ttribe Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Sometimes, people perceptions ought to be CFR'd. If "perceptions" get repeated often enough, people begin to regard them as established fact -- like the "perception" that people are leaving the Church in unprecedented volume, a "perception" that was firmly contradicted at general conference last week by an apostle. Okay, you and Smac are being good soldiers. I get it.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 That's probably true. However, it's likely due to the fact that there is no lesson in our standard Sunday curriculum when it is on-topic. To me that's not right.Not right that Sabbath day lessons focus on content intended to help the Saints apply gospel principles in their lives today?
CCRW Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Dan most likely saw it on a site that he prefers not to direct traffic towards. Truth should stand on its own merit. Let him who has eyes to see and ears to hear ... right? Is the flock that weak?
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 I'm curious why that is, though. Back when plural marriage was practiced, it was taught as a more heavenly way than monogamy. Nowadays we pretend it was "commanded of God" because with it came some valuable lessons that people needed to learn. The problem is we don't have room to discuss it, at all, basically. We can't learn what was supposedly learned form it, we don't treat it as revelation anymore, so much so any one at Church can freely disregard it as a big old mistake. Most members are afraid to talk about it, because, well, it's ugly, on the face of it. I don't blame them at all. But, the way it's treated these days, it seems like someday the Church will disavow it's practice completely--not saying that's a bad thing.There are times and settings for that sort of thing. Take a Church history course if it's that important to you. Read some reliable books or websites. But don't try to monopolize Sabbath day classes by bringing up matters that are peripheral to what they are intended for.
Senator Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 JLHPROF, on 13 Apr 2015 - 1:02 PM, said: Thanks for the prompt. I play the piano in priesthood meeting and, as such, I get to choose the hymns we sing. I think I'll choose "Praise to the Man" for next week. It's a grand old hymn, very stirring, and it helps us retain in remembrance and honor the Prophet of the Restoration. Yes, heaven forbid that our remembrance and honor should dim from the last week we sang it......and the week before that. But you go for it! Personally, my ability to retain remembrance and honor of the Prophet is not dependant on ritually singing praises to his name.
ALarson Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Anyone can read the essays online any time. Our sabbath day classes are a time when we instruct and motivate one another to more perfectly understand and apply the teachings of the gospel. And the time for such instruction is scarce. Since plural marriage has been discontinued for more than a century, it scarcely has relevance to our understanding and applying the teachings of the gospel today.Yes, JulieM. The essays are to read on your own time, but do not expect to be able to speak publicly about them at church. Read them, but never discuss them during a lesson. Wow. And one wonders why the church is being accused of being ashamed of different events or issues from their past? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 Truth should stand on its own merit. Let him who has eyes to see and ears to hear ... right? Is the flock that weak?What's Dan not wanting to direct traffic to a spurious website got to do with truth standing on its own merit? He posted a copy of the graph on his blog. That was quite enough to communicate the message that he was referencing. At some point you should acquaint yourself with Internet search engines such as Google. They are marvelous. If somebody cites something on the Internet, you can quickly find what they are referring to with Google. 1
CCRW Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Our sabbath day classes are a time when we instruct and motivate one another to more perfectly understand and apply the teachings of the gospel. And the time for such instruction is scarce. Yes, what a shame that so much of life is lost with a redundant repeating message. But I suppose its function is no more than to cry repentance and so I should not lament. Edited April 13, 2015 by CCRW
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 Yes, heaven forbid that our remembrance and honor should dim from the last week we sang it......and the week before that. But you go for it! We haven't sung it in a while, actually. I would know; I choose the hymns. Personally, my ability to retain remembrance and honor of the Prophet is not dependant on ritually singing praises to his name. This thread is about some people's allegations that the Church is distancing itself from the Prophet Joseph Smith. Selecting the hymn for us to sing next week will be my bit to help communicate that this is not happening.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 Yes, what a shame that so much of life is lost with a redundant repeating message. But I suppose its function is no more than to cry repentance and so I should not lament.Heh. See the response I just posted to Senator.
CCRW Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 What's Dan not wanting to direct traffic to a spurious website got to do with truth standing on its own merit? He posted a copy of the graph on his blog. That was quite enough to communicate the message that he was referencing. At some point you should acquaint yourself with Internet search engines such as Google. They are marvelous. If somebody cites something on the Internet, you can quickly find what they are referring to with Google. I got the impression it was to protect his readers from other information/interpretations that might be found there.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 Yes, JulieM. The essays are to read on your own time, but do not expect to be able to speak publicly about them at church. Read them, but never discuss them during a lesson.I didn't say don't speak publicly about them. Just don't try to monopolize scarce Sabbath day lesson time discussing them when there are more important matters that pertain directly to the purpose of going to the house of prayer on the Sabbath day. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 Okay, you and Smac are being good soldiers. I get it.I'm being a "good soldier" because I suggest that some questionable perceptions ought to be challenged before they become part of the conventional wisdom? OK.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 I got the impression it was to protect his readers from other information/interpretations that might be found there.I know Daniel Peterson, and it's definitely not like him to do that.
