Why Don't Teachers Teach This?

[Paddy]

Tough question.  If I bring up some of the issues in question, for sure it's because I feel confident in discussing them.  However, many members don't have the background I do and one could eat up all the time just explaining a few things.

 

I personally have advocated for a GD class in which one may choose to attend and no subject or disagreement is taboo.  Everyone else may attend the regular GD class.  It's never been seriously considered even though I have bailed out many other leaders from time to time on these issues.

 

BC Space

 

Your ability to teach these topics come from your own study and learning of the material (and your obvious confidence to teach it). Unfortunately we don't have approved content or curriculum to deliver such lessons. Do you think the Church should publish a alternative curriculum that addresses these type of issues...??

Edited February 13, 2014 by Paddy

[Paddy]

So the real question should be:

 

Would the church rather discuss the "avoided topics" on their own turf, where they have an opportunity to control the situation plus avoid the charge of non full disclosure?

 

Or would they rather have the member stumble across the "hard issues" by themselves and wonder why the church never told them or talks about them, which immediately raises the question........"What are you (the church) afraid of and what else is being hidden?"

 

That's an interesting question. It also goes to the heart of the purpose of the lessons delivered at Church. Should there be another forum for members to learn this information and for what purpose or end result are we trying to achieve? Would members be interested in this content? Would members be willing to give up extra time to attend extracurricular classes, etc...?

 

Anecdotally, I taught the lesson on Section 132 last year and I kept to the manual in that I did not emphasise Polygamy but I dedicated a portion of the lesson to provide context for some scriptures in that section. I got chewed out by one member who felt that by bringing up polygamy I was being negative toward the gospel and the church. It unfortunately dominated the lesson and totally wrecked the point of the lesson. Some members have difficulty talking about certain topic and are in fact hostile toward them. I have felt since then that in some cases providing the right forum for the discussion is important. Perhaps Sunday school is not the place?

[why me]

Here is the ensign from 1977: Notice the topics mentioned by Britton:

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/12/the-year-in-church-history?lang=eng&query=mountain+meadows+massacre

 

Back in the day, we were very informed about church history. We had many sources to study.

 

And here is an article from 2007:

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/09/the-mountain-meadows-massacre?lang=eng&query=mountain+meadows+massacre

 

It seems quite honest. Maybe the church can have MMM every year in the magazine. And also cover other topics every year during a certain time of year. And perhaps sunday school can be two hours where only history is learned and omit priesthood so we can really study lds history and have an end of the year exam. I don't know what else the church can do.

Edited February 13, 2014 by why me

[why me]

 

 

Anecdotally, I taught the lesson on Section 132 last year and I kept to the manual in that I did not emphasise Polygamy but I dedicated a portion of the lesson to provide context for some scriptures in that section. I got chewed out by one member who felt that by bringing up polygamy I was being negative toward the gospel and the church. It unfortunately dominated the lesson and totally wrecked the point of the lesson. Some members have difficulty talking about certain topic and are in fact hostile toward them. I have felt since then that in some cases providing the right forum for the discussion is important. Perhaps Sunday school is not the place?

 

In the sunday school class that I attended polygamy was mentioned and we openly discussed it. So, much depends on the teacher. No problem at all with the information from the class. Much depends on interpretation.

[Calm]

Much depends on the students as well. Sounds like in Paddy's class a student steered it into negative areas. I have heard of others where students are insistent on their own interpretation having to be right. In those cases those who are teachers have had to adapt by avoiding some subjects in class which then may affect others there. But without options of discipline, it seems there is little choice otherwise if one wants to prevent classes from becoming battlegrounds or a preaching platform for a fringe theory.

[Gray]

Daviess County expedition:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War#Daviess_County_expedition

 

Thanks, I'd missed the CFR!

[Gray]

Gray

 

I think Nevo hit on a good point about using controversial issues as a teaching tool to learn from the past rather than teach them for the sake of informing members. Do you think that Sunday School or other lessons is the place for this or do you think that there are other forums that should be provided?

 

I think Sunday School is really the best venue to teach it, because the goal is really to impart a moral teaching, using the history as an object lesson 

[bjw]

Here is the ensign from 1977: Notice the topics mentioned by Britton:

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/12/the-year-in-church-history?lang=eng&query=mountain+meadows+massacre

 

Back in the day, we were very informed about church history. We had many sources to study.

 

And here is an article from 2007:

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/09/the-mountain-meadows-massacre?lang=eng&query=mountain+meadows+massacre

 

It seems quite honest. Maybe the church can have MMM every year in the magazine. And also cover other topics every year during a certain time of year. And perhaps sunday school can be two hours where only history is learned and omit priesthood so we can really study lds history and have an end of the year exam. I don't know what else the church can do.

I like the point that Why Me brings up here.  The church obviously can't devote an Ensign article to each of these topics every single year, and I think the critics sometimes think this means we are "burying" our history.  Especially since new members and investigators don't bother to search every single year of church mags since the last century.

 

However, I think that topics like polygamy, Nauvoo Expositor, JS having a gun, JS glasslooking trial, Emma Smith's mental condition, stone in the hat method, JS Papyri, other BofA issues, MMM, masonry & the temple, priesthood ban, Adam'God theory, scripture corrections, etc. should all be addressed at the appropriate times during Gospel Doctrine (not Gospel Principles) during the appropriate time in the respective lessons.  I think that immunizing members of these and other issues will in the long run prevent members from leaving the church.  It will ultimately strengthen testimonies.

 

I know that when I first found out about some of these things it made me doubt the church.  I even made an appointment with my Bishop to discuss them at times.  Now, over time, I have come to learn that the leaders of the past were not perfect and made mistakes at times.  Ultimately, it has strengthened my testimony, and I believe it would strengthen people's testimony to learn about these things in Sunday School. 

[rockpond]

I like the point that Why Me brings up here. The church obviously can't devote an Ensign article to each of these topics every single year, and I think the critics sometimes think this means we are "burying" our history. Especially since new members and investigators don't bother to search every single year of church mags since the last century.

However, I think that topics like polygamy, Nauvoo Expositor, JS having a gun, JS glasslooking trial, Emma Smith's mental condition, stone in the hat method, JS Papyri, other BofA issues, MMM, masonry & the temple, priesthood ban, Adam'God theory, scripture corrections, etc. should all be addressed at the appropriate times during Gospel Doctrine (not Gospel Principles) during the appropriate time in the respective lessons. I think that immunizing members of these and other issues will in the long run prevent members from leaving the church. It will ultimately strengthen testimonies.

I know that when I first found out about some of these things it made me doubt the church. I even made an appointment with my Bishop to discuss them at times. Now, over time, I have come to learn that the leaders of the past were not perfect and made mistakes at times. Ultimately, it has strengthened my testimony, and I believe it would strengthen people's testimony to learn about these things in Sunday School.

I agree. And the manual changes, website additions, and gen con addresses all seem to indicate that the church is moving in the direction you described. It's a slow process but I wouldn't expect any different.