New Church History Seminary Manual

[rockpond]

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

 

I just responded to that post.  And you crack me up.  It was a pretty straightforward question.

[Buzzard]

 

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?

Sitting in Seminary in my sophomore year in High School, (This would be 1973), the fact that Elder Dyer was a former member of the First Presidency, but no longer a member of the Quorum of the 12, since the FP had since reverted back to three members, came up. 

Our eager teacher said, and I quote to  the best of my memory: "We don't know exactly what his future calling will be, but we know it has something to do with Missouri". The whole class oohed and aahed. This was something seriously cool. Of course, Elder Dyer going the way of all mortality several years later kind of put the kibosh on my seminary teachers flourish of prophecy. 

[CV75]

e

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.

I think it is good to focus on what it is we are being led to do, and what / where we are being to.

The saints who were living in the time of the ban were being led to the same “mysteries” that we who are living without the ban are being led to (D&C 63:23). We are as much led by the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the covenants and the ordinances as they were. The only qualification to be properly led is to truly believe in Christ (John 7:38).

The ban had nothing to do with not believing in Christ; neither did OD2. Neither did these have anything to do with not being led or not to the mysteries.

A person can acknowledge his own failure to partake of the living water. He cannot rightly condemn another’s failure unless he has the keys to do so. I think it would be a hard sell to show that the prophets of the Church have not consistently led the saints according to D&C 63:23.

[Scott Lloyd]

I just responded to that post.  And you crack me up.  It was a pretty straightforward question.

It was an "are you still beating your wife" kind of question.

 

And when somebody comes at me with a question that's really an attempt to put words in my mouth, and then tries to badger me into responding with a one-word answer, I quickly grow bored with the conversation and am apt to summarily terminate it.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Sitting in Seminary in my sophomore year in High School, (This would be 1973), the fact that Elder Dyer was a former member of the First Presidency, but no longer a member of the Quorum of the 12, since the FP had since reverted back to three members, came up. 

Our eager teacher said, and I quote to  the best of my memory: "We don't know exactly what his future calling will be, but we know it has something to do with Missouri". The whole class oohed and aahed. This was something seriously cool. Of course, Elder Dyer going the way of all mortality several years later kind of put the kibosh on my seminary teachers flourish of prophecy. 

It sounds very much to me like you and your classmates rather badly misunderstood the teacher and jumped to conclusions.

 

It's my understanding  that Elder Dyer had a special assignment pertaining to that area, watching over things generally, recommending properties for purchase on occasion, etc., but nothing like you evidently were all too anxious to surmise.

[thatjimguy]

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 can see Adam scratching his head wondering why...but I don't think he was ethically dismayed by it either.

[rockpond]

It was an "are you still beating your wife" kind of question.

 

And when somebody comes at me with a question that's really an attempt to put words in my mouth, and then tries to badger me into responding with a one-word answer, I quickly grow bored with the conversation and am apt to summarily terminate it.

 

I didn't see it as an "are you still beating your wife" question.  My apologies if it came across that way.  And I wasn't expecting only a one word answer.  I don't think that I ever expect that from you.

 

I understood your "Isaiah 55:8" reply to me as suggesting that it was the Lord's way which I may not understand as a mortal.  I get that.  My question back to you was meant to dig a bit deeper and ask if what happened over the history of the ban is really consistent with how we believe the Lord operates?  Maybe for you it is.  So why not answer that way?  (For me it isn't consistent with what I believe regarding the character of God and his Son when leading the church so I tend to think that the ban was not based in inspiration/revelation.  I can say that without considering BY or his successors to be "fallen" in any way.  It's just an element of agency and the restoration.)

 

Did the implementation of the ban NOT leave prophets, apostles, and members confused?  Because it seems like it did.  And if it did, why do you think it is a "beating your wife" question to answer in the affirmative?

 

I guess I feel like we each know that we're both active, faithful members of the church and we can push a little bit to analyze our assumptions.

[Scott Lloyd]

I can see Adam scratching his head wondering why...but I don't think he was ethically dismayed by it either.

For me, I have a general enough knowledge about God and His servants that I don't feel "ethically dismayed" by the priesthood restriction, even as I freely acknowledge I don't (yet) know or understand the reason for it or the origins of it.

 

The October general conference address of President Dieter F. Uchtdorf has gotten a lot of attention. Much has been made of his acknowledgement "that there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine."

 

There are a few who, in my opinion, have been inclined to read too much into this admission and have jumped to unwarranted conclusions from it.

 

Here is a passage from the talk that doesn't seem to get quoted as frequently:

 

Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience. When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.

 

 

I am inclined to apply this to the matter of the pre-1978 priesthood restriction.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

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.)"

 

Yeah, that's not good. 

[cinepro]

I am inclined to apply this to the matter of the pre-1978 priesthood restriction.

 

The problem isn't that people think Scott Lloyd doesn't apply that statement to the pre-1978 priesthood restriction.  The problem is that pre-1978 LDS Church leaders didn't apply that statement to the pre-1978 priesthood restriction. 

