Bishop Dismisses Sunday School Teacher For Using Essay.

[Buckeye]

This is a point that had occurred to me as well.

 

From time to time, I see people citing the essays to claim that the Church has admitted that the pre-1978 priesthood restriction was wrong. The Church has done no such thing, and the essays don't say that.

 

So, if (and it's a big "if") a teacher is doing that in a class and is misinterpreting or misapplying an essay to back up his claim, he needs to be taken to task and even released when necessary. It won't do to protest that he is within bounds because the essays themselves are correlated and appear on lds.org.

 

 

Would you release Patriarch Bushman for being quoted in the SL Trib as saying that the essay "drains the ban of revelatory significance" and suggesting that members can now conclude that Brigham Young made a serious error?

 

 

 

What is most important about the statement on race to Mormon historian Richard Bushman is its perspective.

 

"It is written as a historian might tell the story," Bushman says from his home in New York, "not as a theological piece, trying to justify the practice."

 

By depicting the exclusion as fitting with the common practices of the day, says Bushman, who wrote "Rough Stone Rolling," a critically acclaimed biography of Smith, "it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated."

 

But accepting that, Bushman says, "requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking."

 

Mormons believe that their leaders are in regular communication with God, so if you say Young could make a serious error, he says, "it brings into question all of the prophet's inspiration."

 

Members need to recognize that God can "work through imperfect instruments," Bushman says. "For many Latter-day Saints, that is going to be a difficult transition. But it is part of our maturation as a church."

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57241071-78/church-lds-says-mormon.html.csp

 

I agree that the essay does not explicitly say the ban itself was error. But it definitely opens the door so that members can make that conclusion on their own and be on safe ground. That's how I teach it to my youth. I tell them that all justifications given by church leaders have now been repudiated and will not be coming back. They're welcome to come up with their own justification. And they're welcome to conclude that the ban was uninspired.

[Rain]

It's possible the media went to this man. Twice I have been in an article. Both times I was approached by the media.

It's possible there was miscommunication between him and the media. This happened with both the articles I was in. The first time I didn't know till the article was printed. The second time, because of my experience and because I was representing a charitable I requested to read the article first in case there was a miscommunication. There was and she corrected it.

And sometimes a reporter intentionally leaves something out or even changes something. I had a letter to the editor where my wording was changed and made what I said misleading and more controversial (SL Trib).

And this isn't to say that the media is at fault here, just that between the church, this man and the media the story could be vastly different than portrayed in this article.

So we don't know who went to the media, what human mistakes or intentional changes were made, if the bishop was approached, if the church said, "no comment" or didn't make a comment, if the church said anything else about the matter, if there were other issues with the way he was teaching, etc.

So the issue - bishops knowing about the essays and how they feel about them being taught. I suspect that my bishop would have no problem with them used in class - if by the right person. For example I can imagine one sister totally tearing them apart as she teaches with them. One brother is likely to create some pretty funky doctrine from them. (He comes to gospel principles. It gets interesting sometimes when a investigator is there).

It will also depend on the students in that particular class.

But honestly, I'm not sure the bishop would take time for the essays in our ward. I have never seen so much cancer in a ward. Every other week it seems someone new has been diagnosed. Then we have a large population that are barely making it financially. Several with addiction issues. A number of chastity issues. If needed I know my bishop would use and allow the essays to be used, but overall, but frankly I doubt they would be a priority in our ward.

[Scott Lloyd]

Would you release Patriarch Bushman for being quoted in the SL Trib as saying that the essay "drains the ban of revelatory significance" and suggesting that members can now conclude that Brigham Young made a serious error?

 

I'll refrain from comment, as I don't know of my own knowledge what Bushman did or did not say to the Tribune and I don't know how accurately you have paraphrased the quote.

 

I agree that the essay does not explicitly say the ban itself was error.

 

 

It doesn't even hint at such a thing.

 

 

But it definitely opens the door so that members can make that conclusion on their own and be on safe ground. That's how I teach it to my youth. I tell them that all justifications given by church leaders have now been repudiated and will not be coming back. They're welcome to come up with their own justification. And they're welcome to conclude that the ban was uninspired.

 

 

I think you're out of line in telling them that.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It's possible the media went to this man. Twice I have been in an article. Both times I was approached by the media.

