Bishop Dismisses Sunday School Teacher For Using Essay.

[Darren10]

As for these essays, I thoroughly enjoy them. I can understand why others may be aprehensive to them but I do not find the Race essay or any other of the recent essays as "throwing previous prophets under the bus". Race and the priesthood has got to be one of the most confusing points of doctrine in LDS history and, frankly, confusion is what happens when God remains silent. By no coincidence, the 1978 revelation lifting the priesthood ban has to be one of the clearest revelations in the history of the LDS Church.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.)  

Elder McConkie's statement was much more limited than that. Edward Kimball notes:

 

Despite this sweeping language, Elder McConkie may have changed his views only about when the curse should be lifted. In the 1979 revision of his second edition of Mormon Doctrine, he continued to express the view that those of black African lineage descend from Cain and at least those who lived before 1978 come to earth under a curse related to their pre-mortal lives.  McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, sv. Cain (108-9) Caste System (114), Egyptus (214), Ham (342), Negroes (526-28), Races of Men (616)/  And he said in McConkie, “New Revelation,” “The ancient curse is no more. The seed of Cain and Ham and Canaan and Egyptus and Pharaoh–all these now have power to rise up and bless Abraham as their father” (128).  But he also said, “[W]e can only suppose and reason that it [the restriction on Blacks] is on the basis of preexistence and of our premortal devotion and faith.” [pages 130-31].  Dennis B. Horne, Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights from His Life and Teachings (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2000), 151-52, attributes to Elder McConkie unchanged views as to the basis for the policy. (emphasis in original)

So Elder McConkie's statement in context is only refering to the errant timing of the lifting of the ban. Not anything else that iamse7en is referring to.

Edited May 5, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Darren10]

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.

Follow the Spirit. Just because a prophet says something doesn't mean it was God's truth. We are to hear the words of the prophets, study them, and be prayerful about them.

[rongo]

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

Okay, fine. But even if one were "sensitive about the race issue," and were released over it, only activists of the NOW/OW/John Dehlin type would actually contact the media and complain about what allegedly happened.

 

tonie:  

We do not know how the media found out. 

 

Was it the teacher?

 

Quite likely/almost certainly. Don't you think?

 

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

 

Not likely at all. "A disgruntled [teenage] student?" Seriously?

 

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

 

Like my 8th graders say all the time (it's a buzzword this year in my area), "I mean, I guess." What ward member hears "rumblings" about a youth Sunday School class and calls the newspaper?

[Gray]

Okay, fine. But even if one were "sensitive about the race issue," and were released over it, only activists of the NOW/OW/John Dehlin type would actually contact the media and complain about what allegedly happened.

 

 

 

I don't think that follows. 

Edited May 5, 2015 by Gray

[rongo]

I don't think that follows. 

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe conservative, TBM, non-edgy members are equally likely to call up the 'Trib and complain about their bishop releasing them/somebody.

 

Seriously?

[rongo]

Looking at this another way, what type of member thinks that going to the newspaper was a good thing here/would be a good thing?

 

It's those who want the Church to make certain social changes, and those who rejoice in perceived "speaking truth to power."

 

Isn't it?

[Scott Lloyd]

Not had time to do more than glance through this thread yet, but a couple of points come to mind.

 

From my days as stake Sunday School president and ward gospel doctrine teacher, I clearly remember one principle: the bishop is ultimately responsible for the teaching that transpires in his ward. That means he is responsible to seek inspiration and entitled to receive it in carrying out that role.

 

So what does that mean?

 

First of all, as busy as he is, he needs to make it a point to acquaint himself with the curriculum materials that will or might be used in classes in his ward. If he's too busy to do that, he is just plain too busy.

 

Second, once he has done that, the teachers in the ward must bear in mind that they serve under his direction. When he makes a determination that he says is inspired, they need to accept that without grumbling or murmuring, without playing the martyr and most definitely without making his job more difficult by seeking or entertaining outside publicity or interference or opening the Church up to ridicule or contempt.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

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

Why?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Looking at this another way, what type of member thinks that going to the newspaper was a good thing here/would be a good thing?

 

It's those who want the Church to make certain social changes, and those who rejoice in perceived "speaking truth to power."

 

Isn't it?

And what, pray tell, is the social change this former SS teacher is trying to make? That blacks get the Priesthood? Done.

Perhaps, it is general frustration that he was dismissed from a church calling he loved for teaching from, materials good enough to be listed on the church'e official website, and knowing no one will hear about it to get things clarified unless it makes at least local news?

Edited May 5, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Gray]

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe conservative, TBM, non-edgy members are equally likely to call up the 'Trib and complain about their bishop releasing them/somebody.