JulieM Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Anyone can read the essays online any time. Our sabbath day classes are a time when we instruct and motivate one another to more perfectly understand and apply the teachings of the gospel. And the time for such instruction is scarce. Since plural marriage has been discontinued for more than a century, it scarcely has relevance to our understanding and applying the teachings of the gospel today.Why do I feel like you just patted me on my head and said "now, now, don't worry your little brain over these essay topics"?Your answer is demeaning and not helpful. I hope that we do start discussing these interesting topics in classes at church.
ttribe Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 I'm being a "good soldier" because I suggest that some questionable perceptions ought to be challenged before they become part of the conventional wisdom? OK. No, because the two of you bite and hang-on to a post that was clearly a trivial comment that someone perceived there to be less support for certain teachings of Joseph Smith's on this board based on his (anecdotal) observations of trends here over the years. So one guy had a thought. Big deal? Is every hill truly worth dying on? (That was a rhetorical question, in case it wasn't clear.)
Russell C McGregor Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Yes, JulieM. The essays are to read on your own time, but do not expect to be able to speak publicly about them at church. Read them, but never discuss them during a lesson. That hardly seems like a fair paraphrase -- or, when it comes to that, even a recognisable caricature -- of what Scott was saying. A Gospel Doctrine teacher prayerfully prepares a lesson which she feels will be of greatest value to the whole class. Not just one participant. She then has about forty minutes in which to deliver that lesson, and engage the participation of as many class members as she can. Why should she let one participant derail the entire discussion onto some tangential issue? There are, of course, times when "the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many." But those times may not necessarily coincide with the times when the one is demanding attention. As many parents know. Wow. And one wonders why the church is being accused of being ashamed of different events or issues from their past? The two things are unrelated. But I don't wonder. Regards, Russell 1
The Nehor Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Yes, JulieM. The essays are to read on your own time, but do not expect to be able to speak publicly about them at church. Read them, but never discuss them during a lesson. Wow. And one wonders why the church is being accused of being ashamed of different events or issues from their past?I know. I once went to a history class and we were talking about the Roaring 20s. Obviously the only reason the teacher did not have us reference the Federalist Papers is because the university and historians are ashamed of them. 4
Senator Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Not right that Sabbath day lessons focus on content intended to help the Saints apply gospel principles in their lives today? As if the roughly 100 year, all consuming practice, preaching and sacrificial obedience to the doctrine could have no "content intended to help the Saints apply gospel principles in their lives today". Go figure As far as I know, child sacrifice is no longer practiced in the church, yet somehow we manage to cull a relevant gospel principle -for our day- from a one time occurrence of something Abraham actually didn't have to do. (and no, I'm not trying to belittle the Abrahamic story) 2
Popular Post cinepro Posted April 13, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Since plural marriage has been discontinued for more than a century, it scarcely has relevance to our understanding and applying the teachings of the gospel today. I would agree with you if our study wasn't otherwise occupied by the centuries old stories of ancient nomadic sheepherders, Jewish peasants, "Nephites" of indeterminate location or origin, and 19th century polygamous, communitarian American frontiersmen. We read these stories not because the events apply to us today, but because they carry some sort of message. You can argue that the obedience and sacrifices made by early LDS polygamous wives don't carry a "message" for us today, but compared to the stories of floating arks full of animals, fathers being told to kill their sons, chopping off a head to get a good copy of the scriptures, and how important it is for the saints' property to be held in common, learning about the experiences of a plural wife might be eminently relatable, all things considered. Edited April 13, 2015 by cinepro 5
JulieM Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 That hardly seems like a fair paraphrase -- or, when it comes to that, even a recognisable caricature -- of what Scott was saying.lActually, that's exactly what I felt Scott Lloyd was telling me. Read them on my own, but they aren't relevant enough to today to discuss them at church.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 Why do I feel like you just patted me on my head and said "now, now, don't worry your little brain over these essay topics"? Beats me. You're the one to answer that, I suppose. Your answer is demeaning and not helpful. I'm not to blame for your taking offense where none was given. I hope that we do start discussing these interesting topics in classes at church. There are Institute courses and perhaps other Church-sponsored settings where they can be discussed. Why do you insist upon occupying Sabbath day time with them?
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 No, because the two of you bite and hang-on to a post that was clearly a trivial comment that someone perceived there to be less support for certain teachings of Joseph Smith's on this board based on his (anecdotal) observations of trends here over the years. So one guy had a thought. Big deal? Is every hill truly worth dying on? (That was a rhetorical question, in case it wasn't clear.)I was speaking to the general principle that some publicly expressed perceptions ought to be challenged. Do you deny this?
CCRW Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 I can see the point of honoring the teachers preparation time. I remember in the old days of Sacrament meeting talks where a typically assignment went like: Bishopric member: Sister Jane, would you please speak on the 2nd Sunday next month in Sacrament meeting? Sister Jane: Yes I would be glad to, what topic would you like me to speak on? Bishopric member: You pray about it and speak on what the spirit dictates. I understand that the typical assignments to speak involve a direct assignment to a given GC talk from the last conference. This leaves no forum where one guided by the spirit could present essay truths, or any other that was not limited to teacher’s guides, prepared printed lesson manuals or Ensign material
smac97 Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 No, because the two of you bite and hang-on to a post that was clearly a trivial comment that someone perceived there to be less support for certain teachings of Joseph Smith's on this board based on his (anecdotal) observations of trends here over the years. So one guy had a thought. Big deal? Is every hill truly worth dying on? (That was a rhetorical question, in case it wasn't clear.) You are griping, in multiple posts, about one CFR. And we are retentive? Thanks, -Smac 1
Recommended Posts