 

They said "We are Prophets and Apostles, and God doesn't want black people of presumed African descent to have the priesthood or go to the Temple, and here is the reason why God doesn't want that..."

 

That's the problem.

Edited January 31, 2014 by cinepro

[CV75]

The problem isn't that people think Scott Lloyd doesn't apply that statement to the pre-1978 priesthood restriction.  The problem is that pre-1978 LDS Church leaders didn't apply that statement to the pre-1978 priesthood restriction. 

 

They said "We are Prophets and Apostles, and God doesn't want black people of presumed African descent to have the priesthood or go to the Temple, and here is the reason why God doesn't want that..."

 

That's the problem.

I think that regardless of what was revealed in 2 Nephi 26:33 and then in 1978 (OD2), or what you represent above, or what was disavowed and condemned more recently, none of it got in the way of anyone realizing D&C 63:23 and John 7:37-39, no matter when they lived/live, unless they let it (which I think is the problem).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It's available for those who want to read it.

Of note:

 

1. It acknowledges and covers the different accounts of the First Vision

2. There is a complete lesson devoted to Plural Marriage

3. There is a lesson on the Utah War and the Mountain Meadows Massacre

4. A Chapter on Pearl of Great Price, which briefly addresses the dating of the Book of Abraham papyri. It notes that the ultimate translation process for both Abraham and Moses is unknown.

5. In the lesson on OD1, the need for the Second Manifesto of 1904 is noted.

6. Lesson on OD2, begins with the introduction to the 2013 edition.Includes the line, "Point out the line that states, “Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.” Ensure that students understand that while some people may suggest reasons why males of African descent were not ordained to the priesthood for a time, those reasons may not be accurate. The statement just read represents the official position of the Church." The lesson ends with , "Point out that students may be asked why the Church did not ordain men of African descent to the priesthood for a time. Invite them to consider how they might answer this question. Affirm that it is appropriate to explain to others that we do not know why the priesthood restriction began" - - also is a not to teachers to keep updated, don't rely on old explanations, and included Elder McConkioes, "forget everything I said" quote. - it also directs the reader to the "Race and the Priesthood" topic on lds.org.

7. Lesson on 'Hastening the work of salvation".

8. Lesson on The Family: A Proclamation to the World

9. On the JST, "Around the fall of 1830, Joseph Smith was commanded by the Lord to translate the Bible. He 

did not translate the Bible from one language to another; nor did he have an original biblical manuscript to work from. Instead, Joseph would read and study passages from the King James Version of the Bible and then make corrections and additions as inspired by the Holy Ghost. Thus, the translation was more of an inspired revision than a traditional translation."

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.)"

 

I did not see anything particularly on Book of Mormon translation methods as I had expected - although I may have simply missed it. I was skimming!

When i engage in debate...the comments run into a never ending circular argument about how the Church hides their past from everyone. Now the this publication will be shot down for not going far enough.

[cinepro]

When i engage in debate...the comments run into a never ending circular argument about how the Church hides their past from everyone. Now the this publication will be shot down for not going far enough.

 

I disagree.  This manual (and I'm assuming future manuals), as well as the recent topical essays on the Church website, indicate a very real and material change in attitude that the Church has had towards these subjects.

 

Sure, we can always complain about how it is being dealt with, or the wording used, or what has been left out, or what it means that this happened in 2014 and not 1914,  but there is no denying that things are changing.

 

But it's insulting to "critics" to imply that these real changes won't be acknowledged and appreciated, (with the implication that past criticisms were unfounded and based on stubbornness or other factors than honest and correct observation).

 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I disagree.  This manual (and I'm assuming future manuals), as well as the recent topical essays on the Church website, indicate a very real and material change in attitude that the Church has had towards these subjects.

 

Sure, we can always complain about how it is being dealt with, or the wording used, or what has been left out, or what it means that this happened in 2014 and not 1914,  but there is no denying that things are changing.

 

But it's insulting to "critics" to imply that these real changes won't be acknowledged and appreciated, (with the implication that past criticisms were unfounded and based on stubbornness or other factors than honest and correct observation).

The point I was trying to make, it a situation of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Forever they have been on the bandwagon about how such issues are not taught..now they will complain that we have not gane far enough. Simply put they will choose anyort in a storm. Recently I was on a thread about Temple in Indepenace, and how Joseph's vision will never come to pass. When I pointed out that the Church owns so much land in this region, they then stated complaining about how rich we are and that we are trying to buy our way into heaven. When I told them that I knew many have have served missions there to restore thpe land, the tone turned into us trying to force a prophecy, with our filthy money...or our " mall money.

