The September 6

[why me]

And the Ordain Women movement started a long time ago.  The petition for the priesthood session was not a secret as they were gathering signatures.

 

One can certainly choose to see the priesthood session announcement and women praying in conference as mere coincidences.  Or we can choose to look at a positive spin that members of the church raised an issue, the Brethren listened, and changes were made for the betterment of the church.

It might have had nothing to do with the ordainwomen movement at all. The decision most likely was made because it made sense. The ordainwomen movement will never get its way about women elders etc. Too many changes for the lds church if women were ordained. The church would be topsy turvy: no more relief societyall adults;in priesthood meeting;no young women or young mens organization;just a youth organization; no visiting teaching, etc.

 

Not to mention a mass exodus from the church by many women and men because of such a decision. The church would lose more than it would gain.

[why me]

Raising up seed does not appear to be the reason that Joseph practiced plural marriage.

 

And I remember once reading the stats that showed in Utah, monogamous women produced (on average) more children than polygamous women.  So, in terms of raising up seed -- that might not have worked.  Maybe that's the reason that God pulled the plug on it.

I don't think that it was about raising righteous seed. It was about the restoration of all things. This is why polygamy was instituted. And because it came through revelation. However, many here on this forum would say that they are here today because of polygamy. So, the practice did raise righteous seed. And I don't believe that mormon men at the time of polygamy were left high and dry because of polygamy. I believe that those who wished to have a wife, found one.

[why me]

 

The cry "how does this affect my salvation" as an excuse not to study has always bothered me.

 

Your reference on the School of the Prophets is particularly interesting as a case in point - it is accessible information but most members know nothing about it.  The reference also provides no mention of the spiritual manifestations beyond a vague hint at the beginning, nor explanation of the ordinances performed.

To assume that church members would want to study church history is probably wrong. People are not interested in history. How many Americans are engaged in reading history on a regular basis? Not many. Most do not know who Ronald Reagan was or Richard Nixon or even George W. H. Bush. Why must lds people be experts on their history? How many catholics know their history or Protestants? Not many. Most go to church because they wish to worship god and meet people. The whole notion of the church suddenly becoming a history class comes from the internet and the critics. The critics demand that the complete history of the lds church be taught to the members.

 

Now I do believe that members should show an interest in their history. But their salvation does not depend on knowing church history. But members like most people in this world of ours have no interest in history. What to do?

Edited October 5, 2013 by why me

[why me]

I'd say that the church clearly doesn't want to talk about polygamy... at least not in our priesthood & RS classes.  The all but removed it from the Presidents of the Church manuals.  My guess is that they view it as not relevant which is a bit sad to me as the descendant of a polygamist.  I think there are important things to learn from the practice.

 

In any case, I agree that we should use caution in "spinning" importance/impact.  Like you, I see that happen all too often.  That's why I mentioned earlier in the thread, that despite his writings and despite his excommunication, Quinn is still a believer.  I think it's significant that you can know a lot about these controversial topics and still place them in their proper perspective in the realm of faith.

Polygamy is not mentioned in the manuals. But members can certainly bring it up in the meetings. No problem with that. So, there is nothing for you to make a comment about how you are a descendant of polygamy and you can mention some important things to learn from the practice.

 

Quinn may still be a believer. But the problem is that his books are touted by exmembers and critics because after reading his books they left the church. I don't know if this is Quinn's fault. Most likely the fault of the people who left because they were influenced by a man who happens to be an historian. But Quinn's interpretations of lds history did not help.

Edited October 5, 2013 by why me

[Tacenda]

Polygamy is not mentioned in the manuals. But members can certainly bring it up in the meetings. No problem with that. So, there is nothing for you to make a comment about how you are a descendant of polygamy and you can mention some important things to learn from the practice.

Quinn may still be a believer. But the problem is that his books are touted by exmembers and critics because after reading his books they left the church. I don't know if this is Quinn's fault. Most likely the fault of the people who left because they were influenced by a man who happens to be an historian. But Quinn's interpretations of lds history did not help.

It's not Quinn's fault, church history convicts itself.

[why me]

It's not Quinn's fault, church history convicts itself.

