New Church History Seminary Manual

[Calm]

Care to elaborate your thoughts on that?

Since it is from the temple....and I am in bed pretending to try and go to sleep....not really.

Changed my mind and wii now elaborate:

What Scott said....that was easy.

Edited January 30, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Since it is from the temple....and I am in bed pretending to try and go to sleep....not really.

Changed my mind and wii now elaborate:

What Scott said....that was easy.

I was about to say it's in Moses 5:5-7.

 

That should make it even easier.

[BCSpace]

This seems like a polite way to say that the LDS Church was not being led by revelation about

the matter when it instituted the ban.

 

 

The recent topical addition seems to point in the other direction.

 

 

Unless of course, this is a revelation hidden in a secret vault and only alluded to in other church writings of apostles and elders.

 

In "To The Saints", referenced by the aforementioned topical addition, BY refers to his knowledge of the scriptures and experience in the Church.

 

 

10. In reference to D&C 77, "(It may be helpful to explain that the 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation.)"

 

Same explanation taught for at least decades in the D&C institute manual.

[rockpond]

My belief is just what is reflected in the passage I cited: that the Lord does not always behave in ways that mortal men expect Him to.

So is that a yes or a no?

[rockpond]

What elaboration do you need? It's right there in the scriptural account. Adam was commanded to offer sacrifices but was not immediately given the reason why, other than that the Lord commanded it.

I wasn't clear on what point Cal was making. I thought she was specifically referring to the priesthood WRT Adam and I couldn't figure out where she was headed. But I got it now.

[rockpond]

Since it is from the temple....and I am in bed pretending to try and go to sleep....not really.

Changed my mind and wii now elaborate:

What Scott said....that was easy.

Adam was eventually taught that what he was doing was in similitude of Christ.

The prophets and apostles apparently floundered for a century and a half theorizing the "why" of the priesthood ban. Teaching racist doctrine only to later be disavowed. And we still don't know the reason for the ban or even have a definitive answer on if it was the Lord's will.

So while I do now understand the point you were making (thanks) I don't find Adam to be a compelling analogy.

[Storm Rider]

The issue of the priesthood and our black brothers and sisters will remain a sore spot for the members and for those who study Latter Day Saint movement history.  It is impossible for me to believe that the Church would simply create a policy that affected so many people for so long and then ask me to believe no one knows why it occurred or was begun. 

 

Every day the leaders get up and look themselves in the mirror they have to deal with it; it existed and there needs to be an answer for denying priesthood blessings to all of God's children.  It is easy for me to accept that BY made an independent decision; but it does offend me that the Church has not been honest and continues to dodge the question.  Please don't tell me I cannot handle the truth. The truth can be handled by all those who understand that men are full of frailties, even those who are called to be prophets, seers, and revelators. But if you lie to me and then continue to lie to me I will have a difficult time knowing when to believe what you say.

[CMZ]

This seems like a polite way to say that the LDS Church was not being led by revelation about

the matter when it instituted the ban.  Unless of course, this is a revelation hidden in a secret

vault and only alluded to in other church writings of apostles and elders.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

I like to say that the ban began (at least to our knowledge) in vagary but ended in clarity. I think there's a lot more to the issue than people think, but most people only think of it in terms of, "Was this the Church being racist or not? To keep from looking racist myself I better accuse the Church's policy of having been based in racism." Yes, I think some of the Brethren had racist views. I still don't think that's the whole explanation for it.The ban may have begun because of revelation that we just don't know about. Or maybe it was from a trace of racism. Or because "whites weren't ready to accept blacks yet" (not the best explanation-- why keep the priesthood from blacks because whites weren't ready for blacks to have it??). It might have began due to a number of factors. But when we hear about subsequent prophets personally wanting to lift the ban but feeling spiritually like it wasn't time yet then it's hard for me to reduce the whole thing down to, "The Church was racist!!"

[Calm]

Adam was eventually taught that what he was doing was in similitude of Christ.

The prophets and apostles apparently floundered for a century and a half theorizing the "why" of the priesthood ban. Teaching racist doctrine only to later be disavowed. And we still don't know the reason for the ban or even have a definitive answer on if it was the Lord's will.

So while I do now understand the point you were making (thanks) I don't find Adam to be a compelling analogy.

We have no idea how long it took for Adam to receive more info....if he lived as long as it is taught in the scriptures it could have been for a lot longer than the Ban existed. We don't know the circumstances surrounding Adam, maybe his children speculated tons even if he himself refused to do so or maybe he just realized as he was confronted and asked that all of his speculation meant nothing and he did it solely because he was commanded.

