Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 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.You act as though I oppose any and all mention of plural marriage at any time in a Sunday class. I don't. I've never said I do.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 Actually, 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.So you're reacting not to what I told you, but rather, to what you feel like I told you. And I'm at fault for this?
JLHPROF Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) This thread is a generalized discussion of how Latter-day Saints are purportedly "ashamed" of Joseph Smith. JHLPROF, however, has specifically accused members of this board of faulting him for "expressing what was a standard view of the Prophet Joseph 100 years ago." Frankly, I find the accusation that Latter-day Saints are ashamed of Joseph Smith to be quite suspect, both in the abstract and in JHLPROF's particulars. We can't really quantify the broader, more vague accusation against the Saints, but we can test the more specific allegations made by JHLPROF's, hence the CFR. If he cannot substantiate his claim, then he should retract it. Otherwise, let's hear what he has to say. I did respond - here. I am not able to go back and see anything beyond my last half dozen posts. I am not going to scour the board archives to please your whims in search of each offhand comment by each member. What you CFR is not an academic reference anyway nor were my claims directed at the entire Church. My personal experiences with members on this board are not a CFR item.If you cannot tell that a chunk of the membership is uncomfortable with anything close to "Joseph worship" whereas back in the days of Brigham Young and others it was often practiced then you aren't paying attention. This thread alone represents both those members comfortable with all that Joseph was and taught, and those who feel we give him too much honor.Use this thread as a reference if you like. Senator was good enough to provide:That was probably me. (There, saved you the time of having to search out a post.) ......and I still feel that way. Edited April 13, 2015 by JLHPROF
JulieM Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) 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?I never said that I wanted entire lessons on the essays. The answers from many on my other thread said to absolutely feel free to include information from them to incorporate into lessons on Joseph Smith. But you're now saying not to because they're not relevant for today. Why did the church write them if not to use them in Sunday curriculum? Actually, don't bother to answer. I was going to send my friend to this board for some answers to questions she's having but if she'll be treated like you treat people with questions, I'll find another place for her to go. Edited April 13, 2015 by JulieM
CCRW Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Consiglieri is likely a good example of one who would have put much effort into his GD lessons, bringing very interesting and deeper understanding to the various weeking topics. And yet providing just enough external materal to the lesson to make Bishoprics and Stake Presidents nervious enough to remove him from the position.
CCRW Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) I never said that I wanted entire lessons on the essays. The answers from many on my other thread said to absolutely feel free to include information from them to incorporate into lessons on Joseph Smith. But you're now saying not to because they're not relevant for today. Why did the church write them if not to use them in Sunday curriculum? Actually, don't bother to answer. I was going to send my friend to this board for some answers to questions she's having but if she'll be treated like you treat people with questions, I'll find another venue for her. You are not likely to find any venue that would agree, it's going to boil down to local level leadership. All anyone can really do is go by the old saying ... getting forgiveness is easier than permission. In otherwords, you will not know how liberal your ward is, and how strongly leadership might stand up to complaints until the limits are pushed and closed door conversations start. Edited April 13, 2015 by CCRW
Senator Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Consiglieri is likely a good example of one who would have put much effort into his GD lessons, bringing very interesting and deeper understanding to the various weeking topics. And yet providing just enough external materal to the lesson to make Bishoprics and Stake Presidents nervious enough to remove him from the position. I don't recall him being removed because of what he taught. As I recall he served a full four years, which is a standard (and respectable) rotation through the standard works.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) I never said that I wanted entire lessons on the essays. The answers from many on my other thread said to absolutely feel free to include information from them to incorporate into lessons on Joseph Smith.And if you will recall, I'm one of those who responded on that other thread and said essentially the same thing -- with the caution that a teacher should not go off on tangents or use scarce class time to pursue his/her own hobbies just because he/she finds them interesting, that the paramount thing is the needs of the class members as revealed to the teacher through the spiritual gift of inspiration. Are you now saying that the teacher should have taken time out for a discussion of polygamy in the class whether or not the Spirit sustained such action? But you're now saying not to because they're not relevant for today. I'm saying they may not be as important as other things that need to be discussed and that, in general, a teacher should not feel compelled to take scarce class time for a lengthy discussion of a topic just because somebody brings it up. Why did the church write them if not to use them in Sunday curriculum? I didn't say they are never to be used. They are there in case they are needed and in case the Spirit prompts the teacher to use them. And there are presumably any number of instances and settings where they might be used, not limited to Sunday classes. Actually, don't bother to answer. I was going to send my friend to this board for some answers to questions she's having but if she'll be treated like you treat people with questions, I'll find another venue for her. Please look at my sig line below and read the portion that pertains to emotional blackmail. Edited April 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
CCRW Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 I don't recall him being removed because of what he taught.As I recall he served a full four years, which is a standard (and respectable) rotation through the standard works. very well could be, I thought I had heard that, I will retact that statement.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 Consiglieri is likely a good example of one who would have put much effort into his GD lessons, bringing very interesting and deeper understanding to the various weeking topics. Consiglieri continually went off on his own tangents and then came on this board to boast about it. Eventually, he was totally ignoring the subjects in the lesson manual and developing his own topics.