For future reference, you're not obliged to talk to the media, even when approached by them.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I'll refrain from comment, as I don't know of my own knowledge what Bushman did or did not say to the Tribune and I don't know how accurately you have paraphrased the quote.

 

It doesn't even hint at such a thing.

 

 

I think you're out of line in telling them that.

I'm really surprised to hear you say this. Of the 2000 words in the essay, about 500 words were dedicated to describing the racial context in America surrounding the ban. The essay does not say that the ban was from God ("In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood"). This is a very strong hint for anyone with eyes to see, that the church is not making any effort to defend the ban itself as divine. Indeed examine the following:

 

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy

Church leaders believed a revelation was needed, not because the ban was divine, but because of a long history of withholding the priesthood?

 

I think the church wrote the essay to support multiple points of view. If you thought the ban was inspired before reading the essay, you can still hold to this. If you thought it was not-inspired, you now have an official essay that goes out of its way to avoid mentioning any divine involvement in the ban's instatement. More surprising to me, but perhaps also intended, people who support the racist folklore surrounding the ban read the word 'disavow' simple to mean we don't really know (or something, someone here who holds this view could state it better than me).

Edited May 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I'll refrain from comment, as I don't know of my own knowledge what Bushman did or did not say to the Tribune and I don't know how accurately you have paraphrased the quote.

 

It doesn't even hint at such a thing.

 

 

I think you're out of line in telling them that.

 

You could always, say, click on the link he provided. <shrug>

[Gray]

I'll refrain from comment, as I don't know of my own knowledge what Bushman did or did not say to the Tribune and I don't know how accurately you have paraphrased the quote.

 

It doesn't even hint at such a thing.

 

 

 

It more than hints. It disavows ALL racism past and present, and relegates all justifications for the ban to cultural assumptions. 

 

I don't recall the essay claiming, or even hinting, that the ban was inspired. Someone correct me if I'm wrong

Edited May 6, 2015 by Gray

[Jeanne]

Why were the essays written if not to be used    Why are they unsigned?  A teacher seems to be damned if you do and damned if you don't

Stake leaders should have had meetings with ward leadership and their teachers defining all this  What good are the essays if not to at least try and understand?  There seems to be a big disconnect between the General Authorities and Stake leaders

[ERayR]

Can we all just agree that all of our statements are prefaced with "To the extent the facts are as presented in this one-sided (and likely false) account ..."?

 

As I see it, the question is not whether this particular bishop is in the right, but whether we should be encouraging teachers to discuss the subjects of the various essays in their instruction.  I think we can make a fairly accurate guess that SOME bishop SOMEWHERE is objecting to the use of these essays.  And perhaps, in some situations, it makes sense to do so.

 

For example, I'm not sure that they need to be taught in the nursery.  But at what age is appropriate ... 8, 12, 18, 47?  Or, with regards to the priesthood ban, do we simply say that anything that happened prior to 1978 is ancient history?  Or do we do as suggested by one person -- refuse to answer any questions but instead simply insert our testimonies of the "truthiness" of the Church?

 

I am more than willing to concede that we do not have enough definitive evidence to draw and quarter this particular bishop, but is there a larger issue to discuss here or do we need to simply close down the thread with a faith-promoting testimony of the truthfulness of MDDB?

 

Anything that happened before 1978 is ancient history.  Is there anything that anybody can do to change it?  So instead of fixating on the past lets identify current problems and spend our time addressing the current problems.  Seems to me that is a much more productive approach.

[rongo]

 This is a very strong hint for anyone with eyes to see, that the church is not making any effort to defend the ban itself as divine. 

But it also significantly doesn't disavow the ban itself. This essay wisely leaves room for members to conclude that the ban wasn't inspired and was completely due to social milieu reasons, if they want to, or that it *was* inspired, if they want to. The essay does disavow unstated past rationales given for the ban, but not the ban itself. Room is left for people to still believe that it was God's will.

