Bishop Asked Me To Help Teach 5Th Sunday Lessons On The Essays

[Senator]

In God's infinite love and wisdom, he brings about curses that greater good than otherwise might occur will come to pass. The fall of Adam is a curse that has passed upon the entire human race. But though there are great difficulties, arduous challenges, sore trials and extreme tragedies associated with the curse, it's basic LDS doctrine that the fall of man is in reality a very great blessing in disguise.

So it will be with all the curses pronounced by the Almighty: One day, when all the facts of God's hidden economy are in, we will come to realize every curse he decrees is, in reality, a great blessings in disguise. For example, when after the final judgement God relegates the majority of his resurrected children to lower kingdoms of glory than the celestial kingdom, we will understand these relegations to lower glories are wisely and lovingly calculated by a Supreme Intelligence to bring about the greatest chances for happiness, and the greatest opportunities for spiritual growth, as perfectly adapted to each soul's present spiritual state and need.

The Book of Mormon tells us God does nothing save it be for the blessing and benefit of man. When one's spiritual eyes are opened to divine reality by the workings of the Spirit of God, he is able to peer into the other side of a lifted veil to see that behind all the strict and seemingly harsh judgements of God there lies the very heart and soul of charitable benevolence. And just because God's inner workings are often called mysteries, that doesn't mean we are all doomed to remain in doubt and perplexity for the rest of our lives when it comes to the hard issues discussed on this board, God is able and ready to reveal the secrets of his will to those who implicitly trust that he is the very embodiment of perfect love and wisdom, and that lying behind the facade of severity there exists an unchangeable pure motivation to always do what is in the eternal best interests of each one of his children.

 

I earnestly invite to join the lead of the church and to reject any and all racist explanations for the ban.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Senator

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Priesthood ban aside, given that our actions in this life directly impact our situation in the next, I don't know how anyone can think that our situations in this life have no relation to the premortal existence.  We know from scripture that our actions in premortality absolutley influenced our situation here.

 

Is race an eternal quality? If our bodies are to become the perfected version of ourselves, should we expect to look like a different race in the eternities? In other words, will all celestial beings be white? In the premortal life were all beings White? Or did all the black beings in the premortal world just happen to also be the least valiant which would later be cursed on earth?

Are blacks, who kept their first estate, but barely (apparently), the equivalent of the College student who applies to BYU and is accepted, but only if they attend the Summer term first?

[ALarson]

ALarson, I thought you might like this article on teaching black Mormon history by a member of FairMormon (who is absolutely brilliant imo) and since the other thread where it fits a bit better is closed, I am posting it here:

 

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2484160-155/op-ed-hiding-mormon-race-history-doesnt

Thank you for posting this, calmoriah.  I think it's an excellent, balanced view of this issue and I'll use several quotes from it for the discussion in a few weeks. 

 

I did have one brother come up to me yesterday at church (who knows what we will be discussing on the 31st) and he asked me if I'd heard about the SS teacher that was released (Dawson). He then asked if we were going to bring that instance up at all for the discussion.  I told him that I hadn't planned to.  But, after reading how Russell Stevenson viewed this (from your link), I have a better idea of how to handle it if someone brings it up.

 

Thanks again.

Edited May 11, 2015 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

 

 

Is race an eternal quality? If our bodies are to become the perfected version of ourselves, should we expect to look like a different race in the eternities? In other words, will all celestial beings be white? In the premortal life were all beings White? Or did all the black beings in the premortal world just happen to also be the least valiant which would later be cursed on earth?

Are blacks, who kept their first estate, but barely (apparently), the equivalent of the College student who applies to BYU and is accepted, but only if they attend the Summer term first?

 

I don't believe "race" is an eternal quality, but lineage may be based in the eternities.  There are plenty of scriptures and teachings to that effect.

The doctrine I DO believe is that our situations here are related to our actions premortally, just as our situations in the next life are related to our actions here.

I also believe that the more righteousness we choose the more agency we receive.  The more wickedness we choose the less agency we receive.  And that that also crosses from premortality into mortality into the hereafter.

 

But does "Race" factor into it?  Not according to current LDS belief.  But actions might affect situation.

[Bobbieaware]

I earnestly invite to join the lead of the church and to reject any and all racist explanations for the ban.

As I've already stated, I don't pretend to know what the priesthood ban was all about. But putting aside the priesthood ban fo the moment, I will say any believer who imagines God does not bless and also curse the descendants of certain progenitors is simply ignorant of the scriptures.Whether it be the blessings promised to the descendants of Abraham and Lehi, or the curses pronounced upon the descendants of Cain, and Laman and Lemuel, it's all there in the scriptures in plain language for all to see.

I'm curious to know if you altogether reject the scriptural principle of blessings and cursings being pronounced by the Lord upon certain lineages,? Or if you only reject the possibility that the same principle may have played a role in the latter-day priesthood ban?

