Answers To Common Questions - New Era, March '15

[Calm]

 

I'm not suggesting this article is the place to do it, but at some point we need to make sure our youth are aware of the facts of polygamy... including that it did continue beyond the manifesto, the implications of that, and that we were led by polygamist prophets until 1945.

I believe that why me just showed that it was…perhaps not in the detail that  you want for, but that was seminary manual.  If one adds in other materials eventually intended to be used in youth curriculum, I think it is pretty well covered or likely will be.

 

One needs to rely on the total of what is likely available to teens and not just one article in demonstrating whether or not they will be confused.

 

The intent of the Gospel Topics is to eventually use it not only in personal study, but for seminary and missionaries.  The videos explaining the purposes make that clear.  It also makes sense that it will take time to fully implement this.  They may even be waiting until the majority has been updated.

Edited February 27, 2015 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705362191/Family-home-evening-turns-40.html?pg=all

 

Now the church is really lying to me.  Wah!  My faith is shattered.

I admit the headline is misleading if not inaccurate (a headline is often written by someone other than the author of an article, and, alas, the headline writer does not always take sufficient time to get a correct understanding before writing it).

 

But if you had read the story, you would have noted that President Joseph F. Smith instituted family home evening in 1915. Moreover, the story (written in 2010) is not chiefly about the beginning of home evening, but rather, it having been 40 years since Monday night was instituted throughout the Church as THE night for home evening. As my story makes clear, that occurred five years after President McKay gave home evening renewed impetus with the publication of an annual (for a while) home evening manual published expressly for that purpose. And even the story you linked to states that in 1966, Church members were admonished to set aside one regular night each week, though it wouldn't be until 1970 that the night was designated as Monday.

 

In fact, didn't you respond to my request for readers to submit their own thoughts and memories regarding home evening, this in preparation for a follow-up article I will be doing later? Or am I thinking of someone else?

[KevinG]

 

 

In fact, didn't you respond to my request for readers to submit their own thoughts and memories regarding home evening, this in preparation for a follow-up article I will be doing later? Or am I thinking of someone else?

 

I responded.  Thanks.  

 

And I'm being a smart alek, illustrating the level of ridiculousness that critics now have to reach, in order to criticize how the church is hiding its history.  Especially with the recent essays in full view of anyone with a web browser.   

[why me]

I believe that why me just showed that it was…perhaps not in the detail that  you want for, but that was seminary manual.  If one adds in other materials eventually intended to be used in youth curriculum, I think it is pretty well covered or likely will be.

Not everyone reads my posts. However, the seminary manual is wonderful and such information has been taught for years and years. However, human being do not have a great memory and most likely those who have attended seminary forgot what they learnt. The manual has been teaching the polygamy issues for years and years, including JS being a polygamist. How people can claim that the church is hiding its history need to get a grip on what is being taught and what is in the manuals, espcially for the youth. But of course, the new era is for light reading inbetween the ipad and iphone use for facebook oriented teens.

Edited February 27, 2015 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

I responded.  Thanks.  

 

And I'm being a smart alek, illustrating the level of ridiculousness that critics now have to reach, in order to criticize how the church is hiding its history.  Especially with the recent essays in full view of anyone with a web browser.   

Ah, OK. Got it.

[KevinG]

Ah, OK. Got it.

 

I need a good sarcasm emoji.  

[rockpond]

I believe that why me just showed that it was…perhaps not in the detail that  you want for, but that was seminary manual.  If one adds in other materials eventually intended to be used in youth curriculum, I think it is pretty well covered or likely will be.

 

One needs to rely on the total of what is likely available to teens and not just one article in demonstrating whether or not they will be confused.

 

The intent of the Gospel Topics is to eventually use it not only in personal study, but for seminary and missionaries.  The videos explaining the purposes make that clear.  It also makes sense that it will take time to fully implement this.  They may even be waiting until the majority has been updated.

 

Yes, I'm not arguing against the article.  All I've said is that I wish they hadn't included that 1890 date (for reasons stated).  Everything in its time and place... I'm with you, I really like the direction that the curriculum is headed (and the supporting documentation that is being created).

 

Incidentally, my time as an early morning seminary teacher and the extra study that I did for that calling, is part of what threw me into a faith challenge.

[why me]

Yes, I'm not arguing against the article.  All I've said is that I wish they hadn't included that 1890 date (for reasons stated).  Everything in its time and place... I'm with you, I really like the direction that the curriculum is headed (and the supporting documentation that is being created).

 

Incidentally, my time as an early morning seminary teacher and the extra study that I did for that calling, is part of what threw me into a faith challenge.

History can do that to people. However, history is basically just history. It is the retelling of the past. The problem is when one did not live through that past. Then, one must rely on the historians for their intepretation of the facts. However, I  would say that the lds church covers its own history is more detail than any other church that I know of. And that says much about the lds church. But the critics constantly stress church history and look for negatives inside a pool of positives. Why? Because they know that people who create such history are not perfect.

