2015 Curriculum

[Antoni]

REALLY excited that President Ezra Taft Benson is the prophet we'll be studying next year.

 

I've felt an affinity with his teachings as I investigated and since joining the church. I trust we'll all learn more and grow closer to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as we study and ponder his teachings.

 

 

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm hoping a critical review of his 14 fundamentals of following the prophet is done taking into consideration the new essays and evidence that prophets do in fact make mistakes and can lead the church astray. It is important to distinguish teachings of ETBenson when he was THE prophet as opposed to when he was an apostle.

[Antoni]

Chapter 11 https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-11-follow-the-living-prophet?lang=eng

 

appears to focus on 4 fundamentals.

[teddyaware]

I'm hoping a critical review of his 14 fundamentals of following the prophet is done taking into consideration the new essays and evidence that prophets do in fact make mistakes and can lead the church astray. It is important to distinguish teachings of ETBenson when he was THE prophet as opposed to when he was an apostle.

Please reference the specific instances in the new essays wherein it is stated that the prophets have made mistakes and led the Church astray?

If you're referring to the word 'disavow,' it must be understood that that word has a gradation in intensity of meaning and is, therefore, ambiguous. In fact, I'm fairly certain the word disavow was specifically chosen because of its shades of meaning and ambiguity.

There are surely many instances throughout history where a person or persons disavowed a particular something, only to see them reavow (to coin a word) that same thing after all the information needed to render a final and conclusive decision was amassed.

Edited September 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[HappyJackWagon]

Please reference the specific instances in the new essays wherein it is stated that the prophets have made mistakes and led the Church astray?

If you're referring to the word 'disavow,' it must be understood that that word has a gradation in intensity of meaning and is, therefore, ambiguous. In fact, I'm fairly certain the word disavow was specifically chosen because of its shades of meaning and ambiguity.

There are surely many instances throughout history where a person or persons disavowed a particular something, only to reavow (to coin a word) that same thing after all the information needed to render a final and conclusive decision was amassed.

I choose to accept the church is being honest in their use of "disavow" as is commonly understood instead of playing both sides with a legalistic semantic game as you describe.

 

 

dis·avowverb \ˌdis-ə-ˈvau̇\

: to say that you are not responsible for (something) : to deny that you know about or are involved in (something)

 

 

Full Definition of DISAVOW

transitive verb

1

:  to deny responsibility for :  repudiate

2

:  to refuse to acknowledge or accept :  disclaim <party leaders disavowed him>

— dis·avow·able \-ə-bəl\ adjective

— dis·avow·al \-ˈvau̇(-ə)l\ noun

And if we want to play a semantic game and simply choose the definition we like best, I choose Transitive verb definition #1 with the synonym of "repudiate". It is hard to comprehend how the church could disavow in the sense that they didn't know about the theories and it is even weaker for them to say, "hey, it's not my fault" when it was church leaders promulgating the theories.

 

So yes, the disavowal accepts that leaders who have taught those theories were wrong.

[Sevenbak]

I'm hoping a critical review of his 14 fundamentals of following the prophet is done taking into consideration the new essays and evidence that prophets do in fact make mistakes and can lead the church astray. It is important to distinguish teachings of ETBenson when he was THE prophet as opposed to when he was an apostle.

The same principles from ETB were reiterated in October 2011 General Conference.

[teddyaware]

I choose to accept the church is being honest in their use of "disavow" as is commonly understood instead of playing both sides with a legalistic semantic game as you describe.

 

And if we want to play a semantic game and simply choose the definition we like best, I choose Transitive verb definition #1 with the synonym of "repudiate". It is hard to comprehend how the church could disavow in the sense that they didn't know about the theories and it is even weaker for them to say, "hey, it's not my fault" when it was church leaders promulgating the theories.

 

So yes, the disavowal accepts that leaders who have taught those theories were wrong.

In the law, the word disavow does in fact have many shades of meaning, from outright rejection to temporarily stepping away from something once strongly asserted. I did my research on this some weeks ago and know I'm right on this point.

It is also extremely unlikely that the word disavow was used as a synonym for outright and total rejection, as it would set a terrible precedent (back to the law again) for the future, undermining anything and everything a prophet or apostle might say. This would leave the Latter-day Saints with the same 'menu" versions of Christianity that arose out of the great apostasy. Think about it...

Edited September 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

I choose to accept the church is being honest in their use of "disavow" as is commonly understood instead of playing both sides with a legalistic semantic game as you describe.

 

And if we want to play a semantic game and simply choose the definition we like best, I choose Transitive verb definition #1 with the synonym of "repudiate". It is hard to comprehend how the church could disavow in the sense that they didn't know about the theories and it is even weaker for them to say, "hey, it's not my fault" when it was church leaders promulgating the theories.

 

So yes, the disavowal accepts that leaders who have taught those theories were wrong.