No, not really. All history can convict itself depending on interpretation. Richard Bushman's book did not convict church history at all. Neither did Joseph Rimini's short biography of Joseph Smith. Nor did Arrington's biography of BY. History is filled with interpretations and points of view by historians. Certain members were convinced by Quinn's interpretations. And out they went. Like wise for Palmer's book.

 

And we can also look at Don Bradley and Margaret Tosscano. When they were out of the church, they influenced members to leave based on their interpretations of history. Now they are back in the church and now have a different interpretation of historical events. I would never put my faith in an historian nor in an academic.

Edited October 5, 2013 by why me

[Tacenda]

No, not really. All history can convict itself depending on interpretation. Richard Bushman's book did not convict church history at all. Neither did Joseph Rimini's short biography of Joseph Smith. Nor did Arrington's biography of BY. History is filled with interpretations and points of view by historians. Certain members were convinced by Quinn's interpretations. And out they went. Like wise for Palmer's book.

I know people on discussion boards, NOM & Staylds, that have said that after reading RSR it started them out the door.

[Calm]

Sorry messed that up, using my phone. Can you tell me what happens to those women who were sealed to more than one man?

in the past, the CHI had phrasing that basically said that it will be worked out in heaven which one she would stay sealed to, but that language has been removed...whether or not that is still the understanding I don't know, but they have begun in very limited special circumstances allowing some living women to not cancel one sealing and still be sealed to more than one man, identical to how it is done for men, so it is possible that the understanding of the situation for women is being expanded. We will have to wait and see.

[why me]

I know people on discussion boards, NOM & Staylds, that have said that after reading RSR it started them out the door.

That may be. And yet others have said otherwise. Like I said, history can be troubling based on the historians point of view and our own interpretation of it. The fact is there is no perfect history because history is made by human beings. And we are not perfect. So, critics can certainly make negative judgments on church history and begin to influence people accordingly. You seem to be a christian. And yet, the religious wars in europe between protestants and catholics should be a real turnoff when it comes to christianity. But yet, people see beyond that imperfection and still believe in protestantism or catholicism.

[rockpond]

Sorry messed that up, using my phone. Can you tell me what happens to those women who were sealed to more than one man?

 

I'm not aware of any specific teaching on this.  I think the generally accepted thought it that God will make it all work out so that everyone (or at least the righteous) are happy.

[rockpond]

To assume that church members would want to study church history is probably wrong. People are not interested in history. How many Americans are engaged in reading history on a regular basis? Not many. Most do not know who Ronald Reagan was or Richard Nixon or even George W. H. Bush. Why must lds people be experts on their history? How many catholics know their history or Protestants? Not many. Most go to church because they wish to worship god and meet people. The whole notion of the church suddenly becoming a history class comes from the internet and the critics. The critics demand that the complete history of the lds church be taught to the members.

 

Now I do believe that members should show an interest in their history. But their salvation does not depend on knowing church history. But members like most people in this world of ours have no interest in history. What to do?

 

Some are interested in history.  Some aren't.  Unfortunately, we're losing members who (interested or not) are discovering things about church history that are unsettling... sometimes to the point of feeling betrayed.

 

I know that our salvation does not depend on history.  And I know that SS/PH/RS classes are not history classes.  But I believe that we need to try to do something to prevent people from leaving when discovering some of these historical details.

[JLHPROF]

 

Now I do believe that members should show an interest in their history. But their salvation does not depend on knowing church history. But members like most people in this world of ours have no interest in history. What to do?

 

This is where I always find I have to clarify.  It is not about "knowing church history", it is about understanding the doctrines that came from church history.  For example, it doesn't matter which month Joseph first gave the temple ordinances in the Red Brick store or where they got the mud for the bricks.  But the doctrinal learnings from the account of the first temple ordinances at the Red Brick store are beneficial.

 

It doesn't matter to my salvation to learn about the penny fund that helped with the Kirtland Temple, but it does teach about charity, why tithing has always connected to to temple worthiness, and the accounts in D&C 110 of the Temple visitation teaches us so much about priesthood.