[rockpond]

History can do that to people. However, history is basically just history. It is the retelling of the past. The problem is when one did not live through that past. Then, one must rely on the historians for their intepretation of the facts. However, I  would say that the lds church covers its own history is more detail than any other church that I know of. And that says much about the lds church. But the critics constantly stress church history and look for negatives inside a pool of positives. Why? Because they know that people who create such history are not perfect.

 

I agree that history is just a retelling of the past.  In my experience with my faith crisis and those of other members I've communicated with, it's not about an imperfect interpretation of history.  It seems to be about the historical narrative that the church puts forward being too "perfect" that it fails to align with reality.

 

Using the example we've been discussing... I grew up in the church (graduated seminary, served a mission, graduated from BYU) having been taught that the entire church fully accepted the Manifesto as a clear revelation that stopped polygamy "on a dime".  It was a crushing blow to find out that was not the case.  Not a crushing blow that the history was wrong, but a crushing blow that I was misled as to the meaning of a "prophetic revelation".

[why me]

I agree that history is just a retelling of the past.  In my experience with my faith crisis and those of other members I've communicated with, it's not about an imperfect interpretation of history.  It seems to be about the historical narrative that the church puts forward being too "perfect" that it fails to align with reality.

 

Using the example we've been discussing... I grew up in the church (graduated seminary, served a mission, graduated from BYU) having been taught that the entire church fully accepted the Manifesto as a clear revelation that stopped polygamy "on a dime".  It was a crushing blow to find out that was not the case.  Not a crushing blow that the history was wrong, but a crushing blow that I was misled as to the meaning of a "prophetic revelation".

However the seminary manual clearly states (See above post 41) that polygamy did not stop on a dime but continued until 1904. See what I mean? But of course, the teachers may not have had time to teach the whole chapter. It happens. But how is that the church's fault?

Edited February 27, 2015 by why me

[rockpond]

However the seminary manual clearly states (See above post 41) that polygamy did not stop on a dime but continued until 1904. See what I mean? But of course, the teachers may not have had time to teach the whole chapter. It happens. But how is that the church's fault?

 

If it is causing us to lose members and causing heartache and strife among those we don't lose, I think it's worth addressing in more detail than that line in the seminary manual.  (Again, not in the article identified in the OP of this thread, just generally speaking.)

[carbon dioxide]

If it is causing us to lose members and causing heartache and strife among those we don't lose, I think it's worth addressing in more detail than that line in the seminary manual.  (Again, not in the article identified in the OP of this thread, just generally speaking.)

If polygamy is causing some members to leave, that is not the problem of the Church or polygamy but them.  If it is not polygamy, it will be something else.  One either builds their foundation on a rock or sand.  For those on sand, polygamy causes them a problem.  The Church can do more to educate members on the practice.  There is nothing for the Church to be ashamed of.  However the New Era is not the place for details.  My 13 year old could care less about it.  He is more worried about spending time on the computer with games and such than church stuff.

Edited February 27, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

 

 

Using the example we've been discussing... I grew up in the church (graduated seminary, served a mission, graduated from BYU) having been taught that the entire church fully accepted the Manifesto as a clear revelation that stopped polygamy "on a dime".  It was a crushing blow to find out that was not the case.  Not a crushing blow that the history was wrong, but a crushing blow that I was misled as to the meaning of a "prophetic revelation".

You should not view a correction on anything as a "crushing blow" but as an opportunity that you learned something new. 

[rockpond]

If polygamy is causing some members to leave, that is not the problem of the Church or polygamy but them.  If it is not polygamy, it will be something else.  One either builds their foundation on a rock or sand.  For those on sand, polygamy causes them a problem.  The Church can do more to educate members on the practice.  There is nothing for the Church to be ashamed of.  However the New Era is not the place for details.  My 13 year old could care less about it.  He is more worried about spending time on the computer with games and such than church stuff.

 

You should not view a correction on anything as a "crushing blow" but as an opportunity that you learned something new. 

 

 

I don't see it as polygamy that is causing people to leave.  Nor is it the correction to the historical narrative we were taught.  Rather, it seems to be the feelings of betrayal.

[why me]

If it is causing us to lose members and causing heartache and strife among those we don't lose, I think it's worth addressing in more detail than that line in the seminary manual.  (Again, not in the article identified in the OP of this thread, just generally speaking.)

I suppose that the church can come out with a church history book for each generation and have members take an exam every year so that no one can claim ignorance. But really, no church does this. All church's have a tainted history since all cburches have human beings as members. So, why should mormons know their history perfectly? And why should it matter if one has a testimony? Are mormon testimonies so weak that a historical fact can send someone off the rails? If so, then the promise in moroni is obviously not working. I find it amazing that when one has a testimony and has had wonderful spriitual experiences, a historical fact can send them down a spiral staircase. Lets hope that catholics and protestants can also study their history in depth, sponsored by their respective churches too.