Edited May 11, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Senator]

As I've already stated, I don't pretend to know what the priesthood ban was all about. But putting aside the priesthood ban fo the moment, I will say any believer who imagines God does not bless and also curse the descendants of certain progenitors is simply ignorant of the scriptures.Whether it be the blessings promised to the descendants of Abraham and Lehi, or the curses pronounced upon the descendants of Cain and Laman and Lemuel, it's all there in the scriptures in plain language for all to see.

I don't hold scripture at its "plain language".

I'm curious to know if you altogether reject the scriptural principle of blessings and cursings being pronounced by the Lord upon certain lineages,? Or if you only reject the possibility that the same principle may have played a role in the latter-day priesthood ban?

I'm going to say both.

I'm a firm believer that "all men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's (or Cain's, or Laman and Lemuel's) transgressions.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I don't believe "race" is an eternal quality, but lineage may be based in the eternities.  There are plenty of scriptures and teachings to that effect.

The doctrine I DO believe is that our situations here are related to our actions premortally, just as our situations in the next life are related to our actions here.

I also believe that the more righteousness we choose the more agency we receive.  The more wickedness we choose the less agency we receive.  And that that also crosses from premortality into mortality into the hereafter.

 

But does "Race" factor into it?  Not according to current LDS belief.  But actions might affect situation.

 

I'll answer my own questions about whether we reject ALL cursings and blessings - I reject any blessing or cursing that is racially centered. God desires All blessings for All of his children. And cursing an entire race? I view this as centuries of ill-conceived tradition that gets translated as "god's will"

I believe race will continue into the eternities. The concept of an all white or all-anything demography is offensive and I don't accept that. Different races existed in the pre-mortal world and will continue.

ETA- To answer TeddyAware's question- I reject all racially centered blessings and curses. God desires to bless all of his children, not just those of a certain race. And I don't believe he will ban an entire race. You know, the whole, punished for our own sins and not for Adams transgression, thing.

Racial curses and blessings are traditional remnants of centuries of tribalism that have since been interpretted as God's will. REJECT!!

Edited May 11, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[cinepro]

I'm curious to know if you altogether reject the scriptural principle of blessings and cursings being pronounced by the Lord upon certain lineages,? Or if you only reject the possibility that the same principle may have played a role in the latter-day priesthood ban?

I'm not Senator, but I would point out that the Church (and the world) in general now rejects such notions.  We talk about it in theory (and ancient history), but if you try and apply it to current cultures and people you will look silly and out of touch.  That's one of the things that led to the repeal of the Priesthood Ban; it just became untenable to think that an entire group of people was being denied priesthood blessings because they were born with a certain skin color and presumed lineage.  Such ideas are ultimately based more in superstition and human weakness; the scriptures may be accurately reporting how things were done anciently, but that doesn't mean that's the best way or that they got things "right".

 

If you want to see how it happened, I recommend this book:

 

All Abraham's Children

 

 

Blacks and the Priesthood aren't the only unusual idea LDS have had about lineage, race and priesthood.  In the early days of the Church it was believed that European (especially British and Northern European) blood descended from Ephraim and was especially spiritually attuned.  You can read more about that here:

 

The blood of Israel in Europe

But as that article points out, we now adopt an attitude of universalism. As President Faust said in Conference in 1995:

 

I have learned to admire, respect, and love the good people from every race, culture, and nation that I have been privileged to visit. In my experience, no race or class seems superior to any other in spirituality and faithfulness. Those who seem less caring spiritually are those individuals—regardless of race, culture, or nationality—spoken of by the Savior in the parable of the sower who are “choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.” 3

(emphasis added)

 

But as the adage goes, old habits die hard.  There will be those who won't let go of the "exceptionalism" of race or class based preferences from God.  Some continue to carry the torch to this day, such as this book, which teaches:

 

 

• That the bloodlines of Jesus Christ, Mary Magdalene, and Joseph Smith have genetic "codes" of the tribes of Judah and Ephraim that mark the true heir, and line, of authority.
• That Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Restoration, is the heir of the "Holy Grail" kingdom in the latter days.
• That The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true and living church because found within it are both the Melchizedek Priesthood line and Christ's bloodline.

Edited May 11, 2015 by cinepro

[Bobbieaware]

I'm not Senator, but I would point out that the Church (and the world) in general now rejects such notions.  We talk about it in theory (and ancient history), but if you try and apply it to current cultures and people you will look silly and out of touch.  That's one of the things that led to the repeal of the Priesthood Ban; it just became untenable to think that an entire group of people was being denied priesthood blessings because they were born with a certain skin color and presumed lineage.  Such ideas are ultimately based more in superstition and human weakness; the scriptures may be accurately reporting how things were done anciently, but that doesn't mean that's the best way or that they got things "right". If you want to see how it happened, I recommend this book: All Abraham's Children  Blacks and the Priesthood aren't the only unusual idea LDS have had about lineage, race and priesthood.  In the early days of the Church it was believed that European (especially British and Northern European) blood descended from Ephraim and was especially spiritually attuned.  You can read more about that here: The blood of Israel in EuropeBut as that article points out, we now adopt an attitude of universalism. As President Faust said in Conference in 1995:  But as the adage goes, old habits die hard.  There will be those who won't let go of the "exceptionalism" of race or class based preferences from God.  Some continue to carry the torch to this day, such as this book, which teaches:

Do you believe the curse placed by the Lord on Laman and Lemuel, and their descendants, as recorded in and throughly documented by the Book of Mormon, was a real occurrence?