But it should be hardly surprising that a group of individuals in a different time and place reacted differently than did two (or more) individuals in the distant past even if they both experienced a revelation/commandment they didn't understand. It happens differently with individuals in the here and now even at times an explanation is given where some offer endless speculation on a commandment, others even treat the speculation as a commandment itself and others just go out and do.

Why wasn't the sealing to actual fathers and mothers given in its completeness (assuming it is now complete which I don't believe) from the beginning? Why were the leaders left to come up with practice and policies on their own which led to massive amounts of teaching that we don't know now are correct or not since they were built on incomplete knowledge? Why when the revelation to seal child to parent given at last, was not enough doctrine given so that we could determine if past teachings were correct or not? For some reason it appears if God is tolerant of some error existing in the Church...perhaps as long as it does not lead people to sin?

Edited January 30, 2014 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

They are deliberately hiding this information in a seminary manual.

Now no one will ever know about it!

 

 

Looks like the nefarious Church censors and correlators were asleep at their posts on this one!

 

 

Whitewashing history, once again.

 

LOL!

 

I was pleasantly surprised to learn just that the Church has decided to tackle some of the tough issues upfront in its seminary courses.  Young people were going to find out about these things sooner or later and so it's better to give them some context for polygamy, the Book of Abraham, etc. as opposed to them simply reading on the Internet that "Joseph Smith was a player" or "It's all made up!"

 

That being said, I wonder if the Church will take the same approach with providing this information to us "grown folks."  I'm not so sure that I would do so if I was a church leader (and the fact that I'm not is just one more reason to believe in a kind and merciful God).  After all, do Sister Born-During-The-Depression and Brother I-Remember-When-Milk-Cost-a-Nickel really need to know about the subtle differences in the First Vision narrative?  Do they even want to hear it?

 

On the other hand, there are many young-to-middle-aged members who are likely to come across this information on the Internet.  Hearing this information "straight from the tapir's mouth" could prevent a lot of the betrayal that people feel when they learn that the Sunday School version of church history has been sanitized and deodorized (just like most historical narratives).  Because I really don't think that just putting a more complete version of church history up on a random page of the church's website is going to convince a troubled saint that the church has been honest with them.  Particularly, given that the saint has gone through THOUSANDS of hours of church instruction and is just now learning about, say, peep stones in a hat. 

 

So how do we inoculate the younger members who might need it without administering a lethal dose of truth to our more seasoned members?

[Calm]

"After all, do Sister Born-During-The-Depression and Brother I-Remember-When-Milk-Cost-a-Nickel really need to know about the subtle differences in the First Vision narrative"

If they had been reading their Ensign all along, they would already know about it.

A Gospel Topic page specifically on that topic is hardly a random page.

Edited January 30, 2014 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

"After all, do Sister Born-During-The-Depression and Brother I-Remember-When-Milk-Cost-a-Nickel really need to know about the subtle differences in the First Vision narrative"

If they had been reading their Ensign all along, they would already know about it.

A Gospel Topic page specifically on that topic is hardly a random page.

 

Yes, but I'm not sure that an Ensign article every few years or a single page on a 10,000-page website is nearly as memorable as hearing a single version of the First Vision dozens of times from church leaders that they admire and respect.  I think of it like the Santa Claus story (warning: spoiler alert).

 

Like most parents, I told my young children over and over about Santa Claus bringing them presents on Christmas.  One of them (I think it was the short one) learned from a buddy at school that Santa wasn't real.  When he asked me about it, I didn't say, "How could you believe such a simplistic story?  Didn't you see the receipts from the stores?  Didn't you ever overhear me and your mother talking about what to get you?  What about that time that I accidentally signed my name on the gift tag instead of Santa's?  Surely, there was enough information for you to learn the truth on your own."

 

Instead, I said, "Que?  Me no speaky English!"  Actually, I simply explained that, when he was young, I wanted him to experience all of the excitement of Santa Claus but now that he was "big boy," he could start paying for his own darn gifts.

 

I admit that this conversation would have been weird had my son been, say, 46 years old at the time but I don't think that he would have had any more comfort if I tried to blame him for actually believing what I told him most of the time.

 

That being said, I do acknowledge that reasonable minds can differ on this issue, but since I'm not at all reasonable, you should just come over to my side of the issue

[Kenngo1969]

 What do you mean ...

 

Santa isn't real??!!!  

