Controversial Topic Treatment In 2013 Seminary Church History Manual

[rpn]

I have heard that the 2013 Seminary manual will teach about all nine First Vision statements and the seer stone in the hat, and presumably other things.   I would like to know where in the manual or the instructions these are so I will know when and what students are being taught and will be taking home to discuss with their parents.  

 

Before I did further research in the teacher's manual, I thought I would ask here if anyone knows of a resource that provides that information.

 

I hope all of the controversies will be discussed, and I can tell from the way the nine versions of the first vision are discussed that it is not necessarily a thorough review (though I certainly would want to read all the versions if I were a seminary teacher and know their circumstances because I'd want to know how to address any concerns).   But it would be nice to have a sheet that linked to faithful sources for each of the topics.

 

I cannot seem to find polygamy or polyandry at all in the teachers's manual.  In skimming, I may have missed.

 

Any one know more about how/when the Seminary/Institute manuals address the controversies?

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[ERayR]

I have heard that the 2013 Seminary manual will teach about all nine First Vision statements and the seer stone in the hat, and presumably other things.   I would like to know where in the manual or the instructions these are so I will know when and what students are being taught and will be taking home to discuss with their parents.  

 

Before I did further research in the teacher's manual, I thought I would ask here if anyone knows of a resource that provides that information.

 

I hope all of the controversies will be discussed, and I can tell from the way the nine versions of the first vision are discussed that it is not necessarily a thorough review (though I certainly would want to read all the versions if I were a seminary teacher and know their circumstances because I'd want to know how to address any concerns).   But it would be nice to have a sheet that linked to faithful sources for each of the topics.

 

I cannot seem to find polygamy or polyandry at all in the teachers's manual.  In skimming, I may have missed.

 

Any one know more about how/when the Seminary/Institute manuals address the controversies?

 

The seminary/institute classes are to teach the gospel not to indulge the critics penchant for the controversies. 

[Derl Sanderson]

Don't know if this is the kind of thing you are after, but I have two books on the First Vision accounts that have been helpful to me.

 

http://bookstore.fairlds.org/product.php?id_product=1453

 

http://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Vision-Samuel-Steven-Harper/dp/0842528180/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405012536&sr=1-1&keywords=exploring+the+first+vision

[rpn]

The publication date of the manual that is posted at lds.org is 2013, and yes I am looking at what will be taught for the upcoming year.   

 

Of course it is to teach faith in Christ, but what I am hearing (and having been hearing since Marlin Jensen first said that the church was going to address real and complete church history so that people didn't learn about stuff as an adult and wonder how honest their seminary instruction was) is that the plan is to fully inoculate by telling the whole truth.

 

From the description though it will be only a little inoculation.   Thanks for the info.. 

[Grundelwalken]

The publication date of the manual that is posted at lds.org is 2013, and yes I am looking at what will be taught for the upcoming year.   

 

Of course it is to teach faith in Christ, but what I am hearing (and having been hearing since Marlin Jensen first said that the church was going to address real and complete church history so that people didn't learn about stuff as an adult and wonder how honest their seminary instruction was) is that the plan is to fully inoculate by telling the whole truth.

 

From the description though it will be only a little inoculation.   Thanks for the info.. 

 

I take umbrage   at this statement. (said with the greatest love I can muster)    I have been involved in gospel teaching for many years, and in many positions (including seminary and institute, YM/YW, Elders, HP, etc.) and I know of NO teacher who seeks to tell only part of the truth.  There may be instances where  all the truth is not known so nothing/little is said, but I believe the truth is taught to the best of every teachers ability.  It is a fallacy that members of the Church are trying to hide something every time they stand before their peers or students to present the truths of the gospel.

 

Just because you don't agree with the methods of different teachers it is not fair to say they are "not telling the whole truth."  FYI, you might want to check out this site which has been created to help people with difficult questions -- https://www.lds.org/topics?lang=eng\  I doubt this will satisfy critics but it is a valuable tool to have when youth or others ask difficult questions.  MW

 

Oh, and isn't it the goal of inoculation to put in just "a little" so that the recipient is not overwhelmed by the disease? 

[JLHPROF]

 It is a fallacy that members of the Church are trying to hide something every time they stand before their peers or students to present the truths of the gospel.

 

There are some things to take into consideration with this point:

 

1. The teacher may not know the information we think is being hidden.  Not everything is known by the general membership.

2. The teach may know, but choose not to teach something that is not "official doctrine" (if we can ever define it).

3. The teacher may be hiding nothing but just sticking to the "course material" which doesn't contain extraneous info.

4. There are topics that have information readily known that it has always been taboo to discuss in Church (rightly or wrongly).

