Some Mormons Search The Web And Find Doubt

[rockpond]

Just to clarify on the quotes you provided in those lesson manuals-

When the church first started doing the "Presidents of the church" lesson manuals, the committee in charge of them wanted Pres. Hinckley to say a few words as a type of 'forward' to the series. He refused, saying that nothing needed to be added to the lesson manual or those in the future, not even words by him.

When it comes to the Priesthood and RS manuals, it's not an issue of only correlated things being allowed in the lessons. Teachers are not supposed to use anything but the manual and the scriptures-that includes not using GC talks, the Ensign, or any other lesson manual which is distributed by the church.

Such is not true of other Sunday school lessons. While a teacher certainly shouldn't believe that any material they want to teach from can be used, other church resources are allowed. Teaching: No Greater Call (the manual every teacher in the church is supposed to receive or have access to and be trained from) gives a list of generally approved resources for teachers to use:

Teaching, No Greater Call

• •
  Teaching Guidebook
  
• •
  The “Gospel Teaching and Leadership” section of the Church Handbook of Instructions
  
• •
  Family Home Evening Resource Book
  
• •
  Gospel Principles
  
• •
  Scripture Stories
  
• •
  Lesson manuals
  
• •
  Church magazines (check these magazines regularly for stories and other ideas)
  
• •
  Gospel Art Picture Kit (a collection of pictures that includes depictions of scripture stories and events, Presidents of the Church, and gospel principles in action)
  
• •
  Other pictures and posters
  
• •
  The Church hymnbook
  
• •
  Children’s Songbook
  
• •
  Church-produced videocassettes and audiocassettes
  

Again, all correlated and none of which is really going to effectively facilitate the types of discussions that are happening outside of the church in the blogging and podcast worlds.

And again I'll say that this is a perfectly valid approach for the church to take IF they wish to leave the facilitation of such discussions to those types of forums. But then they cannot complain that members are seeking answers on the internet since those answer are not being made available in church.

[rockpond]

Good morning Tacenda...

First, I'd like to join with numerous others who have said that we really don't have a "hidden history."

Chapter 23 of the Brigham Young manual is titled "Understanding the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage" and yet it does not ever reference polygamy or plural marriage. That's not what he taught! How is that not hiding our history?

I'm not saying that the Brethren are being nefarious or are guilty of something, but I think that one of the first steps in helping reduce the number of people leaving the church needs to be an acceptance of how we got here. And that includes the recognition that we have, in fact, hidden elements of our history and past teachings rather than facing them within the walls of our meetinghouses.

[mnn727]

And some Mormons search the web and find faith.

I guess all we have to do to hide something from the members is to put it in the scriptures (plural marriage)

Edited July 23, 2013 by mnn727

[rockpond]

You really can talk about all of these 'secrets' (which actually aren't secrets at all of course), you just have to know where to do it.

Any member of the church can teach about church history during Family Home Evening, for example, and the curriculum for that really is endless. Or they can attend Institute (JS's plural marriage-though not all the particulars--is taught as part of the Institute courses). Maybe taking a religion class online from a church school if possible is option.

Though the church does not teach its history very in-depth on Sundays, there are other options a person can choose from if they really want to learn more and discuss these subjects with others.

Tacenda, perhaps one of these options would be a good avenue for you.

Yes, there are other options. One of them is called "Google" and it doesn't appear to be helping the church.

For me, I will stick with the wealth of a great blogs & podcasts out there and will continue to try and bring those types of discussions into the walls of the church (as well as the walls of my home). But I think it would be more helpful if we had curriculum that would not only allow for those discussions, but encouraged them.

[bluebell]

Again, all correlated and none of which is really going to effectively facilitate the types of discussions that are happening outside of the church in the blogging and podcast worlds.

And again I'll say that this is a perfectly valid approach for the church to take IF they wish to leave the facilitation of such discussions to those types of forums. But then they cannot complain that members are seeking answers on the internet since those answer are not being made available in church.