Following up on my previous post. The following is a perfectly good and proper use of the word disavow:

[lawyer making a statement at a press conference] "I disavow my previous assertions of Mr. Smith's innocence until we're able to gather more evidence in support his alibi."

[teddyaware]

I choose to accept the church is being honest in their use of "disavow" as is commonly understood instead of playing both sides with a legalistic semantic game as you describe.

 

And if we want to play a semantic game and simply choose the definition we like best, I choose Transitive verb definition #1 with the synonym of "repudiate". It is hard to comprehend how the church could disavow in the sense that they didn't know about the theories and it is even weaker for them to say, "hey, it's not my fault" when it was church leaders promulgating the theories.

 

So yes, the disavowal accepts that leaders who have taught those theories were wrong.

I just found the following most interesting quote (in light of our discussion) from Terryl L. Givens' book 'Viper on the Hearth,' published in 2013:

"Mormonism’s most inflammatory doctrines were revealed late in Smith’s career (his teachings on the plurality of gods came only months before his death in 1844) or were in fact disavowed until the saints were presumably safe in their Utah exile (where polygamy was first publicly acknowledges in 1852)."

Edited September 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[HappyJackWagon]

 

In the law, the word disavow does in fact have many shades of meaning, from outright rejection to temporarily stepping away from something once strongly asserted.

Are we a church of members or a church of lawyers. Again, if the church is crafting their words in a legalistic way I think it would be disengenuous.

 

 

The following is a perfectly good and proper use of the word disavow:

[lawyer making a statement at a press conference] "I disavow my previous assertions of Mr. Smith's innocence until we're able to gather more evidence in support his alibi."

 

If we are a church of lawyers this would be just fine but for the church to "disavow" as a semingly temporary PR effort it could cause many to lose trust in communication from the church.

 

For the church to disavow the teachings of past leaders, including prophets, because they simply don't want to be held responsible appears weak but if they were to disavow because they weren't aware, seems dishonest. The semantic game only digs the church in deeper.

 

Yes, it does create a bad precedence. Many have cited the Race and The Priesthood as a major reason they started questioning the church. If the church was trying to walk the fine line of disavowing without repudiating and if they were trying to walk the line in a way that did not raise questions about prophetic fallibility, then they have failed in that for MANY faithful members.

[teddyaware]

Are we a church of members or a church of lawyers. Again, if the church is crafting their words in a legalistic way I think it would be disengenuous.

 

If we are a church of lawyers this would be just fine but for the church to "disavow" as a semingly temporary PR effort it could cause many to lose trust in communication from the church.

 

For the church to disavow the teachings of past leaders, including prophets, because they simply don't want to be held responsible appears weak but if they were to disavow because they weren't aware, seems dishonest. The semantic game only digs the church in deeper.

 

Yes, it does create a bad precedence. Many have cited the Race and The Priesthood as a major reason they started questioning the church. If the church was trying to walk the fine line of disavowing without repudiating and if they were trying to walk the line in a way that did not raise questions about prophetic fallibility, then they have failed in that for MANY faithful members.

The only reason why there is perceived "failure" is because many Church members remain lifelong 'babes' in the gospel who are only capable of digesting weak milk, and this because they're too influenced by and worried about what the world thinks.

P.S. I hope you read my previous post with the quote from Terryl Givens.

[Senator]

I love apologists!

[HappyJackWagon]

Teddyaware, Thanks for the Givens quote. I didnt' realize the church disavowed the plurality of God's until they reached Utah. However, the Given's using that word is a little different than the church using it becuase they don't carry the same weight. I doubt at the time the church "disavowed" the plurality of Gods.

 

I just think the church has to be careful to be straightforward and not play word games that allow them wiggle room wherever they may want it.

[Senator]

If you're referring to the word 'disavow,' it must be understood that that word has a gradation in intensity of meaning and is, therefore, ambiguous. In fact, I'm fairly certain the word disavow was specifically chosen because of its shades of meaning and ambiguity.

Then I am greatly disappointed that the church would deliberately use ambiguous language for such a sensitive subject instead of simply speaking forthrightly.

I was very pleased that the church was able to recognize it's wrongs. I am able to forgive people and institutions when they have such integrity.

Now, with your new apologetic approach, I am back to distrust.

Actually, I think I'll stick with the understanding that the church was actually genuine in it's disavowal of previous racist statements, and that you are wrong about this.

[HappyJackWagon]

The only reason why there is perceived "failure" is because many Church members remain lifelong 'babes' in the gospel who are only capable of digesting weak milk, and this because they're too influenced by and worried about what the world thinks.

 

You're right but why are they lifelong babes in the gospel? It is by design.  It's not because they worry about what the world thinks. It's because it's what they're taught at church and because stepping away from the milk is greeted inside the church with chastisement and judgement.