5. There are topics that may be unsuitable for the audience at hand so are kept basic.

6. There may be insufficient resources to completely cover a topic (time, space, materials).

7. And yes, sometimes people choose to ignore, gloss over, or even (very rarely) keep information to themselves.

 

So, I don't know that it's a complete fallacy, but there are many reasons why full disclosure on a topic might not happen in a class, and intentional deceit isn't even close to the most likely.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[mormonnewb]

I have taught seminary as a volunteer stake teacher for the past three years, covering the Old Testament, New Testament, and Book of Mormon. During that time, I admit I've not shared everything I know (or think I know!) on some subjects. As a seminary teacher, I am expected to teach from the scriptures and the words of the prophets and apostles, with particular emphasis on basic doctrine. And that's what I try to do. I leave "Internet Mormonism" out of the classroom. So, for example, last year's study of the Book of Mormon included no mention of wordprint studies, alleged anachronisms, Lamanite DNA, limited or hemispheric geography theories, The Late War, etc.—although I did print out an example of chiasmus from Jeffrey Holland's Christ and the New Covenant.

 

The purpose of seminary is to help youth "understand and rely on the teachings and Atonement of Jesus Christ, qualify for the blessings of the temple, and prepare themselves, their families, and others for eternal life with their Father in Heaven." I think inoculating students from common criticisms of the Church will become increasingly important in achieving that goal, but ultimately the best defense against such criticisms is a deeply rooted faith in and commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I recently taught an EQ lesson on the resurrection.  I laid out the key descriptions of four Biblical narratives side-by-side on the blackboard.  The seeming inconsistencies between them was readily apparent.  Given that they had all been to seminary at some point, I just assumed that this had been covered and that it had been explained to them as it is in Protestant seminaries (i.e., the four Gospels are theological declarations of Christ as the Messiah and not literal histories of his life, so writers included (and left out details) as they sought fit to best make their theological case).  Instead, I saw a lot of confused stares.  When I asked if this was new information to them, EVERY member of the EQ raised his hand.

 

I thought this would have to be something covered in seminary because it doesn't involve external sources.  It is readily apparent from a careful reading of the text.    Nevo, was this something that your students noticed and asked for clarification about?  Likewise, did you ever get any questions about the duplicate (and slightly different) creation narratives in Genesis 1 & 2?

 

I realize that this is just something that kids might miss until they've had enough experience with reading scripture in much the same way that a person will see things during the tenth viewing of, say, Toy Story 3, that he didn't see during the first or second viewing.  Your thoughts?

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Kenngo1969]

... [A]t this point I'm just happy to see teenagers read the scriptures at all.

Or, heck, adults, for that matter!

 

[Ducks to avoid incoming shoes ...]

[readstoomuch]

I think it is quite a huge step to bring up other versions of the First Vision, polygamy and bits and pieces of controversial aspects in Church History.  It will do quite a bit to help people feel that they have not been deceived or lied too.  When I was in seminary in the 70`s I did hear about Joseph`s polygamy, the massacre and other controversies.  I also know the Insitute manuals of the time brought up at least some of these controversial issues.  You had to actually read the manual though.  I think these attempts and the additions to LDS.org are what I have been asking for.  The Church should be given credit for these, even if more could have been brought out sooner.  

[cinepro]

I recently taught an EQ lesson on the resurrection.  I laid out the key descriptions of four Biblical narratives side-by-side on the blackboard.  The seeming inconsistencies between them was readily apparent.  Given that they had all been to seminary at some point, I just assumed that this had been covered and that it had been explained to them as it is in Protestant seminaries (i.e., the four Gospels are theological declarations of Christ as the Messiah and not literal histories of his life, so writers included (and left out details) as they sought fit to best make their theological case).  Instead, I saw a lot of confused stares.  When I asked if this was new information to them, EVERY member of the EQ raised his hand.

 

I thought this would have to be something covered in seminary because it doesn't involve external sources.  It is readily apparent from a careful reading of the text.    Nevo, was this something that your students noticed and asked for clarification about?  Likewise, did you ever get any questions about the duplicate (and slightly different) creation narratives in Genesis 1 & 2?

 

I realize that this is just something that kids might miss until they've had enough experience with reading scripture in much the same way that a person will see things during the tenth viewing of, say, Toy Story 3, that he didn't see during the first or second viewing.  Your thoughts?

I do the same thing for the different accounts of the birth of Jesus when I teach EQ in December. It never gets old. First we go through Luke and I ask questions like "Where were Mary and Joseph living when Jesus was born?", "What did they do after Jesus was born (and when did they do it)?", "Who visited baby Jesus and where did they do it?" and so on. Then we read the account in Matthew and ask the same questions. I have to admit I just love the double takes and people scrunching up their eyes as they can't believe what they're reading in the scriptures. When they're totally befuddled about how contradictory the stories are, we talk about how they are "reconciled" by smooshing them together into one hodge-podge story, and then selling nativity scenes with shepherds and wise men standing next to each other.

I've never, ever had anyone in the class that even hinted that they might already have been aware of the discrepancies.

[telnetd]

The manual does not mention the seer stone, face-in-the-hat translation method, 

 

Does it mention any of the translation methods?  It seems the church

is a little nervous or embarrassed to depict this in Gospel Principles

and other books/magazines.  If it really happened this way there is

no reason to exclude it.

 

Gail