[Scott Lloyd]

I suppose that the church can come out with a church history book for each generation and have members take an exam every year so that no one can claim ignorance.

Won't work.

 

If you can't even get all the kids from the most active families to show up at seminary every day -- or all the adults to go to Sunday School class instead of hanging out in the halls chitchatting -- how would you accomplish something like this? There will always be those who come back and complain they weren't told something and blame the Church for it.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I suppose that the church can come out with a church history book for each generation and have members take an exam every year so that no one can claim ignorance. But really, no church does this. All church's have a tainted history since all cburches have human beings as members. So, why should mormons know their history perfectly? And why should it matter if one has a testimony? Are mormon testimonies so weak that a historical fact can send someone off the rails? If so, then the promise in moroni is obviously not working. I find it amazing that when one has a testimony and has had wonderful spriitual experiences, a historical fact can send them down a spiral staircase. Lets hope that catholics and protestants can also study their history in depth, sponsored by their respective churches too.

 

Not the direction I was headed.

 

Maybe it's not something you can understand unless you've been through it.  Let me try it this way...

 

You grow up being taught that polygamy started with a revelation from God and ended with a revelation from God.

 

Turns out it just isn't that clear.  Polygamy began in the shadows.  The 1890 Manifesto didn't end it.  It wasn't interpreted in 1890 the way we interpret it today.  I've heard time and time again the betrayal members feel as they learn this.  The role of a prophet gets called into question.  It's all something that one can work through but one has to stay long enough to work through the original feelings of betrayal to work through it.

 

You can feel free to deny its happening.  I'm not able to prove it to you.  You and Scott can make jokes about members just not being smart enough to know the history.  Or, we can all admit that it's happening, and work towards solutions.

[KevinG]

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, giving them thorough instructions on Isaac's wives and concubines..."

[california boy]

 

I completely agree with you.

 

The problem from my perspective is that this article was not written to inoculate the youth.  It was meant to provide teenagers with answers to give to non-member friends (also typically teenagers) when they ask simple questions.

 

The article begins by telling the reader exactly what it's attempting to provide  It says-

 

"Do you ever feel unprepared when people ask you questions about the Church? Here are some suggestions for how you might answer a few frequently asked questions"

 

Providing a history of polygamy would not help a 13 year old when their 13 year old friend asks in passing how many wives mormon men have.  

 

There are other venues where teaching that stuff would very much be appropriate and is needed though, i don't deny that.

 

What happens when the teenager gives the answer that the church recommends and the anti-Mormon tells them their church is lying to them.  Even though a revelation was received in 1890, the church leaders disobeyed the revelation from God and continued to practice polygamy until 1904.  And what if the anti-Mormon adds that if the prophet "actually" receives revelation from God, why do the church leaders disregard the revelation?  How important can revelation be?  The anti-Mormon is put at an advantage because they know the truth and the member now feels lied to.  This is the core of the problem these incomplete answers cause.  And it could have been more accurately answered, which would have solved this from ever being an issue.  It is a problem that the church hasn't learned it's lesson about evidently.

Edited February 28, 2015 by california boy

[bluebell]

What happens when the teenager gives the answer that the church recommends and the anti-Mormon tells them their church is lying to them.  Even though a revelation was received in 1890, the church leaders disobeyed the revelation from God and continued to practice polygamy until 1904.  And what if the anti-Mormon adds that if the prophet "actually" receives revelation from God, why do the church leaders disregard the revelation?  How important can revelation be?  The anti-Mormon is put at an advantage because they know the truth and the member now feels lied to.  This is the core of the problem these incomplete answers cause.  And it could have been more accurately answered, which would have solved this from ever being an issue.  It is a problem that the church hasn't learned it's lesson about evidently.

 

Such situations are not what the article is addressing.  It specifically says that it's purpose is to provide some options for answering common questions from friends. It's not out to teach the youth how to combat anti mormons.

 

Since the more complete story is taught to youth in seminary and hopefully soon in other places as well, hopefully a youth in such a situation wouldn't be distressed.  

[california boy]

Such situations are not what the article is addressing.  It specifically says that it's purpose is to provide some options for answering common questions from friends. It's not out to teach the youth how to combat anti mormons.

 

Since the more complete story is taught to youth in seminary and hopefully soon in other places as well, hopefully a youth in such a situation wouldn't be distressed.  

Well this is the way the New Era positions the answers to questions.

 

Do you ever feel unprepared when people ask you questions about the Church? Here are some suggestions for how you might answer a few frequently asked questions.

