Bishop Dismisses Sunday School Teacher For Using Essay.

[ERayR]

Um, ok. Of course I know that! But they received "direct correspondence" from Salt Lake. One would think that would carry enough importance that they'd at least take the time to read the essays. That's all I was saying here.

And again I ask if anyone knows what instructions or information was in that correspondence to Priesthood leaders or is that too confidential to post here?

 

Are you acquainted with a Bishops schedule?  If it became an issue in his own ward I would expect him to read some but if not... well there are several more pressing issues at hand.

[stemelbow]

Are you acquainted with a Bishops schedule?  If it became an issue in his own ward I would expect him to read some but if not... well there are several more pressing issues at hand.

I would suggest the putting so much on the bishop to make them far too busy is part of the problem.

[Nevo]

I recently brought the essays to the attention of a Bishop in our Stake who is also a CES Director. He didn't know about them.

 

If this is true, then I don't know where he has been for the past year. One of the S&I priorities for 2014–15 is "Seek Truth," which is code for helping students with questions and doubts. One of the resources teachers are encouraged to use are the Gospel Topics essays.

 

On the S&I website, on the "Seek Truth" page, under the section, "Help Students Find Answers," one sees this:

 

Gospel Topics

The ongoing enhancement of the gospel topics section on LDS.org can provide readers with accurate information as they seek answers to questions about the Church’s doctrine and history as well as other subjects. As students use this material as part of their effort to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118), they can learn to discern between truth and error and be prepared to explain their beliefs to others.

 

Below it is a link to the Gospel Topics introduction page, which says, among other things:

 

We urge all to read the essays as written rather than relying on the characterization of their content by others.

The Church places great emphasis on knowledge and on the importance of being well informed about Church history, doctrine and practices. Ongoing historical research, revisions of the Church’s curriculum, and the use of new technologies allowing a more systematic and thorough study of scriptures have all been pursued by the Church to that end. We again encourage members to study the Gospel Topics essays cited in the links to the right as they “seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”

Edited May 5, 2015 by Nevo

[Gray]

Not really. Not at all, actually.

 

Who goes to the media upon being released from a calling? Who does that?

 

It's not unfounded to find that there has to be a backstory to this beyond "I used the essays on lds.org to answer a difficult question and got released."

 

Someone who married an African woman and is sensitive about the race issue?

[ERayR]

I would suggest the putting so much on the bishop to make them far too busy is part of the problem.

 

That may be but what would you suggest to remedy the problem.  I guess I do not really see it as a problem.  A good bishop soon learns to listen to personal revelation.  Some struggle with it.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I think some members have realized that the only way to get their concerns past a Ward/Stake level is to publicize it.

[tonie]

 

 

Who goes to the media upon being released from a calling? Who does that?

 

 

 

We do not know how the media found out. 

 

Was it the teacher?

Was it a disgruntled student of the teacher, who was upset that the teacher was dismissed?

Was it a Ward member who heard rumblings of the situation?

 

Many questions remain, one of which is "Who made first contact."

[HappyJackWagon]

 

That may be but what would you suggest to remedy the problem.  I guess I do not really see it as a problem.  A good bishop soon learns to listen to personal revelation.  Some struggle with it.

 

That would be a fun topic. There are MANY remedies that would free up some time for Bishops. But simply saying they are too busy to know the church's current teachings is a bit of a problem, don't you think?

[ERayR]

 

 

That would be a fun topic. There are MANY remedies that would free up some time for Bishops. But simply saying they are too busy to know the church's current teachings is a bit of a problem, don't you think?

 

Seeing as how Joseph Smith had little use for creeds and encourage each to become prophets in their own right.  No.

[iamse7en]

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.

 

I'm not a fan of the church essay either. Why would I be? It throws many previous prophets under the bus. Clearly they (past and modern prophets) are in contradiction, so why accept what they're saying now? Who's more correct? Today's prophets merely state those past prophets were a product of their cultural ("racist") biases? How do we not know if today's prophets aren't merely a product of their cultural biases, in this world of hypersensitivity to political correctness and of obsession with breaking down all cultural barriers? The doctrines of priesthood restriction, anti-miscegenation, and "chosen races" have a lot more historical and scriptural precedence than the position/explanation today, so who am I to believe? The answer, "the modern prophets because they are modern," is illogical. It's comforting to hear there are other Saints who don't embrace this essay.