 

Seriously?

 

Well, that's moving the goal posts. He may not be conservative, but that doesn't make him a John Dehlin or a Kate Kelly. 

[Jeanne]

Media tattling?  The church has never hesitated in using the media/newspapers to their advantage and are quick today to bring up any subtle persecution.  I have seen teachers that have used outside sources, other pictures and all kinds of extra things to teach a class.  Sure, they got in a little t trouble, but to use the essay, a new church document that is approved for GD classes should have been applauded.

[Thinking]

When he makes determination that he says is inspired, they need to accept that without grumbling or murmuring, without playing the martyr and most definitely without making his job more difficult by seeking or entertaining outside publicity or interference or opening the Church up to ridicule or contempt.

 

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Found his FB page. He does not seem to be involved with any of the recent "protest" movements (Snuffer, Ordain Women, Dehlin)- but he does seem to have an interest in black Mormon issues (which makes sense), but his group memberships are all pro-LDS forms of those. 

Like I said, I believe he spoke to the SLT because it was the only way Salt Lake would hear about local leadership issues, not because he is antagonistic or trying to stir up trouble.

[Scott Lloyd]

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done

When you can't articulate a sound rebuttal, speciously jump to a sensationalistic buzz phrase.

 

It's a tired-and-true tactic, I suppose.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

And what, pray tell, is the social change this former SS teacher is trying to make? 

 

You'd have to ask him. But, dollars to doughnuts, he "supports, affiliates, or agrees with" the changes agitated by Kelly, Dehlin, mormonnewbie, et. al. Because he went to the media about a release from a calling --- that speaks volumes.

 

Perhaps, it is general frustration that he was dismissed from a church calling he loved for teaching from, materials good enough to be listed on the church'e official website,

 

He says. Like with disciplinary council's, we have (and will only have) his version of the story. 

 

and knowing no one will hear about it to get things clarified unless it makes at least local news?

 

This is a completely inappropriate way to go about seeking "clarification." And, it tells you a lot about him ---- and that there is much more beneath the surface than his version of events.

[rongo]

Found his FB page. He does not seem to be involved with any of the recent "protest" movements (Snuffer, Ordain Women, Dehlin)- but he does seem to have an interest in black Mormon issues (which makes sense), but his group memberships are all pro-LDS forms of those. 

 

 

Many people who want the Church to change things don't overtly belong to the protest organizations. I know some in this boat, and some of them post here. 

Like I said, I believe he spoke to the SLT because it was the only way Salt Lake would hear about local leadership issues, not because he is antagonistic or trying to stir up trouble.

 

He knew full well that pulling in the 'Trib would "stir up trouble," and complaining about a release to the media is "antagonistic."   C'mon!

[stemelbow]

Many people who want the Church to change things don't overtly belong to the protest organizations. I know some in this boat, and some of them post here. 

 

 

 

He knew full well that pulling in the 'Trib would "stir up trouble," and complaining about a release to the media is "antagonistic."   C'mon!

I think it utterly ridiculous that a member of the Church holding a calling to instruct can get in hot water with his local leadership for using Church published material to address topics that are of great import to the instructor, his family, his ward, his class. If it happened anything near what he describes, that bishop over-stepped and probably did so out of ignorance. If it happened as he describes and he didn't go public, then all that says is it wasn't that big of deal to him. That he went public indicates he thinks this type of thing needs to be made known, and perhaps even addressed. As it is, black members have every right to discuss race issues in Church, and let's be serious, it should not just be black members who get to discuss it. He has mix-raced family. This is critical stuff--so critical the Church decided, after many years of waiting to put out information on it. Edited May 5, 2015 by stemelbow

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Like I said in another topic, I like the old Mormon Motto: "Mind Your Own Business" much better than the one many seem to be adopting: "Sit Down and Shut Up."

Too many people minding other people's business.

[Boanerges]

Not had time to do more than glance through this thread yet, but a couple of points come to mind.

 

From my days as stake Sunday School president and ward gospel doctrine teacher, I clearly remember one principle: the bishop is ultimately responsible for the teaching that transpires in his ward. That means he is responsible to seek inspiration and entitled to receive it in carrying out that role.

 

So what does that mean?

 

First of all, as busy as he is, he needs to make it a point to acquaint himself with the curriculum materials that will or might be used in classes in his ward. If he's too busy to do that, he is just plain too busy.

 

Second, once he has done that, the teachers in the ward must bear in mind that they serve under his direction. When he makes determination that he says is inspired, they need to accept that without grumbling or murmuring, without playing the martyr and most definitely without making his job more difficult by seeking or entertaining outside publicity or interference or opening the Church up to ridicule or contempt.

