Bishop Dismisses Sunday School Teacher For Using Essay.

[JLHPROF]

I know this was just published an hour ago but surprised it hadn't made it here yet...

 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2475803-155/mormon-bishop-dismisses-teacher-for-using

 

 

It all started with a question.

The Mormon youth simply asked his white Sunday school teacher why the man's Nigerian wife and her family would join a church that had barred blacks from being ordained to its all-male priesthood until 1978. Why, the student wanted to know, was the ban instituted in the first place?

To answer the teen's inquiry, Brian Dawson turned to the Utah-based faith's own materials, including its groundbreaking 2013 essay, "Race and the Priesthood." His research prompted an engaging discussion with his class of 12- to 14-year-olds.

But it didn't please his local lay leaders, who removed him from his teaching assignment — even though the essay has been approved by top Mormon leaders and appears on the church's official website lds.org.

 

I found this comment particularly interesting:

 

"It's "great" that the essay is on the church website, Smith says, "but people don't believe it."

It was neither signed nor penned by the governing First Presidency, nor has it been mentioned, alluded to, or footnoted in speeches by LDS authorities at the faith's semiannual General Conferences."

 

What do you think?  Does the average member know about or even believe the explanations in the essays, whether this one or any other essay?

 

And the the source of the problem maybe:

 

After the class, students told their families about the conversation. One parent complained to Dawson's bishop.

"Anything regarding black history before 1978 is irrelevant," Dawson recalls his bishop saying, "and a moot point."

Then, the former teacher says, his bishop insisted that Dawson agree never again to bring up the essay or discuss "black Mormon history" in the class.

Dawson declined — even after believing he would be "released" from teaching the class for disobedience.

Edited May 5, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Duncan]

It sounds like he went to the media, which people react to more than they probably would otherwise because now everyone knows what happened

[JLHPROF]

It sounds like he went to the media, which people react to more than they probably would otherwise because now everyone knows what happened

 

Well someone definitely did, and then he didn't refuse an interview (which he probably should have).

[ALarson]

JHLPROF,

This is interesting when you see the thread topic I posted close to the same time you started this thread.  It seems that wards and Bishops are maybe still quite divided on discussing or teaching the essay material.   Maybe some instruction from the leaders (in Salt Lake) would be helpful regarding the use of the essays with the members?  Or maybe that's already been done?  

 

I know that our Stake President is concerned enough about teaching them that he's instructed they be taught in each ward.  According to my Bishop, he (and the Stake President) have been alarmed at how many members have come in to talk about them and ask questions.

 

What do you think?  

 

Maybe it was how this was discussed in this SS class?  Maybe it was because of the age of the kids.  Also, maybe the teacher should have asked his Bishop for direction on how he wanted him to handle the questions.

[thesometimesaint]

As a wise man once told me. "Down the memory hole".

[jwhitlock]

I don't agree with how the local leaders handled it, but the glaring question is how did the newspaper find out about it?

 

If I have a disagreement with my local leaders, I certainly am NOT going to talk to a newspaper about it - or any other media outlet.

[Duncan]

I don't agree with how the local leaders handled it, but the glaring question is how did the newspaper find out about it?

 

If I have a disagreement with my local leaders, I certainly am NOT going to talk to a newspaper about it - or any other media outlet.

 

if you want change, the media is certaintly one way to do it. The media loves this kind of stuff. 

Edited May 5, 2015 by Duncan

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I know this was just published an hour ago but surprised it hadn't made it here yet...

 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2475803-155/mormon-bishop-dismisses-teacher-for-using

 

 

I found this comment particularly interesting:

 

"It's "great" that the essay is on the church website, Smith says, "but people don't believe it."

It was neither signed nor penned by the governing First Presidency, nor has it been mentioned, alluded to, or footnoted in speeches by LDS authorities at the faith's semiannual General Conferences."

 

What do you think?  Does the average member know about or even believe the explanations in the essays, whether this one or any other essay?

 

I taught this essay as a 5th Sunday meeting about a year ago and I can confirm that many people do not believe it. It's quite disappointing. My own parents do not believe it for precisely the reasons you state.

The Bishop has the authority to release anyone he chooses from any calling under his stewardship. That's undisputed. But is he right in doing so? Did the spirit lead him to do that or was he placating an upset parent? Does he not understand the issue himself? Is he even familiar with the essay?

Leaders are accustomed to making decisions free of criticism. Sometimes decisions should be challenged, discussed, publicized. The Bishop is not King. He is a servant of each member of the ward.

[Gray]

 

What do you think?  Does the average member know about or even believe the explanations in the essays, whether this one or any other essay?