 

I firmly believe that our salvation DOES depend (or at least the level of our exaltation does) on the intelligence, knowledge and understanding of the things of God that we acquire.  Joseph Smith & the scriptures taught us that repeatedly.  We should study church history for the doctrinal benefit, not the dates and places.

[why me]

Some are interested in history.  Some aren't.  Unfortunately, we're losing members who (interested or not) are discovering things about church history that are unsettling... sometimes to the point of feeling betrayed.

 

I know that our salvation does not depend on history.  And I know that SS/PH/RS classes are not history classes.  But I believe that we need to try to do something to prevent people from leaving when discovering some of these historical details.

I have always thought that it was strange that members would leave over history. I think that members can feel betrayed because they are told to feel betrayed by the critics giving the information. It is implied. I have knew a catholic who suddenly discovered the Inquisition to leave the church because they feel betrayed. Nor have I meant a catholic to leave their church after discovering the antipopes who led the catholic church. But for the lds, their history becomes an issue. Strangely, these same people can be giving their testimony about their wonderful spiritual experiences and how they know that the church is true. Suddenly, puff, it is all gone. Amazing for sure.

[why me]

This is where I always find I have to clarify.  It is not about "knowing church history", it is about understanding the doctrines that came from church history.  For example, it doesn't matter which month Joseph first gave the temple ordinances in the Red Brick store or where they got the mud for the bricks.  But the doctrinal learnings from the account of the first temple ordinances at the Red Brick store are beneficial.

 

Question: How often should members learn such history? Once a year? Once every two years? Twice a year? These days people's memories are like swiss cheese.

[JLHPROF]

Question: How often should members learn such history? Once a year? Once every two years? Twice a year? These days people's memories are like swiss cheese.

We shouldn't compartmentalize our study of gospel so much.  If I want to study Baptism and principles surrounding it then I should read about it in the OT, NT, BOM, D&C, Church HIstory, and any teachings of the prophets.  Then perhaps I might start to have an understanding of baptism.

 

Do I want to learn (as someone wroter earlier) about how husbands and wives should treat each other?  Then I should read what the OT, NT, BOM, D&C, and the teachings of the prophets in Church History can teach me about how to treat my wife acceptably before the Lord.

 

And the list continues.  Studying church doctrinal history is no different than reading the scriptures.  After all, the scriptures are just church doctrinal history from different time periods.

[why me]

We shouldn't compartmentalize our study of gospel so much.  If I want to study Baptism and principles surrounding it then I should read about it in the OT, NT, BOM, D&C, Church HIstory, and any teachings of the prophets.  Then perhaps I might start to have an understanding of baptism.

 

Do I want to learn (as someone wroter earlier) about how husbands and wives should treat each other?  Then I should read what the OT, NT, BOM, D&C, and the teachings of the prophets in Church History can teach me about how to treat my wife acceptably before the Lord.

 

And the list continues.  Studying church doctrinal history is no different than reading the scriptures.  After all, the scriptures are just church doctrinal history from different time periods.

The only problem here is the time when the lds study the gospel on a sunday: in a two hour period which is actually less than two hours. I also don't think that people have the time to read deeply during the week. Too much pressure from work and family not to mention the pressures of every day living. In the past, I believe that people had time to read church books such as BY's discourses. And other books. But now...I don't see it happening. However, they do have time to surf the web about the church and become influenced by the critics and perhaps fall away from the church. I am still amazed just how some members throw it all away because of history or because of a history book about the lds church. All their spiritual experiences and testimonies seem to evaporate into thin air.

[JLHPROF]

The only problem here is the time when the lds study the gospel on a sunday: in a two hour period which is actually less than two hours. I also don't think that people have the time to read deeply during the week. Too much pressure from work and family not to mention the pressures of every day living. In the past, I believe that people had time to read church books such as BY's discourses. And other books. But now...I don't see it happening. However, they do have time to surf the web about the church and become influenced by the critics and perhaps fall away from the church. I am still amazed just how some members throw it all away because of history or because of a history book about the lds church. All their spiritual experiences and testimonies seem to evaporate into thin air.