 

http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/

 

 

 

[Nevo]

I really don't think that just putting a more complete version of church history up on a random page of the church's website is going to convince a troubled saint that the church has been honest with them.  Particularly, given that the saint has gone through THOUSANDS of hours of church instruction and is just now learning about, say, peep stones in a hat. 

 

I agree. I welcome the Church's recent turn towards greater openness and candor but nothing the Church can do at this point will put Humpty Dumpty back together for some folks. The damage is already done. The current measures are mainly for the benefit of the rising generation. I don't think the new seminary manual adequately addresses the troubling historical information youth are likely to encounter online and in the media but it is definitely a step in the right direction. I think the curriculum designers have done about as well as could be expected under the circumstances.

[Tacenda]

I agree. I welcome the Church's recent turn towards greater openness and candor but nothing the Church can do at this point will put Humpty Dumpty back together for some folks. The damage is already done. The current measures are mainly for the benefit of the rising generation. I don't think the new seminary manual adequately addresses the troubling historical information youth are likely to encounter online and in the media but it is definitely a step in the right direction. I think the curriculum designers have done about as well as could be expected under the circumstances.

I have to side with mormonnewb here.  We need to address not only the youth but the older crowd as well.  Or the converts.  What about a pamphlet put out by the church.  To counteract the anti pamphlets out there.  Why would that be difficult?  They do it all the time, from how to do things as a family, to budgeting ideas to food storage.  This would be ever so helpful to have sitting by a bishops desk when a member comes in with difficult questions.  My bishop never could figure out how to help me, he remained silent on the subject, if it weren't for this site, I'd probably be out of the church and divorced for all I know.     

[daz2]

The manual's statement that things are unclear reflected the Church's position at the time it was being written.  Things are more clear now--i.e., when it began, the cultural background, how and when it was announced and on what basis.  There is no claim or hint that BYs announcement was driven by revelation of any kind (although there is no denial of that either).  There is simply no evidence that there was one, and the Church does not take the position by faith that God directed the policy via revelation.  It is too bad the seminary manual does not reference the more recent more precise statement.  http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng  I imagine that its absence is that the train was too far along in the publishing (and translation) process to modify the manual.

[Scott Lloyd]

Every day the leaders get up and look themselves in the mirror they have to deal with it; it existed and there needs to be an answer for denying priesthood blessings to all of God's children.  It is easy for me to accept that BY made an independent decision; but it does offend me that the Church has not been honest and continues to dodge the question. 

The fact that the leaders of the Church have not said "that Brigham Young made an independent decision" should tell you something. Rather than jumping to the conclusion that "the Church has not been honest and continues to dodge the question," you could take the Church leaders at their word and conclude that "we don't know why" really does mean "we don't know why."

 

Please don't tell me I cannot handle the truth. The truth can be handled by all those who understand that men are full of frailties, even those who are called to be prophets, seers, and revelators. But if you lie to me and then continue to lie to me I will have a difficult time knowing when to believe what you say.

 

See above. You have no basis other than your own opinion for accusing the Church leaders of lying.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[David T]

It does suggest the teacher refer to the new document. It just doesn't quote it.

[halconero]

I have to side with mormonnewb here.  We need to address not only the youth but the older crowd as well.  Or the converts.  What about a pamphlet put out by the church.  To counteract the anti pamphlets out there.  Why would that be difficult?  They do it all the time, from how to do things as a family, to budgeting ideas to food storage.  This would be ever so helpful to have sitting by a bishops desk when a member comes in with difficult questions.  My bishop never could figure out how to help me, he remained silent on the subject, if it weren't for this site, I'd probably be out of the church and divorced for all I know.     

 

This is speculating here, but I believe a new curriculum is being developed surrounding this. New institute manuals were introduced a few weeks ago which talk about blacks and the priesthood, and we will be discussing polygamy as well. Institute is most intended for young adults, but adults nonetheless. I wouldn't be surprised if we see new curriculum in Sunday school or the Priesthood/Relief Society manuals as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

So is that a yes or a no?

See calmoriah's very thoughtful treatment in post #34.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is speculating here, but I believe a new curriculum is being developed surrounding this. New institute manuals were introduced a few weeks ago which talk about blacks and the priesthood, and we will be discussing polygamy as well. Institute is most intended for young adults, but adults nonetheless. I wouldn't be surprised if we see new curriculum in Sunday school or the Priesthood/Relief Society manuals as well.

As it pertains to Sunday School at least, I have it on good authority that that is precisely what is planned.