 

And the the source of the problem maybe:

 

I think a lot of people are still unaware of the essays, but it's impossible for me to estimate if that's a minority or a majority. I've never heard them brought up in a church meeting, but I do have friends in my ward who I know are aware of them. That's not a valid statistical sampling, of course. 

[ERayR]

I would bet that this teacher and the Bishop had had discussions before.

[ALarson]

I think a lot of people are still unaware of the essays, but it's impossible for me to estimate if that's a minority or a majority. I've never heard them brought up in a church meeting, but I do have friends in my ward who I know are aware of them. That's not a valid statistical sampling, of course. 

From my experience, I've found that many members still believe much of the information in the essays is anti-Mormon material when they first are exposed to it.  At the least, much of it is unfamiliar to the average member today.  But once they learn who the source is (their leaders) or that these essays are on lds.org, they are interested in learning more about the topics.  (Now, some don't really care about anything in the church's past, but many do.)

[bluebell]

That's crazy.  They definitely need to have more training for ward leaders about the essays and how the church wants them used.  It's insane that someone would be essentially reprimanded for using church sources in a lesson.

[The Nehor]

That's crazy.  They definitely need to have more training for ward leaders about the essays and how the church wants them used.  It's insane that someone would be essentially reprimanded for using church sources in a lesson.

I have my doubts about this being the whole story. It is amazing how one side is the hero and the other behaving scandalously when the story is told by the "hero".

[ERayR]

That's crazy.  They definitely need to have more training for ward leaders about the essays and how the church wants them used.  It's insane that someone would be essentially reprimanded for using church sources in a lesson.

 

Perhaps it is not the material but the presentation.

[stemelbow]

12 years ago or so, I taught, at least as I can recollect the same message that is contained in the Race essay when a young black male was asking questions in EQ, or I tried to, and I tried to keep it to LDS sources when I did. Most of the EQ at the time seemed to accept the message as a whole.

A year and a half ago as the issue was brought up in EQ, I referenced the essay and talked about it a little. There were a couple of fellows who objected to the use fo the essay when the questions were asked, and not one had read it, at the time. I was glad the questions were asked and the essay was referred to then, but later I found out that some objected. Someone told the bishop on me, as it turns out. I teach Youth Sunday School, so for the next few lessons in both EQ and Youth SS I had a member of the bishopric with us, because they were concerned. I was not released and they did not specifically address the issue with me, other than one reference from the Bishop.

As I see it, there are plenty of members who fear information, questions, unorthodox ideas. But such fears are unwarranted, as I see it. And to try and cultishly control things like some do, is a problem.

The article in the paper draws concern from me. I too wonder why such a thing is found in the paper.

[stemelbow]

I have my doubts about this being the whole story. It is amazing how one side is the hero and the other behaving scandalously when the story is told by the "hero".

I'd guess that more to the story is, the guy had brought up other "issues" as the essays do at various times, and the Bishop objected to the idea that kids are being taught "issues" at Church. But if it was just the race issue, I certainly wouldn't put it past some bishop to make a big deal about it, like this. Some members are just goofy like that, it seems to me.

[rongo]

The fact that this hit the media means that there is a lot more to the story than is represented. 

[JulieM]

The Bishop has the authority to release anyone he chooses from any calling under his stewardship. That's undisputed. But is he right in doing so? Did the spirit lead him to do that or was he placating an upset parent? Does he not understand the issue himself? Is he even familiar with the essay?

I'll bet he is now

[DJBrown]

I know this was just published an hour ago but surprised it hadn't made it here yet...

 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2475803-155/mormon-bishop-dismisses-teacher-for-using

 

 

I found this comment particularly interesting:

 

"It's "great" that the essay is on the church website, Smith says, "but people don't believe it."

It was neither signed nor penned by the governing First Presidency, nor has it been mentioned, alluded to, or footnoted in speeches by LDS authorities at the faith's semiannual General Conferences."

 

What do you think?  Does the average member know about or even believe the explanations in the essays, whether this one or any other essay?

 

And the the source of the problem maybe:

 

We are getting one side of the story.  And that almost never results in understanding reality.

 

The teacher's response of going to the media suggests there may be issues on his side of things.

Edited May 5, 2015 by DJBrown

[tonie]

One of the essays was mentioned a few weeks ago. I thanked the intructor for mentioning the essay. The instructor responded "Until they get more mention, I will keep bringing them up."

 

 

As for going to the Salt Lake Tribune, about this account, my attitude is "oh well".

 

Some interesting bits from the article:

 

Then, the former teacher says, his bishop insisted that Dawson agree never again to bring up the essay or discuss "black Mormon history" in the class.