Church magazines have been known to teach things equal to what we discuss on here, and they are one of the allowed resources.

[bluebell]

Yes, there are other options. One of them is called "Google" and it doesn't appear to be helping the church.

For me, I will stick with the wealth of a great blogs & podcasts out there and will continue to try and bring those types of discussions into the walls of the church (as well as the walls of my home). But I think it would be more helpful if we had curriculum that would not only allow for those discussions, but encouraged them.

I agree but with time so limited on Sunday, when could it realistically be accomplished at church?

[rockpond]

Church magazines have been known to teach things equal to what we discuss on here, and they are one of the allowed resources.

I wasn't referring to the things we talk about on here. I don't think that these threads are what cause faith crises.

[rockpond]

I agree but with time so limited on Sunday, when could it realistically be accomplished at church?

In Gospel Doctrine, Elders Quorum, High Priests Group, and Relief Society. Since they just published the updated youth curriculum, I'm hopeful that a new adult curriculum is in the works.

I think a good place to start might be to bring this NYT article into our priesthood & RS meetings for discussion.

[bluebell]

I wasn't referring to the things we talk about on here. I don't think that these threads are what cause faith crises.

polyandry and JS marrying young women are NOT the things that cause faith crises? What are the things then?

[bluebell]

In Gospel Doctrine, Elders Quorum, High Priests Group, and Relief Society. Since they just published the updated youth curriculum, I'm hopeful that a new adult curriculum is in the works.

I think a good place to start might be to bring this NYT article into our priesthood & RS meetings for discussion.

i haven't been in a Sunday school lesson (or RS) in a long time that got thru the whole lesson. Given that, I ask again, when would we have the time on a Sunday?

What spiritual topics can we safely get rid of to make way for in depth history lessons?

[rockpond]

i haven't been in a Sunday school lesson (or RS) in a long time that got thru the whole lesson. Given that, I ask again, when would we have the time on a Sunday?

What spiritual topics can we safely get rid of to make way for in depth history lessons?

You don't get rid of spiritual topics. I think you discuss them alongside some of the more challenging issues. And there is plenty of repetition in our 3 hour block that could be reduced, IMHO.

[ERayR]

You don't get rid of spiritual topics. I think you discuss them alongside some of the more challenging issues. And there is plenty of repetition in our 3 hour block that could be reduced, IMHO.

Why? It is the Churches responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons. It is the individuals responsibility to go beyond that and then choose how they let it affect them.

[rockpond]

polyandry and JS marrying young women are NOT the things that cause faith crises? What are the things then?

You're right, we cover a lot of ground here and there are a lot of voices on these threads. That's good.

Your comment stated that church magazines discuss a lot of issues that we discuss here. That is true but they do so in a "correlated" way that, in my opinion, is not going to facilitate the discussions that are needed in church.

Right now, our members are looking elsewhere. I know because I'm one of them that became unsatisfied with what I was finding in church and in our church published materials. Moving toward the blogosphere and podcasts at first was hard but has since really helped me build a stronger testimony.

[rockpond]

Why? It is the Churches responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons. It is the individuals responsibility to go beyond that and then choose how they let it affect them.

Lessons can address the faith challenging issues and still be spiritual.

Again, ERayR, we don't have to change the way we are currently teaching in the church. But if we don't, I think members will continue to seek out the information elsewhere. Your choice.

[Thinking]

i haven't been in a Sunday school lesson (or RS) in a long time that got thru the whole lesson. Given that, I ask again, when would we have the time on a Sunday?

There are 52 Sundays each year. If it's important enough, there will be time to cover it.

[ERayR]

polyandry and JS marrying young women are NOT the things that cause faith crises? What are the things then?

Choice. It has been so since the grand councils of heaven.

[bluebell]

You don't get rid of spiritual topics. I think you discuss them alongside some of the more challenging issues. And there is plenty of repetition in our 3 hour block that could be reduced, IMHO.