[CV75]

I think when the Church is viewed as an end unto itself, the supposed indicators of its validity can be easily challenged. But its actual purpose (and change and the pace of change are consistent with that purpose) is outlined in Handbook, 2.2: https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-principles/2.2#22

D&C 1 also indicates the purposes of the Church. These are consistent with those described in Moroni 10:32 and D&C 20:59, two scriptures that are referenced in this section of the Handbook:

Reveal the voice of the Lord; send the voice of warning; enact His authority; prepare for that which is to come (the Lord is nigh); establish His righteousness; spare the faithful from calamity; proclaim the Gospel; speak in the name of the Savior; increase faith in the earth; establish God’s everlasting covenant; proclaim the fulness of the Gospel by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers after the manner of their language, that God's children might come to understanding for correction, instruction, repentance, strengthening and blessing; send forth the Book of Mormon; provide a vehicle fot the saints to be led by the Lord.

Even in the midst of things that have since changed, the Church and her purposes rolled on “as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands."

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem isn't that people think Scott Lloyd doesn't apply that statement to the pre-1978 priesthood restriction. The problem is that pre-1978 LDS Church leaders didn't apply that statement to the pre-1978 priesthood restriction.

They said "We are Prophets and Apostles, and God doesn't want black people of presumed African descent to have the priesthood or go to the Temple, and here is the reason why God doesn't want that..."

That's the problem.

In which case, my first quote from Presidint Uchtdorf would apply.

But CFR that there was ever a statement with such wording as you allege here.

[Scott Lloyd]

The point I was trying to make, it a situation of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Forever they have been on the bandwagon about how such issues are not taught..now they will complain that we have not gane far enough. Simply put they will choose anyort in a storm. Recently I was on a thread about Temple in Indepenace, and how Joseph's vision will never come to pass. When I pointed out that the Church owns so much land in this region, they then stated complaining about how rich we are and that we are trying to buy our way into heaven. When I told them that I knew many have have served missions there to restore thpe land, the tone turned into us trying to force a prophecy, with our filthy money...or our " mall money.

You've pretty much nailed it, PaPa

We could call it invincible whining.

[Scott Lloyd]

I disagree. This manual (and I'm assuming future manuals), as well as the recent topical essays on the Church website, indicate a very real and material change in attitude that the Church has had towards these subjects.

Sure, we can always complain about how it is being dealt with, or the wording used, or what has been left out, or what it means that this happened in 2014 and not 1914, but there is no denying that things are changing.

But it's insulting to "critics" to imply that these real changes won't be acknowledged and appreciated, (with the implication that past criticisms were unfounded and based on stubbornness or other factors than honest and correct observation).

Likely such expressions of "appreciation" will be cast as the Church caving in to pressure, "too little too late," etc.

As I said, invincible whining.

[rockpond]

Likely such expressions of "appreciation" will be cast as the Church caving in to pressure, "too little too late," etc.

As I said, invincible whining.

Well, it seems like those on this thread feel like the changes to this manual are positive. So I'm not sure who the anonymous group of invincible whiners is.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, it seems like those on this thread feel like the changes to this manual are positive. So I'm not sure who the anonymous group of invincible whiners is.

Even here, there are those who are using the changes as an occasion to disparage and criticize the Church.

 

Post #6 is an example.

[rockpond]

Even here, there are those who are using the changes as an occasion to disparage and criticize the Church.

 

Post #6 is an example.

 

That's disparaging and criticizing?

 

In post #6 Jim wrote:  "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."

 

That's a reasonable conclusion based on what the church published last year on the matter.  And he isn't whining that this is "too little, too late" or claiming that the church is caving into pressure as you suggested.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

That's disparaging and criticizing?

 

In post #6 Jim wrote:  "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."

 

That's a reasonable conclusion based on what the church published last year on the matter.  And he isn't whining that this is "too little, too late" or claiming that the church is caving into pressure as you suggested.

 

Those were only a couple of examples of what might be said, only suggestions not meant to be exhaustive.

 

A contrary-to-fact intimation that the Church has admitted to not being led by revelation amounts to disparagement in my view.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Those were only a couple of examples of what might be said, only suggestions not meant to be exhaustive.

 

A contrary-to-fact intimation that the Church has admitted to not being led by revelation amounts to disparagement in my view.

 

He said that the church wasn't being led by revelation about the matter, not in general.  That is an acceptable conclusion one can make given that the church is not claiming that the ban was sourced in revelation.

 

I just don't see it as very productive to criticize a nameless, faceless group of people as "invincible whiners".

[Mystery Meat]

He said that the church wasn't being led by revelation about the matter, not in general.  That is an acceptable conclusion one can make given that the church is not claiming that the ban was sourced in revelation.

 

I just don't see it as very productive to criticize a nameless, faceless group of people as "invincible whiners".

 

The Church, however, isn't claiming that the ban wasn't sourced in revelation. Meaning they don't know. That is a huge distinction.

[Scott Lloyd]

He said that the church wasn't being led by revelation about the matter, not in general.  That is an acceptable conclusion one can make given that the church is not claiming that the ban was sourced in revelation.

 

No it's not. It's contrary to fact, just as I said. lvjd66 is right. There is a huge distinction.

 

I just don't see it as very productive to criticize a nameless, faceless group of people as "invincible whiners".

 

If it might curb the potential whining -- or pre-emptively identify it for what it is when it does come about -- I see that as productive.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Scott Lloyd