room during the translation process or Joseph sitting with his head in a hat.

So the desire to keep this aspect of Church history less-well-known might not be a case of presentism or contemporary bias. I suspect even back then, many people would have been less than inspired by the mechanics of the process.

[tagriffy]

I would like to see this case happen first before I would answer the question. I thoroughly enjoyed reading Rough Stone Rolling. It wasn't put out by the church and IMHO I think 30 years ago Bushman would have been tried for his Church membership for writing the book. He did however write what appears to me to be an thoroughly researched book with all the details left in but presented in the most faith promoting perspective he could. Granted, there are many things in the book that couldn't be presented in a faith promoting perspective without leaving out true and verifiable detais.

And he also pointed responsible opposing viewpoints. For example, I remember reading Bushman concluding Joseph did not have sexual relations with any of his plural wives, but still pointed to Compton, who argued sexuality was part of at least some of those marriages.

[Stone holm]

Here's a question I've never seen addressed. Was the "face in a hat" method of translation "no problem" for people even back in the 1800's? Meaning, most of the eyewitness accounts seem to come from interviews years later, and probably weren't widely circulated. Most Church members probably didn't know about the actual manner of translation (we probably know more than they did, right?) And most of the post-1830 statements from Joseph or Oliver refer to the U&T as a euphemism for the seer stone, let alone acknowledging the lack of plates being in the room during the translation process or Joseph sitting with his head in a hat.

So the desire to keep this aspect of Church history less-well-known might not be a case of presentism or contemporary bias. I suspect even back then, many people would have been less than inspired by the mechanics of the process.

Except wasn't it known even back then that Joseph was in a dueling of peepstone contest with a Methodist minister's wife. I suspect that our "weirdness" of feeling regarding seerstones is more of a modern aversion then it was back then.