 

The BoA essay also lays out different possibilities (catalyst, missing papyri, mnemonic device, etc.), without committing to any. Background and context is given, without favoring any one approach.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

You could always, say, click on the link he provided. <shrug>

I didn't notice the link until now. But I Googled it and found and read the article. It quotes Bushman as saying the essay is written as a historian might tell the story -- which is a true comment. But I don't see Bushman here declaring that the essay amounts to an admission that the Church was in error to leave it in place. So no, I won't be calling for Bushman's release, even if I were inclined to place great stock in a brief newspaper quotation, which I'm not.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

Why were the essays written if not to be used    Why are they unsigned?  A teacher seems to be damned if you do and damned if you don't

Stake leaders should have had meetings with ward leadership and their teachers defining all this  What good are the essays if not to at least try and understand?  There seems to be a big disconnect between the General Authorities and Stake leaders

They are there *if needed.* Many, including you, want them to be taught everywhere in a systematic, centralized way, but they are simply there to address certain issues for those who need them. 

 

As Rain noted, many areas have much bigger irons in the fire than the comparatively small number of people suffering faith crisis due to "essay issues." Sort of a spiritual "Maslov's heiearchy of needs."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But it also significantly doesn't disavow the ban itself. This essay wisely leaves room for members to conclude that the ban wasn't inspired and was completely due to social milieu reasons, if they want to, or that it *was* inspired, if they want to. The essay does disavow unstated past rationales given for the ban, but not the ban itself. Room is left for people to still believe that it was God's will.

 

The BoA essay also lays out different possibilities (catalyst, missing papyri, mnemonic device, etc.), without committing to any. Background and context is given, without favoring any one approach.

I completely agree with you (as stated in the post you quoted). I also find it interesting that there are some on this board that interpret disavow as not saying past teachings were wrong, but merely we don't know and do not support such explanations officially.

[ERayR]

And therein lies the problem.    With that mentality, the church would then be a 'perfect' place.  If everyone would just remain quiet and never challenge the authority, things would run quite smoothly.    The church continues to have a Huge problem - communication.  They don't even communicate with their own leaders.  The fact that many on this board - members- that state that many in their own wards are unaware, is a problem.  If bishops are unaware then they are ineffective.  Ineffective leaders lead to chaos within the organization.  And this is what is going on in this ward - and probably many others.  And it's not the bishop's fault, the church is setting them up to fail with their lack of communication.  And it will continue to happen and in your words, 'opening up to ridicule or contempt.' 

 

Glad you have isolated the problem.  I suggest that a solution would be to increase the bishops salary and only hire those who have received their doctorate from an approved divinity school. 

[Gray]

Anything that happened before 1978 is ancient history.  Is there anything that anybody can do to change it?  So instead of fixating on the past lets identify current problems and spend our time addressing the current problems.  Seems to me that is a much more productive approach.

 

In which case, why bother teaching about the restoration? 

[Scott Lloyd]

It more than hints. It disavows ALL racism past and present, and relegates all justifications for the ban to cultural assumptions. 

Disavowing past theoretical explanations for it is not the same as declaring the past policy as being in error.

 

 

I don't recall the essay claiming, or even hinting, that the ban was inspired. Someone correct me if I'm wrong

 

 

From the essay (bold emphasis mine):

 

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.¹⁶

 

 

Also, OD 2 is quoted (the bold emphasis is mine):

 

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.”²¹

 

The logical conclusion is, if it were not in accordance with the will of God that the restriction remain in place, He would have told these leaders by revelation to remove it when they asked, and not required them to wait for want of inspiration. It is clear from the statement of President Kimball in particular that he was eager and anxious to remove it (spending many hours in the upper room of the Temple supplicating the Lord) and would have readily done so the moment he received divine direction to that effect.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I agree that the essay does not explicitly say the ban itself was error. But it definitely opens the door so that members can make that conclusion on their own and be on safe ground. That's how I teach it to my youth. I tell them that all justifications given by church leaders have now been repudiated and will not be coming back. They're welcome to come up with their own justification. And they're welcome to conclude that the ban was uninspired.

I myself would point out that all past justifications for the ban have been disavowed but we don't have any more information on why or how it started then they did (generally speaking) so perhaps it would be best to refrain from attempting to come up with a justification and instead learn how to actively wait upon the Lord for further knowledge. Edited May 6, 2015 by calmoriah

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I didn't notice the link until now. But I Googled it and found and read the article. It quotes Bushman as saying the essay is written as a historian might tell the story -- which is a true comment. But I don't see Bushman here declaring that the essay amounts to an admission that the Church was in error to leave it in place. So no, I won't be calling for Bushman's release.