Taking out sacrament meeting (which doesn't seem like an appropriate place for controversial historical topics) we have roughly 70-80 minutes of church instruction time each Sunday, not three hours. This is important to realize when talking about trying to fit other topics into this timeframe.

Plus we have to consider the mission of the church and what the objective is specifically concerning Sunday instruction.

We know there are good, better, and best options for what should be taught and that the church leaders must choose which options are best for fulfilling the objective of Sunday worship and instruction with 80 minutes to use to do so.

Given those realities I'm not sure polyandry, for example, could be covered with any degree of success in resolving issues that lead some to crises in faith on Sunday. Especially when we consider that the church's thoughts on the issue did nothing to resolve Mattsson's problems with it.

Edited July 23, 2013 by bluebell

[ERayR]

Lessons can address the faith challenging issues and still be spiritual.

Again, ERayR, we don't have to change the way we are currently teaching in the church. But if we don't, I think members will continue to seek out the information elsewhere. Your choice.

From DJBrown in another thread;

Consider Christ's responses in several situations- "Come follow me....." Or the response He gave to the rich young man. He certainly put people in the position of having to choose "in or out." It makes sense that His servants and church just might do the same thing at some level.

[mnn727]

Do we go to Church to learn how to be more Christ-like or to learn History?

If you want to learn history then do it on your own time and don't waste mine just because you want to be spoon fed everything.

[bluebell]

There are 52 Sundays each year. If it's important enough, there will be time to cover it.

I think that's probably the biggest issue.

We have about 80 minutes each Sunday for doctrinal lessons/discussion.

Given the mission of the church (the objective for each Sunday on what the church wants to accomplish), and the sheer number of important topics to choose from, some important topics are just not going to be able to be covered. Only those 'important enough' will make the cut and right now, the leadership of the church has decided that in-depth discussions of polyandry, again, for example, might be a 'good' or 'better' use of that 80 minutes, but it's not the 'best' use of it.

[bluebell]

You're right, we cover a lot of ground here and there are a lot of voices on these threads. That's good.

Your comment stated that church magazines discuss a lot of issues that we discuss here. That is true but they do so in a "correlated" way that, in my opinion, is not going to facilitate the discussions that are needed in church.

Right now, our members are looking elsewhere. I know because I'm one of them that became unsatisfied with what I was finding in church and in our church published materials. Moving toward the blogosphere and podcasts at first was hard but has since really helped me build a stronger testimony.

You believe that the church should teach from the blogosphere and podcasts on Sunday as part of the regular curriculum?

[19nazzy]

Just read through the whole thread and there's been one question in my mind the whole time that wasn't really touched on until this last page. Really, it boils down to what is the purpose of 'the church?' Is it to educate about history? Is it to teach the Gospel as noted in the scriptures? Is it to strictly build the faith of the members? Is it to be self-sustaining? Etc..

I tried to think of what my approach would be if I was a leader in position to dictate the course of the church, and I'm glad I'm not in that position. It requires a delicate balancing act that I don't think I would be capable of. By making the more 'controversial' issues known in correlated materials, it takes away from the potential impact of people finding out about these issues on their own on the internet where a lot of the commentary is from disaffected members. But then you are putting this material in front of everyone pure and simple and bringing issues to the forefront.

I like the good/better/best example that was used above. Focus on the basic and fundamental truths each week, and then for individuals who want more in-depth discussions/learning there is the internet to seek out forums like this. Just hoping that they can navigate the flood of information from both sides that will come pouring in as a result, warts and all. That's the approach I have taken mainly as a lurker (registered way back in 06) as I believe many of you and others I have come across have valuable insights and knowledge to share that I wouldn't otherwise be able to partake of.

Edited July 23, 2013 by 19nazzy

[Calm]

"Each statement has been referenced, and the original spelling and punctuation have been preserved; however, the sources cited will not be readily available to most members. These original sources are not necessary to have in order to effectively study or teach from this book. Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures is sufficient for instruction." (Introduction, Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Brigham Young, page v)

Your point?