Edited May 5, 2015 by iamse7en

[Senator]

I'm not a fan of the church essay either. Why would I be? It throws many previous prophets under the bus. Clearly they (past and modern prophets) are in contradiction, so why accept what they're saying now? Who's more correct? Today's prophets merely state those past prophets were a product of their cultural ("racist") biases? How do we not know if today's prophets aren't merely a product of their cultural biases, in this world of hypersensitivity to political correctness and of obsession with breaking down all cultural barriers? The doctrines of priesthood restriction, anti-miscegenation, and "chosen races" have a lot more historical and scriptural precedence than the position/explanation today, so who am I to believe? The answer, "the modern prophets because they are modern," is illogical. It's comforting to hear there are other Saints who don't embrace this essay.

 

Oooooo.............folks, what do you think of this newbie? Friend or foe?

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not a fan of the church essay either. Why would I be? It throws many previous prophets under the bus. Clearly they (past and modern prophets) are in contradiction, so why accept what they're saying now? Who's more correct? Today's prophets merely state those past prophets were a product of their cultural ("racist") biases? How do we not know if today's prophets aren't merely a product of their cultural biases, in this world of hypersensitivity to political correctness and of obsession with breaking down all cultural barriers? The doctrines of priesthood restriction, anti-miscegenation, and "chosen races" have a lot more historical and scriptural precedence than the position/explanation today, so who am I to believe? The answer, "the modern prophets because they are modern," is illogical. It's comforting to hear there are other Saints who don't embrace this essay.

 

Which ancient prophet do you propose we follow?

[mormonnewb]

I think some members have realized that the only way to get their concerns past a Ward/Stake level is to publicize it.

 

Good point!  The leaders send back all letters to local authorities.  Furthermore, Elder Robbins made perfectly clear in last October's GC, that they aren't interested in our opinions.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/which-way-do-you-face?lang=eng

 

 

“Which way do you face?” President Boyd K. Packer surprised me with this puzzling question while we were traveling together on my very first assignment as a new Seventy. Without an explanation to put the question in context, I was baffled. “A Seventy,” he continued, “does not represent the people to the prophet but the prophet to the people. Never forget which way you face!” It was a powerful lesson.

 

So how does one say, "Salt Lake, we have a problem!"

 

And this is a problem.  Hopefully, this family won't leave the Church over this issue because their reason for departure would only further cement an impression that is already keeping far too many black people from even considering the Gospel.

Edited May 5, 2015 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

I'm not a fan of the church essay either. Why would I be? It throws many previous prophets under the bus. Clearly they (past and modern prophets) are in contradiction, so why accept what they're saying now? Who's more correct? Today's prophets merely state those past prophets were a product of their cultural ("racist") biases? How do we not know if today's prophets aren't merely a product of their cultural biases, in this world of hypersensitivity to political correctness and of obsession with breaking down all cultural barriers? The doctrines of priesthood restriction, anti-miscegenation, and "chosen races" have a lot more historical and scriptural precedence than the position/explanation today, so who am I to believe? The answer, "the modern prophets because they are modern," is illogical. It's comforting to hear there are other Saints who don't embrace this essay.

 

I know that I'm going to regret this, but just for clarification, are you suggesting that modern prophets are wrong for disavowing the previous rationales for the priesthood ban?  Or to put it more clearly, are you suggesting that blacks were under the curse of Cain and/or less valiant in the pre-existence and that today's prophets are too PC to just admit the "truth"?

[ERayR]

 

 

Good point!  The leaders send back all letters to local authorities.  Furthermore, Elder Robbins made perfectly clear in last October's GC, that they aren't interested in our opinions.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/which-way-do-you-face?lang=eng

 

 

So how does one say, "Salt Lake, we have a problem!"

 

And this is a problem.  Hopefully, this family won't leave the Church over this issue because their reason for departure would only further cement an impression that is already keeping far too many black people from even considering the Gospel.

 

 

Which way do you face?  Whose Church is it?

[Darren10]

Loke ALarson and others, I suspect that the crux of the problem rests with the setting of the essay sharing, not the essays themselves. One of my first questions O asked myself was the age of the youth. I originally envisioned young Primary members getting this essay but the Salt Lake Tribune article,if I recall correctly, said the group was 12-14. I do not find 12-14 "too young" to be eosed to the Race essay so perhaps there are other issues at hand.