Yes he didn't say " the essay amounts to an admission that the Church was in error to leave it in place" but neither did Buckeye when you told him "I think you're out of line in telling them that."

 

Here is what Bushman said:

 

By depicting the exclusion as fitting with the common practices of the day, says Bushman, who wrote "Rough Stone Rolling," a critically acclaimed biography of Smith, "it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated."

 

Here is what Buckeye said (that was apparently out of line):

 

I agree that the essay does not explicitly say the ban itself was error. But it definitely opens the door so that members can make that conclusion on their own and be on safe ground. That's how I teach it to my youth. I tell them that all justifications given by church leaders have now been repudiated and will not be coming back. They're welcome to come up with their own justification. And they're welcome to conclude that the ban was uninspired.

 

Edit for format

Edited May 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

Anything that happened before 1978 is ancient history.  Is there anything that anybody can do to change it?  So instead of fixating on the past lets identify current problems and spend our time addressing the current problems.  Seems to me that is a much more productive approach.

 

I don't think anyone is trying to change the history... just trying to learn from it.

[Gray]

Disavowing past theoretical explanations for it is not the same as declaring the past policy as being in error.

 

Disavowing all past racism does that. 

 

From the essay:

 

 

Notice that they go out of their way not to say that the original ban was inspired, only that its long history may have necessitated a revelation

 

 

Also, OD 2 is quoted

 

The logical conclusion is, if it were not in accordance with the will of God that the restriction remain in place, He would have told these leaders by revelation to remove it when they asked, and not required them to wait for want of inspiration. It is clear from the statement of President Kimball in particular that he was eager and anxious to remove it (spending many hours in the upper room of the Temple supplicating the Lord) and would have readily done so the moment he received divine direction to that effect.

 

In order to remove it unanimity had to be reached among the 15. The earliest date for that seems to have been 1978, 

Edited May 6, 2015 by Gray

[ERayR]

I don't think anyone is trying to change the history... just trying to learn from it.

 

By trying to fix blame?  How does that help solve current problems?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Disavowing past theoretical explanations for it is not the same as declaring the past policy as being in error.

 

 

 

From the essay:

 

 

Also, OD 2 is quoted

 

The logical conclusion is, if it were not in accordance with the will of God that the restriction remain in place, He would have told these leaders by revelation to remove it when they asked, and not required them to wait for want of inspiration. It is clear from the statement of President Kimball in particular that he was eager and anxious to remove it (spending many hours in the upper room of the Temple supplicating the Lord) and would have readily done so the moment he received divine direction to that effect.

Scott, if this is really the only interpretation the church was going for why did they state: "given the long history of withholding the priesthood " as the reason a revelation was "believed" to be needed instead of something like:

"Because the Lord instituted the ban by revelation, a revelation was needed to end the ban." Is it your opinion that the church is unaware of how people are interpreting this essay (as saying the ban is not from God)? If they are aware (and given the media attention it received I can't imagine they would not be) why haven't they updated the language to clarify this important point? It seems like other essays have been updated multiple times for clarity since they have been published, I wonder why no one has looked at this one.

 

ETA - I'm not claiming that the church is stating the ban was uninspired, only that they are leaving the door wide open for members who wish to believe this. My opinion is that the current leaders of the church don't know (or don't agree on) if it was inspired or not.

Edited May 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

Why are they unsigned? 

The Gospel Topics before the essays were added were never signed, why would they need to start now?

[Scott Lloyd]

Glad you have isolated the problem.  I suggest that a solution would be to increase the bishops salary and only hire those who have received their doctorate from an approved divinity school. 

Yes, let's strip the Church of Jesus Christ of its uniqueness and turn it into just another Protestant sect.

 

Striking how often these ark-steadying arguments seem to boil down to doing just that.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I myself would point out that all past justifications for the ban have been disavowed but we don't have any more information on why or how it started then they did (generally speaking) so perhaps it would be best to refrain from attempting to come up with a justification and instead learn how to actively wait upon the Lord for further knowledge.

Now that's an approach I can get behind!