 

In this model, where does correlation come into play? The lesson materials are provided from church headquarters, and are correlated so that doctrine and principles are uniform and sound. If the essays are referenced in those materials (and we know they are in the youth materials and will be in the new adult materials) are they not then fair to use? Understanding that there is more material in any one lesson than can usually be used anyway, can a bishop simply trump some of the correlated material because he doesn't like it or agree with it? Could this not open the door to some serious abuse of power by a bishop?

 

Just as a side note, our SP has talked openly about the essays and has encouraged the high council and bishops to use the materials in talks and lessons where appropriate. He realizes that many members are unaware of the essays, but says we leaders should be aware of them and should not be shy about using them as reference materials, particularly when teaching or working with members who have questions or doubts.

[Calm]

Doing a little googling, it would appear his wife is a fan of the Sistas In Zion podcast (I've listened to a few, like them quite a bit...for podcasts).  Since Tamu Smith comments in the article, I highly speculate that the wife mentioned something to Sister Smith and that was how PFS got to hear about it.  The article itself sounds like the wife was the prime motivator for going beyond the bishop...and it is certainly understandable why it happened that way.

 

I think it would have been a better article given the amount of time spent on the story if they had posted some examples of how the essays are being used, including in the CES system as pointed out by Nevo.  To say it is not to be taught at church while it is actually going to be taught in seminary may be misleading.

 

Show how the problem (if you think it is a problem as PFS obviously does) is being solved around the Church membership as well as where there have been glitches.  That way this can help those who are having problems sharing the essays as opposed to making them more worried about the outcome.

Edited May 5, 2015 by calmoriah

[CA Steve]

Obviously the story could not have reached the Trib through any other source other than the teacher.

 

I love the rush to judgement here.

 

Those that think they are defending the Church by attacking the teacher, aren't.

[rongo]

I think it utterly ridiculous that a member of the Church holding a calling to instruct can get in hot water with his local leadership for using Church published material to address topics that are of great import to the instructor, his family, his ward, his class. 

Again, this is all according to him. The degree to which people here take him at face value or question the backstory/his motives lines up with how people here are oriented towards the Church generally (supportive of the Church/the Brethren, or critical/skeptical). The point I've been making is that the very fact that he involved the media tells us a lot about what isn't being said (and again, all that is being said is 100% one-sided ---- from the member who went to the media).

 

If it happened anything near what he describes,

 

That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? The fact that he involved the media indicates to me that there is more to this and more under the surface than he admits to.

 

That he went public indicates he thinks this type of thing needs to be made known, and perhaps even addressed.

 

It indicates other things as well.

 

As it is, black members have every right to discuss race issues in Church, and let's be serious, it should not just be black members who get to discuss it.

 

I've discussed it (I did a stake/community fireside on the priesthood ban and polygamy a few years ago), and I have never shied away at church and in public from difficult parts of our history and church. 

[rongo]

Obviously the story could not have reached the Trib through any other source other than the teacher.

 

I love the rush to judgement here.

 

Those that think they are defending the Church by attacking the teacher, aren't.

Even if the teacher wasn't the primary mover behind the article, he willingly participated in what was criticizing his bishop in the newspaper. To me, that makes whether or not he was the primary mover a distinction without a difference. 

[Scott Lloyd]

In this model, where does correlation come into play? The lesson materials are provided from church headquarters, and are correlated so that doctrine and principles are uniform and sound. If the essays are referenced in those materials (and we know they are in the youth materials and will be in the new adult materials) are they not then fair to use? Understanding that there is more material in any one lesson than can usually be used anyway, can a bishop simply trump some of the correlated material because he doesn't like it or agree with it? Could this not open the door to some serious abuse of power by a bishop?

 

Just as a side note, our SP has talked openly about the essays and has encouraged the high council and bishops to use the materials in talks and lessons where appropriate. He realizes that many members are unaware of the essays, but says we leaders should be aware of them and should not be shy about using them as reference materials, particularly when teaching or working with members who have questions or doubts.

Just because something is generally allowable doesn't meant that it is advisable in a given instance. That is why direction from the Holy Spirit is needed, even when what is available has "passed Correlation."

 

And as I tried to say above, the bishop is the one ultimately responsible for the teaching that is done in his ward and thus is the one most entitled to revelation in carrying out that role.

 

Some people have the erroneous attitude that when they're assigned to teach a class, they have been given their own little fiefdom or empire or talk show, and by golly, nobody is going to interfere with them running the show, not the bishop, not nobody else. That's not how things function in the Church of Jesus Christ. They don't represent themselves. They are placed in a position of trust with the expectation they will follow direction.