 

But there is nothing stopping the manuals for the lessons being a little deeper or providing more references and fewer platitudes.  Or at least the teachers could.  In my ward we have two Gospel Doctrine teachers - one who actually teaches, with references, doctrine, quotes, etc, and one who tells stories about his mission and reads through the manual.

 

As far as people leaving after reading a book, maybe if we did a better job of teaching the gospel, they wouldn't be led astray when something unfamiliar appears.  The idea that teaching people to avoid false doctrine will keep them in the faith is foolish.  Teaching them to tell true from false doctrine is the only thing that keeps people from falling away after hearing something unpleasant.

[rockpond]

I have always thought that it was strange that members would leave over history. I think that members can feel betrayed because they are told to feel betrayed by the critics giving the information. It is implied. I have knew a catholic who suddenly discovered the Inquisition to leave the church because they feel betrayed. Nor have I meant a catholic to leave their church after discovering the antipopes who led the catholic church. But for the lds, their history becomes an issue. Strangely, these same people can be giving their testimony about their wonderful spiritual experiences and how they know that the church is true. Suddenly, puff, it is all gone. Amazing for sure.

 

When I went through my faith crisis, I wasn't aware of anyone telling me to feel betrayed.  But I definitely felt it.  And it wasn't critics giving me information.

 

My strong spiritual experiences are what kept me tethered to the church and encouraged me to work through the crisis and stay.  Though I had to rebuild my faith from the ground up.

[rockpond]

The only problem here is the time when the lds study the gospel on a sunday: in a two hour period which is actually less than two hours. I also don't think that people have the time to read deeply during the week. Too much pressure from work and family not to mention the pressures of every day living. In the past, I believe that people had time to read church books such as BY's discourses. And other books. But now...I don't see it happening. However, they do have time to surf the web about the church and become influenced by the critics and perhaps fall away from the church. I am still amazed just how some members throw it all away because of history or because of a history book about the lds church. All their spiritual experiences and testimonies seem to evaporate into thin air.

 

I think we've got plenty of time within the three hour block to include more teachings that would help inoculate against the collapsing shelf of cognitive dissonance.  There is a lot of repetition in lesson material that could be reduced.

[rockpond]

But for the lds, their history becomes an issue.

 

I think one reason for that is not only because we have a relatively recent history but because the granting of our authority and scripture is explained through that historical narrative.  Coming across information that calls that narrative into question tends to strike at the very foundation.

[cdowis]

I think we've got plenty of time within the three hour block to include more teachings that would help inoculate against the collapsing shelf of cognitive dissonance.  

 

Listen to Elder Uchdorf's Saturday morning conference talk.

[why me]

I think we've got plenty of time within the three hour block to include more teachings that would help inoculate against the collapsing shelf of cognitive dissonance.  There is a lot of repetition in lesson material that could be reduced.

I don't see a three hour block. I see much less. Sacrament meeting is basically 40 minutes for the talks. Sunday School is also basically 40 minutes by the time it starts and priesthood too after elder's quorum business. Not much time at all. And who should decide what to teach for inoculation?

[rockpond]

Listen to Elder Uchdorf's Saturday morning conference talk.

I did. It is a great talk and message.

[rockpond]

I don't see a three hour block. I see much less. Sacrament meeting is basically 40 minutes for the talks. Sunday School is also basically 40 minutes by the time it starts and priesthood too after elder's quorum business. Not much time at all. And who should decide what to teach for inoculation?

I understand that the 3-hr block includes lots of administrative stuff as well as the ordinance of the sacrament. But I see our current curriculum as having plenty of room to include discussions of things that are often at the root of members leaving. The Brethren through the curriculum department would be the ones to decide how to approach and teach such subjects.

I'm not suggesting that we create some special class or manual. I'm just saying that I think within the existing topics we want to cover each year, we could include discussion of some of these historical concerns.

For an example, when I was an early morning seminary teacher the curriculum did not include a discussion of polygamy. Even in the Doctrine and Covenants year. After class discussions revealed to me that there were at least some students who didn't know much about the practice prior to the trek west. My understanding is that it's discussed at the institute level but that may be too late.

[cdowis]

Or they could teach them how to handle their doubts and questions,  between themselves and God.