 

 

If you don't think that some of those asking questions to Mormon youth are not Evangelic, trying to convince them that the church might be wrong, then chances are you don't live outside of the Mormon corridor or are not raising teenagers.  My kids would get questions thrown at them all the time.  Not always were they "just wanting to know" questions.  I would think that part of the purpose of this section in the New Era is to better prepare the youth for those that might not always be friendly to the churches beliefs.  I guess I felt like I always wanted my kids to be prepared with solid answers that could not easily be questioned as being truthful.  The last thing I wanted to happen is for my kids to find out what they were told was not completely accurate by someone who was questioning their beliefs.

 

Just my thoughts.  Others evidently think half answers are perfectly fine.  They are only teenagers.  Nothing to worry about here.

[carbon dioxide]

Is it really the role of the Church to educate all the youth on every little idle issue that somebody can accuse it on or should the parents do a better job at teaching their kids on this stuff?  The Church has to remain focused on its primary mission.  To waste a lot of time with distractions by critics is really what Satan wants.  If he can even slow the work down he is having a victory.  I have a 13 and a 4 year old.  They are too young to even care about any of this.  However I have been slowly gathering stuff for the last 15-20 years.   Going through anti-mormon sources, putting my thoughts down along with ideas from others and when my kids get old enough and they do have questions, I will give them everything I have.  I don't believe we need to answer every single issue that the enemies bring up.  All we need to do is show that they have a pattern of being wrong either purposely or by ignorance and they lose credibility.  I should not expect the New Era or Ensign to do something that really should be my job to do. As a parent, I have a right and responsibility to protect my kids from harm whether physical, emotional, or spiritual.  So I have an obligation to be able to steer them to finding the truth regarding hard issues.  I am not going to let some random person lead them away without a fight. 

Edited February 28, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[bluebell]

Well this is the way the New Era positions the answers to questions.

If you don't think that some of those asking questions to Mormon youth are not Evangelic, trying to convince them that the church might be wrong, then chances are you don't live outside of the Mormon corridor or are not raising teenagers. My kids would get questions thrown at them all the time. Not always were they "just wanting to know" questions. I would think that part of the purpose of this section in the New Era is to better prepare the youth for those that might not always be friendly to the churches beliefs. I guess I felt like I always wanted my kids to be prepared with solid answers that could not easily be questioned as being truthful. The last thing I wanted to happen is for my kids to find out what they were told was not completely accurate by someone who was questioning their beliefs.

Just my thoughts. Others evidently think half answers are perfectly fine. They are only teenagers. Nothing to worry about here.

I'm from northern Wyoming and Montana.

[Danzo]

What happens when the teenager gives the answer that the church recommends and the anti-Mormon tells them their church is lying to them. Even though a revelation was received in 1890, the church leaders disobeyed the revelation from God and continued to practice polygamy until 1904. And what if the anti-Mormon adds that if the prophet "actually" receives revelation from God, why do the church leaders disregard the revelation? How important can revelation be? The anti-Mormon is put at an advantage because they know the truth and the member now feels lied to. This is the core of the problem these incomplete answers cause. And it could have been more accurately answered, which would have solved this from ever being an issue. It is a problem that the church hasn't learned it's lesson about evidently.

Anyone who thinks church members always pay attention to revelations and prophets has never read the scriptures.

[california boy]

Is it really the role of the Church to educate all the youth on every little idle issue that somebody can accuse it on or should the parents do a better job at teaching their kids on this stuff?  The Church has to remain focused on its primary mission.  To waste a lot of time with distractions by critics is really what Satan wants.  If he can even slow the work down he is having a victory.  I have a 13 and a 4 year old.  They are too young to even care about any of this.  However I have been slowly gathering stuff for the last 15-20 years.   Going through anti-mormon sources, putting my thoughts down along with ideas from others and when my kids get old enough and they do have questions, I will give them everything I have.  I don't believe we need to answer every single issue that the enemies bring up.  All we need to do is show that they have a pattern of being wrong either purposely or by ignorance and they lose credibility.  I should not expect the New Era or Ensign to do something that really should be my job to do. As a parent, I have a right and responsibility to protect my kids from harm whether physical, emotional, or spiritual.  So I have an obligation to be able to steer them to finding the truth regarding hard issues.  I am not going to let some random person lead them away without a fight. 

 

I absolutely agree with you that it is the parents responsibility to teach their children the gospel and even history of the church.  But not all teenagers have parents that are active.  Not all teenagers have parents that are even members.  In some instances the parents may even be the ones questioning the beliefs of the church.

 

I always felt that the church did play a key role in helping to educate my children.  Isn't that why we have the seminary program, sunday school etc??

 

Why even have a question and answer section in the New Era if the church is only going to half heartily answer the questions?

 

Just my thoughts.  I guess others see little importance in how the church deals with it's history.