As for the media, I will not go to them but if they came to me with questions, I can picture myself providing them with responses.

[iamse7en]

Which ancient prophet do you propose we follow?

 

All prophets in all ages have their faults, opinions, biases, and gifts. I'm not proposing you follow any one ancient prophet. I would propose you study all the teachings of all the prophets (which includes scriptures of course) and believe the set of teachings you believe are closest to truth. When today's prophets throw many previous prophets under the bus, I test their rationale and explanation against all other teachings of prophets. 

 

I know that I'm going to regret this, but just for clarification, are you suggesting that modern prophets are wrong for disavowing the previous rationales for the priesthood ban?  Or to put it more clearly, are you suggesting that blacks were under the curse of Cain and/or less valiant in the pre-existence and that today's prophets are too PC to just admit the "truth"?

 

They disavow much more than just the rationale for the ban. What I'm suggesting is that much like there may have been wisdom and prudence in keeping priesthood to Israelites only, or to those of Aaron only, or Jesus only preaching to Jews and making Gentiles wait for their time (for whatever different host of reasons), or not mixing races, I accept probability that there may have been wisdom and prudence in not giving blacks the priesthood yet. That wisdom may be that whites weren’t ready, blacks weren’t ready (perhaps even due to some degree of pre-earth choices, unless you believe spirits are sent to families at random which is against scripture), or whatever reason apologists like to dream up. The rationale behind the restriction will vary among the many prophets, even between Orson and Brigham: 

 

…if all the spirits were equally faithful in their first estate [but] are placed in such dissimilar circumstances in their second estate… Among the two-thirds who remained [after the Devil was east out], it is highly probable, that, there were many who were not valient in the war, but whose sins were of such a nature that they could be forgiven... (Orson Pratt, The Seer, 1 [April 1853]: 54-56).

 

Lorenzo Young asked if the Spirits of Negroes were Nutral in Heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said No they were not. There was No Nutral spirits in Heaven at the time of the Rebelion. All took sides. He said if any one said that He Herd the Prophet Joseph Say that the spirits of the Blacks were Nutral in Heaven He would not Believe them for He herd Joseph Say to the Contrary. All spirits are pure that Come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cane are Black Because He Commit Murder. He killed Abel & God set a Mark upon his posterity But the spirits are pure that Enter their tabernacles & there will be a Chance for the redemption of all the Children of Adam Except the Sons of perdition. (WW Journal, 12/15/1869) 

 

Given other disagreements between the two, I tend to side more with Brigham than Orson. We are all impacted by the decisions of our descendants whether we like it or not. I was very disappointed that the essay just throws all previous prophets under the bus and basically chalks up everything to their "product-of-their-times racism."

Edited May 5, 2015 by iamse7en

[Duncan]

Is going to the media a bad thing?

 

no! but media is a double edged sword, people can find out the story and then people can find out the story

[rpn]

 

I'm not a fan of the church essay either. Why would I be? It throws many previous prophets under the bus. Clearly they (past and modern prophets) are in contradiction, so why accept what they're saying now? Who's more correct?

I think Elder McKonkie's statement repudiating everything that he'd believed in the past and taught because he now had more light is quite instructive.   HE was considered the leading person on doctrine, certainly among the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency for almost forty years.   Yet, he was willing to acknowledge that what he'd taught was not the truth, because he'd received revelation to the contrary.

 

It isn't throwing earlier prophets under the bus to recognize that new revelation trumps all the doctrinal understanding that a former leader had or followed.  It trumps traditions of our fathers.    (And in the race issue, it is important to state up front that at least two groups of apostles, one in the 1880's and another in the 1950's had been tasked with identifying the origin and history of the ban and neither had been able to find any doctrinal basis for it, nor revelation, nor historical notations of when and how it originated.)  

[BookofMormonLuvr]

All prophets in all ages have their faults, opinions, biases, and gifts. I'm not proposing you follow any one ancient prophet. I would propose you study all the teachings of all the prophets (which includes scriptures of course) and believe the set of teachings you believe are closest to truth. When today's prophets throw many previous prophets under the bus, I test their rationale and explanation against all other teachings of prophets. 