 

I recently had a conversation with my Stake President about this. He acknowledged there are many problems in church history and even in interpretation of doctrine but he said that we must stick to the milk because that's all the members are prepared for. Even though he acknowledged that many would benefit by a deeper understanding he counselled to keep teaching the milk only. Not some milk with some meat, but milk ONLY. I've found that to be a pervasive attitude among many leaders. This is why there is a lack of understanding of doctrine and history.

[mormonnewb]

Then I am greatly disappointed that the church would deliberately use ambiguous language for such a sensitive subject instead of simply speaking forthrightly.

I was very pleased that the church was able to recognize it's wrongs. I am able to forgive people and institutions when they have such integrity.

Now, with your new apologetic approach, I am back to distrust.

Actually, I think I'll stick with the understanding that the church was actually genuine in it's disavowal of previous racist statements, and that you are wrong about this.

Actually, FOR ONCE, I'm going to agree with teddyaware. The Church is being intentionally vague and obtuse so as to allow members to read the statement in any way they wish to read it.

I find it inconceivable that with 15 million members, we couldn't find ONE person capable of writing a clear statement that, say, the ban on the priesthood was ordained of God ... or not. So instead, we have a statement that "disavows" the REASONS for the ban. Has the ban itself been disavowed? It depends on whom you ask.

This allows the hard liners to say that the leaders have never led the Church astray, while allowing us "less faithful" types to take some comfort in the fact that HF wasn't a racist as late as 1978 after all.

Edit: I DISAVOW the preceding paragraph ... not because it is necessarily untrue, but because it is POSSIBLY inflammatory and could derail the thread. (See teddyaware, I'm learning from you already).

It's just what I would expect of a well-run organization's ADMINISTRATION.

Edited September 29, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Avatar4321]

Looking forward to next years curriculum. President Benson is one of my favorites. This year has been one of my least favorites

[HappyJackWagon]

Actually, FOR ONCE, I'm going to agree with teddyaware. The Church is being intentionally vague and obtuse so as to allow members to read the statement in any way they wish to read it.

I find it inconceivable that with 15 million members, we couldn't find ONE person capable of writing a clear statement that, say, the ban on the priesthood was ordained of God ... or not. So instead, we have a statement that "disavows" the REASONS for the ban. Has the ban itself been disavowed? It depends on whom you ask.

This allows the hard liners to say that the leaders have never led the Church astray, while allowing us "less faithful" types to take some comfort in the fact that HF wasn't a racist as late as 1978 after all.

It's just what I would expect of a well-run organization's ADMINISTRATION.

It's sad but I agree with MormonNewB. Still, I'm trying my hardest to give the church a little credit on this one and I'm going to keep drumming the disavowal beat and use this as evidence of prophetic fallibility because I believe the prophets were wrong and they acknowledged that, even if it was weak.

[Tacenda]

You're right but why are they lifelong babes in the gospel? It is by design.  It's not because they worry about what the world thinks. It's because it's what they're taught at church and because stepping away from the milk is greeted inside the church with chastisement and judgement.

 

I recently had a conversation with my Stake President about this. He acknowledged there are many problems in church history and even in interpretation of doctrine but he said that we must stick to the milk because that's all the members are prepared for. Even though he acknowledged that many would benefit by a deeper understanding he counselled to keep teaching the milk only. Not some milk with some meat, but milk ONLY. I've found that to be a pervasive attitude among many leaders. This is why there is a lack of understanding of doctrine and history.

When I read this I think of a big "Caution" sign. 

[mormonnewb]

Looking forward to next years curriculum. President Benson is one of my favorites. This year has been one of my least favorites

Please elaborate. I just assumed that the teachings were pretty much the same regardless of the actual president on the cover. What was I missing?

[Alan]

 ....when he was THE prophet as opposed to when he was an apostle.

 

There isn't really any difference. The man we call the "prophet" is in reality simply the senior apostle and therefore president of the church. There is no such position in the church as "Prophet".

[Avatar4321]

Please elaborate. I just assumed that the teachings were pretty much the same regardless of the actual president on the cover. What was I missing?

I just found alot of his teaching style dry

[JLHPROF]

There are many of his teachings I'll be looking forward to, but I have many disagreements with the 14 fundamentals.

I don't think that lesson will be one I'll enjoy.

[Boanerges]

I'm not a huge fan of Benson, and some teachings such as the 14 fundamentals in particular. I'll either volunteer to teach that lesson if I'm not travelling or I'll skip it. If I teach it I'll whitewash the whole thing and focus on something else in there. I'm more likely to be in a position to skip - sometimes I create my own travel times. There will likely be more lessons I'll skip and/or travel, as is true always.

[mormonnewb]

There are many of his teachings I'll be looking forward to, but I have many disagreements with the 14 fundamentals.

I don't think that lesson will be one I'll enjoy.

As you can guess, I adamantly "disavow" the 14 fundamentals, but I have issues with authority in general. What do you find in the 14 fundamentals that is contradictory to common Mormon practice?