 

With regard to Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society manuals, I think we will see a continuation of the Teachings of Presidents of the Church series until all of the past Church presidents have been covered.

[Buzzard]

As I read the list, I recalled almost all of those issues being discussed in my Seminary class back in the 1970's. (Notable exceptions: Second Manifesto and alternate First Vision accounts). I did have the advantage of released-time seminary rather than early-morning, and perhaps my instructors were varying from the manual, but we discussed polygamy, Blacks and the Priesthood, Book of Abraham, Mountain Meadows, and other controversial topics openly and in class. Maybe some of you were so busy passing a note the cute girl in the third row you didn't hear?

On a side note, I sure heard a lot of false doctrine in Seminary, from the theory that the ten tribes were underground, to Alvin R. Dyer having to do with the return to Missouri. But you take the good with the bad. Most of the really out there stuff was corrected in Institute classes later on. 

[Scott Lloyd]

As I read the list, I recalled almost all of those issues being discussed in my Seminary class back in the 1970's. (Notable exceptions: Second Manifesto and alternate First Vision accounts). I did have the advantage of released-time seminary rather than early-morning, and perhaps my instructors were varying from the manual, but we discussed polygamy, Blacks and the Priesthood, Book of Abraham, Mountain Meadows, and other controversial topics openly and in class. Maybe some of you were so busy passing a note the cute girl in the third row you didn't hear?

On a side note, I sure heard a lot of false doctrine in Seminary, from the theory that the ten tribes were underground, to Alvin R. Dyer having to do with the return to Missouri. But you take the good with the bad. Most of the really out there stuff was corrected in Institute classes later on. 

Even today, some seminary teachers are more knowledgeable than others.

 

From what I see, what the new manual does is standardize the curriculum to the point where somebody out in the hinterlands called to teach seminary on a non-professional, part-time basis has easier access to certain knowledge and information.

 

Regarding Alvin R. Dyer, I know that he wrote quite a bit about prophesied events to transpire in Missouri, but this is the first time I have seen his name associated with false doctrine. Can you elaborate?

Edited January 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

This is speculating here, but I believe a new curriculum is being developed surrounding this. New institute manuals were introduced a few weeks ago which talk about blacks and the priesthood, and we will be discussing polygamy as well. Institute is most intended for young adults, but adults nonetheless. I wouldn't be surprised if we see new curriculum in Sunday school or the Priesthood/Relief Society manuals as well.

From what I have observed, when the Church starts a new program, it picks a spot to start, treats that relatively thoroughly and then expands out from there. Efficiency suggests to start with the children/youth as information development is more effective among those who do not need to have their memories corrected than among those who do. There is even research demonstrating correction may actually strengthen the confidence in the false knowledge.

So I see it reasonable for the Church to put most of its effort into getting it going with the youth, then expanding it as resources are freed up into other, older groups.

[rockpond]

We have no idea how long it took for Adam to receive more info....if he lived as long as it is taught in the scriptures it could have been for a lot longer than the Ban existed. We don't know the circumstances surrounding Adam, maybe his children speculated tons even if he himself refused to do so or maybe he just realized as he was confronted and asked that all of his speculation meant nothing and he did it solely because he was commanded.

But it should be hardly surprising that a group of individuals in a different time and place reacted differently than did two (or more) individuals in the distant past even if they both experienced a revelation/commandment they didn't understand. It happens differently with individuals in the here and now even at times an explanation is given where some offer endless speculation on a commandment, others even treat the speculation as a commandment itself and others just go out and do.

Why wasn't the sealing to actual fathers and mothers given in its completeness (assuming it is now complete which I don't believe) from the beginning? Why were the leaders left to come up with practice and policies on their own which led to massive amounts of teaching that we don't know now are correct or not since they were built on incomplete knowledge? Why when the revelation to seal child to parent given at last, was not enough doctrine given so that we could determine if past teachings were correct or not? For some reason it appears if God is tolerant of some error existing in the Church...perhaps as long as it does not lead people to sin?

 

Well, I agree that the restoration is an ongoing process.  So we can't consider anything as complete just yet.  And as I've stated before, I also agree that God tolerates error because He respects our agency.

 

But I just don't see that as a reason to believe that the ban was anything but the product of cultural racism since God has never seen fit to explain it to us.  If we are going to be a people led by revelation, we ought to acknowledge the times when we aren't led by revelation.  If not, don't we become guilty of taking the Lord's name in vain by claiming his approval on all that we do.