Dawson declined — even after believing he would be "released" from teaching the class for disobedience.

 

"If the [Holy] Spirit guides me in a way that involves these multitude of documents," he asked the bishop, "who am I to resist the enticing of the Spirit?"

 

The bishop replied, according to Dawson, "The Spirit is telling me to tell you not to use those documents."

 

....

 

Eventually, their local LDS leaders agreed that Dawson's materials were legitimate but decided he shouldn't teach them anyway. It was too much for the kids, they argued, and church was not the right venue for the discussion.

Edited May 5, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

The fact that this hit the media means that there is a lot more to the story than is represented. 

 

nice unfounded well poison. 

[The Nehor]

nice unfounded well poison.

Which would be turnabout being fair play because this is exactly what he did when he went to the media. At least there is symmetry.

[mormonnewb]

 

 

"Anything regarding black history before 1978 is irrelevant," Dawson recalls his bishop saying, "and a moot point."

 

This is my favorite LDS quote of the week, so far.  However, the week is long and so I'm sure that someone (other than me, of course) will say something dumber by Thursday.  

 

Certainly, I've found that the best way to learn from my past mistakes is to simply forget all about the years in which I made them (and even if you don't think the ban was a mistake, you must concede that the explanations for it were mistakes ... read the essay).  We can't simply cherry pick through history like my 8-year-old eating dinner at night.  We actually have to eat a lima bean or two from time to time.

 

Even better, is that the bishop gave this "counsel" to a man married to a black woman and a father of four (adorable) half-black children.  Did he really think that this man would be comfortable with simply sweeping a century of racism under the rug?  If this guy only thinks about how race affects his "babies" half as much as I do, it is still A LOT.  I'm surprised that he didn't turn to his local leader and say, "Bishop, please!" 

 

I'm even more surprised that the Church isn't be more proactive in its PR efforts here.  I don't know if they are aware or not, but this Church has an image issue with regards to race.  Let me be more clear for those of you who went to BYU Idaho -- everyone thinks we are racist (yes, I'm teasing BYU-Idaho).  But here is the headline that jumped off my FB feed this morning:

 

 

This Mormon Sunday school teacher was dismissed for using church's own race essay in lesson

 

With a picture of this man and his black wife and their four children.  What's next?  Is Cliven Bundy being invited to speak at the next GC?

 

And the Church's response is "No comment"?  Really?  How about a comment like: "I know this looks bad, but we're really working on this whole perception of us as bigots"?  Or how about saying ANYTHING?  "No comment" is what you say after be arrested for solicitation during Super Bowl weekend.  It isn't what you say if you are genuinely interested in ridding yourself of your scarlet "R" (assuming that the Church really wants to).

Edited May 5, 2015 by mormonnewb

[stemelbow]

This is my favorite LDS quote of the week, so far.  However, the week is long and so I'm sure that someone (other than me, of course) will say something dumber by Thursday.  

 

Certainly, I've found that the best way to learn from my past mistakes is to simply forget all about the years in which I made them (and even if you don't think the ban was a mistake, you must concede that the explanations for it were mistakes ... read the essay).  We can't simply cherry pick through history like my 8-year-old eating dinner at night.  We actually have to eat a lima bean or two from time to time.

 

Even better, is that the bishop gave this "counsel" to a man married to a black woman and a father of four (adorable) half-black children.  Did he really think that this man would be comfortable with simply sweeping a century of racism under the rug?  If this guy only thinks about how race affects his "babies" half as much as I do, it is still A LOT.  I'm surprised that he didn't turn to his local leader and say, "Bishop, please!" 

 

I'm even more surprised that the Church isn't be more proactive in its PR efforts here.  I don't know if they are aware or not, but this Church has an image issue with regards to race.  Let me be more clear for those of you who went to BYU Idaho -- everyone thinks we are racist (yes, I'm teasing BYU-Idaho).  But here is the headline that jumped off my FB feed this morning:

 

 

This Mormon Sunday school teacher was dismissed for using church's own race essay in lesson

 

With a picture of this man and his black wife and their four children.  What's next?  Is Cliven Bundy being invited to speak at the next GC?

 

And the Church's response is "No comment"?  Really?  How about a comment like: "I know this looks bad, but we're really working on this whole perception of us as bigots"?  Or how about saying ANYTHING?  "No comment" is what you say AFTER be arrested for solicitation during Super Bowl weekend.  It isn't what you say if you are genuinely interested in ridding yourself of your scarlet "R" (assuming that the Church really wants to).

Yeah, the no comment was pretty disappointing.

[Scott Lloyd]

With the ex-teacher trotting off to the Tribune to air his grievances, I'm guessing there may be more to this story than meets the eye.