ALarson Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Eventually, he was totally ignoring the subjects in the lesson manual and developing his own topics.I'll bet his lessons were not boring though! I've read some of his posts on other boards and I think I'd love to have him teaching in my ward. I really believe that many would love to discuss some "new" information on different topics. (New to them.) Consiglieri also seems like a genuinely nice guy. Does he ever post here? 1
ttribe Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 I was speaking to the general principle that some publicly expressed perceptions ought to be challenged. Do you deny this? Oh, be done. Smac says so. You are griping, in multiple posts, about one CFR. And we are retentive? Thanks, -Smac I did say I'm an accountant, didn't I?
Senator Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Consiglieri continually went off on his own tangents and then came on this board to boast about it. Eventually, he was totally ignoring the subjects in the lesson manual and developing his own topics. According to you.
ttribe Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Consiglieri also seems like a genuinely nice guy. Does he ever post here? He was banned...but not allowed to immediately post under another name and avoid said banning (*cough* Pahoran *cough*). 2
Senator Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 I'll bet his lessons were not boring though! I've read some of his posts on other boards and I think I'd love to have him teaching in my ward. I really believe that many would love to discuss some "new" information on different topics. (New to them.) Consiglieri also seems like a genuinely nice guy. Does he ever post here? He was banned.
ALarson Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 I was going to send my friend to this board for some answers to questions she's having but if she'll be treated like you treat people with questions, I'll find another place for her to go.I hope you stick around (and invite your friend here too) as there are many really great people here who would answer your questions without judgment or making you feel demeaned. calmoriah is one of those who is so helpful, yet so nonjudgmental and kind. There are others too. I believe there are many in the church with questions like you're asking.
ALarson Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 He was banned...but not allowed to immediately post under another name and avoid said banning (*cough* Pahoran *cough*).I see. Maybe he'll be allowed to come back (if he'd want to)?
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 According to you.No. According to his own statements on the board.
CCRW Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 sure consig is a pistol, I was just trying to come up with some examples of preparing lessons per the spirit and what material might be acceptable to the local audience and leadership. I mentioned Wayne Phelps in social earlier, an incredible man. During my last HP group lesson 13 some odd years ago he gave his interpretation of a scripture quoted in the lesson manual. A couple members laughed out loud, where upon the HPGL went to the board and drew a target … Sticking strictly to the manual contents was noted as a bull’s-eye. Minor speculation was the next outer ring, and what Brother Phelps had suggested was totally off target. I stood up and left, not to return. That was the correlated gospel I last saw allowed/taught. I do hope things have changed.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 He was banned...but not allowed to immediately post under another name and avoid said banning (*cough* Pahoran *cough*).Trying to stir the pot, ttribe? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 sure consig is a pistol, I was just trying to come up with some examples of preparing lessons per the spirit and what material might be acceptable to the local audience and leadership. I mentioned Wayne Phelps in social earlier, an incredible man. During my last HP group lesson 13 some odd years ago he gave his interpretation of a scripture quoted in the lesson manual. A couple members laughed out loud, where upon the HPGL went to the board and drew a target … Sticking strictly to the manual contents was noted as a bull’s-eye. Minor speculation was the next outer ring, and what Brother Phelps had suggested was totally off target. I stood up and left, not to return. That was the correlated gospel I last saw allowed/taught. I do hope things have changed.In the past, too many spurious notions have been promulgated and perpetuated in the Church. Correlation is intended, in part, to prevent that. When people come to worship services and classes in the Church, they have the right to feel secure that the doctrine being served up to them is pure, that it has authenticity, that it is authoritative, that it has gone through what Elder Oaks on one occasion called "spiritual quality control."
ttribe Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Trying to stir the pot, ttribe? Nah, just thought it was funny. I leave the pot-stirring to the Nehor.
CCRW Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Nah, just thought it was funny. I leave the pot-stirring to the Nehor. He's just a big teddy bear ... and good heavens look at Brother McGregors behavior, I did not think I'd see the day. Edited April 13, 2015 by CCRW
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) So, we've drifted afield here. Any more comments on the thread topic? Does anyone here seriously believe the Church is distancing itself from the Prophet of the Restoration? Edited April 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
CCRW Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 In the past, too many spurious notions have been promulgated and perpetuated in the Church. Correlation is intended, in part, to prevent that. When people come to worship services and classes in the Church, they have the right to feel secure that the doctrine being served up to them is pure, that it has authenticity, that it is authoritative, that it has gone through what Elder Oaks on one occasion called "spiritual quality control." hehe, that reminds me of when I first moved into the Heber 1st ward. There was a HP who sould speak of wild things in classes. Everyone understood and would just let it pass. However one day he stood up in F&T and starting pointing out young women in the audiance that were going to be his wife! Yea I think we have all had at least one of that type in our wards over the years. You are speaking for everyone there, and l assume for the truely orthordox members that remains true. Of course it is that group which needs be aware of the wolfs. I assume the numbers, the mix is changing.
Recommended Posts