 

 

They disavow much more than just the rationale for the ban. What I'm suggesting is that much like there may have been wisdom and prudence in keeping priesthood to Israelites only, or to those of Aaron only, or Jesus only preaching to Jews and making Gentiles wait for their time (for whatever different host of reasons), or not mixing races, I accept probability that there may have been wisdom and prudence in not giving blacks the priesthood yet. That wisdom may be that whites weren’t ready, blacks weren’t ready (perhaps even due to some degree of pre-earth choices, unless you believe spirits are sent to families at random which is against scripture), or whatever reason apologists like to dream up. The rationale behind the restriction will vary among the many prophets, even between Orson and Brigham: 

 

 

 

Given other disagreements between the two, I tend to side more with Brigham than Orson. We are all impacted by the decisions of our descendants whether we like it or not. I was very disappointed that the essay just throws all previous prophets under the bus and basically chalks up everything to their "product-of-their-times racism."

I tend to side more with Joseph than either of those two.

[rockpond]

Interestingly, John Dehlin just posted the following on Facebook:

 

"A "Difficult Issues" resource list being distributed by the Springville Utah Dry Creek Stake President -- to combat member doubts and questions.Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, Ty Mansfield, Neylan McBaine, Sue Bergin, and Eugene England all make the list!!! Truly fascinating times we are living in.

Perhaps we each can share this list with our respective bishops, stake presidents, quorum leaders, etc. to help build awareness! The more these issues are discussed, the more that truth and healing/health eventually win out.

 

http://traffic.libsyn.com/mormonstories/Resources_for_Dealing_with_Difficult_Issues_Leaders.docx"

[cinepro]

Someone who married an African woman and is sensitive about the race issue?

 

I think this is an important point.  I'm sure the race issue looks very different if you are black, or married to a black person.  It's not just ancient (i.e. 37 year old) history.

 

As I mentioned in another post, the issue of the Priesthood Ban came up in a teen Sunday School class that I taught a few weeks ago (I asked them what the most recent "scripture" we had in our Standard Works was, and the answer was obviously OD2).  Some of the youth were familiar with it, although some of the answers were that "everybody could have the priesthood" (wrong) and that "now people of different races could have the priesthood" (I clarified that there was only one "race" that couldn't have the priesthood; Chinese people, Polynesian, Mexican etc. could all have the Priesthood before 1978).  But most the kids didn't know what I was talking about.

Edited May 5, 2015 by cinepro

[cinepro]

That being said, the proper term for the thread title would be "releases".  Regardless of the reason, you are "released" from a calling, not "dismissed".

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Really, this Bishop has caused more problems than he has solved. Youth, being what they are, will be even more curious about things since they just saw their teacher summarily dismissed for speaking truthfully about church history from LDS sources. They all have phones with internet access... get ready for some interesting interviews Bishop.

[mormonnewb]

I think Elder McKonkie's statement repudiating everything that he'd believed in the past and taught because he now had more light is quite instructive.   HE was considered the leading person on doctrine, certainly among the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency for almost forty years.   Yet, he was willing to acknowledge that what he'd taught was not the truth, because he'd received revelation to the contrary.

 

It isn't throwing earlier prophets under the bus to recognize that new revelation trumps all the doctrinal understanding that a former leader had or followed.  It trumps traditions of our fathers.    (And in the race issue, it is important to state up front that at least two groups of apostles, one in the 1880's and another in the 1950's had been tasked with identifying the origin and history of the ban and neither had been able to find any doctrinal basis for it, nor revelation, nor historical notations of when and how it originated.)  

 

I can see why Elder McKonkie's statement is problematic for some members.  After all, if we was so mistaken about something that he truly believed to be doctrine, then how do we trust that the apostles are correct in their understanding of today's doctrines in re SSM marriage, ordaining women or even the sealing power?  To my mind, the answer is that we can't be sure and therefore, must lean upon on our own prayer and scripture study.  If history is any guide, the current prophets are right about MOST doctrines, but are a little off on a few.  However, I say that as a "false" Mormon (at least, on the McGregor scale on true Mormanity).

 

If you argue that the leaders must be right about everything because "HF would never allow them to lead the Church astray," then it has to be more difficult to accept the prophets could have been wrong about the reasons for the race ban for more than a century.  In that case, you probably do have to go with "God has always been a racist and you mamby pamby PC liberals just can't handle the truth."

 

Or perhaps, I'm missing some "third way Mormonism" that can bridge these two extremes.