[The Nehor]

Really didn't expect you to agree with me Nehor...but let me try to make it a little more understandable for you...it's just simple "Econ 101"...supply and demand... the supply is declining at the same time that the demand is increasing...Something's got to give... the church has limited resources and must allocate those recourses where it feels is can make the greatest return on its investment. But I seriously doubt that those inside the church financial wing would disagree with me...they're living this reality and I'm sure that they have some plan to deal with it...by shifting resources, making cuts in pay, reducing travel expenses and reallocating resources away from unprofitable areas to those areas where the church might turn a profit. And I’m not using the term profit in a derogatory manner. To survive the church MUST turn a profit. To borrow a sentence from the Slate article…”the money to keep the Christmas lights on in Temple Square will have to come from somewhere”. And with an ever increasing and poorer lower tithing paying membership coupled with (and the point of the OP) departure of those internet savvy, higher income, formerly full tithe paying members who are departing in waves…Salt Lake, We have a problem…

Again...to use an example...If the church loses 1 member who had been paying $25,000 in annual tithing that 1 former tithe payer would have to be replaced with 100 Mexican households or 120 Brazilian and it would take nearly 278 African full tithe paying households to equal the same tithing receipts generated by that 1 former US tithing payer. Again Nehor...simple econ 101

http://www.nationson...third_world.htm

Suppositions piled on suppositions with a bit of mind reading and condescension thrown in. All packaged up to appear obvious. You are not a bad dissembler.

I have a minor in economics. Your weird abuse of economic terms using them in ways they were never intended suggests you may want to retake econ 101 rather than pontificate about it.

Your suppositions also rely on the idea that we are doing nothing but shrinking in western society. An article of faith amongst hardened enemies of the church but sadly never proven.

[Calm]

The introduction to the Brigham Young manual states: "Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures, is sufficient for instruction."

There are in my experience a lot of insecure teachers out there, insecure about their knowledge and they debate with themselves whether they need to spend money on additional texts etc. so they can answer all their class members' questions. I would not be surprised if this occurs churchwide, even among members who can poorly afford such materials or don't have access to them easily. This seems to me to be meant to reassure these types that they can do well enough as teachers without purchasing more materials. It does not say one shouldn't read them after all.

And I can understand a concern that might be addressed by the later references to not being tempted to put aside the lesson manual for other materials. The Church creates manuals with the intent that such is the lesson that is to be taught. If a teacher doesn't even use the manual to create a lesson, they run the risk of not fulfilling their calling. One should at the very least get the topic of the lesson and run with that. I, as a SS teacher, would often just pull out the scripture references referred to in a lesson and depend on those rather than use made up stories or information that wasn't as focused on the scriptures due to the limited of the class and the fact I was teaching teens among which there were some that were less than diligent in their scripture study and others who obviously loved them...we rarely made it through a class where we covered all the scriptures.

It seems to me in the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church manuals, it is silly to completely dispense with the manual since the manual contains the teachings the Church wants taught. One might focus on some of the teachings in a more thorough way than the manual does if one chooses because one believes it is important to the class to do so, but at least those teachings in the manual should be what one chooses one's topic from.

That the language becomes stronger over time would seem to indicate that Church Headquarters had dealt with some complaints that teachers were going off on their own more than they should.

I do agree that it is ridiculous to criticize a teacher for using more than the manuals if they are using the manuals as the core of their lesson though as long as they are trying to share important information and not doing so to create controversy or get a 'good discussion' going for the sake of a discussion rather than illuminating their class (a habit my dad sometimes engaged in as a teacher...he would say something provocative to get people talking even when he didn't believe it himself, he said he wanted to make people think, but I think it was just as much to make the experience of teaching more interesting for himself personally based on how I've seen him do the same thing outside of classes over the years when he is bored...he goes around poking 'wasps' nests' so to speak).

PS: I just found out from bluebell's post that a somewhat stricter rule applies to the Teaching of the Presidents manual, one I can understand as I state in my response to her.

Edited July 23, 2013 by calmoriah