[cinepro]

Do you believe the curse placed by the Lord on Laman and Lemuel, and their descendants, as recorded in and throughly documented by the Book of Mormon, was a real occurrence?

 

A real occurrence in The Book of Mormon, or a real occurrence in reality?

[Bobbieaware]

A real occurrence in The Book of Mormon, or a real occurrence in reality?

So there's no common ground for dialogue. I'm reminded of the phrase, "the teachings of men mingled with scripture." But in this instance the saying might need to be rephrased as, " the teachings of men mingled with even more teachings of men," To each his own. Arrivederci...

Edited May 11, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[cinepro]

So there's no common ground for dialogue. I'm reminded of the phrase, "the teachings of men mingled with scripture." But in this instance the saying might need to be rephrased as, " the teachings of men mingled with even more teachings of men," To each his own. Arrivederci...

 

In the context of this discussion, I believe that the Book of Mormon authors believed that certain people had darkly pigmented skin as a result of a curse from God.  I don't actually believe that anyone back then (or in our day) has darkly pigmented skin for any reason other than their ancestors living in an equatorial climate.

 

This idea was discussed at length in the past, so you might enjoy this thread to start with.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2015 by cinepro

[Buckeye]

In the context of this discussion, I believe that the Book of Mormon authors believed that certain people had darkly pigmented skin as a result of a curse from God.  I don't actually believe that anyone back then (or in our day) has darkly pigmented skin for any reason other than their ancestors living in an equatorial climate.

 

This idea was discussed at length in the past, so you might enjoy this thread to start with.

 

Modern leaders are not infallible when it comes to mingling common racial attitudes with religious teachings. We shouldn't hold ancient leaders to a higher standard. Nephi can be just as mistaken as Brigham.

[DBMormon]

Modern leaders are not infallible when it comes to mingling common racial attitudes with religious teachings. We shouldn't hold ancient leaders to a higher standard. Nephi can be just as mistaken as Brigham.

buit wait it was Canon, Revelation, and taught by angels... just kidding... carry on

[cinepro]

Modern leaders are not infallible when it comes to mingling common racial attitudes with religious teachings. We shouldn't hold ancient leaders to a higher standard. Nephi can be just as mistaken as Brigham.

 

It might be true, but I hope you felt just a little bit of sadness as you typed it.

[Buckeye]

It might be true, but I hope you felt just a little bit of sadness as you typed it.

 

I'm sad anytime someone causes harm - most importantly myself. But what's the alternative? To believe that God cursed certain peoples with their skin color? I would be ever sadder typing that.

[ALarson]

I thought I'd post regarding how the lesson went yesterday.  I feel that it went really well and the Bishop was pretty happy with it too.  There were a few tense moments and some things were brought up that I feel the Bishop handled well.  

 

We passed out copies of the essay ("Race and the Priesthood"), the week before and asked that the adults read the essay (and to discuss it with any of their kids if they felt inspired to do so). So, the great majority in attendance had read through the essay and some had come with questions or comments prepared.

 

We stuck pretty strictly to the essay itself as an outline for the discussion of course, but it veered off a few times and we had to work to keep the discussion focused.  The links and ideas that were given to me on here by many of you helped a great deal.

 

Here are some of the things that were of interest:

 

- We asked how many had read any of the essays prior to us handing it out the week before.  I'd estimate that about 25% raised their hands.  Out of the other 75%, some had heard of the essays but not read them and many had not even heard about them.

 

- Many of the "older" members had the most difficulty accepting that what they had been "taught" by past leaders and teachers regarding the ban was now not believed or taught by current leaders.  The essay states that "None of these explanation is accepted today as the official doctrine of the church", and that was upsetting to some of them.  They asked why a Prophet of God wouldn't "know" why this occurred.  So, a discussion started about wondering how we know if what President Monson and other leaders are currently teaching will not be official doctrine in years ahead.  One man had even brought all the quotes from past leaders about the blacks and bans (from Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith and others).  This is an emotional topic for many.

 

- I would guess that at least 90% didn't previously know that Joseph Smith had ordained black men to the Priesthood.

 

- The Book of Abraham was brought up by one brother and how it was the "source" in the scriptures for the ban.

 

- One person did ask about the recent Sunday School teacher that was released for using this essay to teach their lesson (this was in the question and answer time afterwards).  The Bishop told them that we don't have all the facts for the incident, but as far as our ward goes, he wants the teachers to feel free to use the essays published on lds.org.  However, he stressed that they have their place and should pertain to the topic being taught, etc.

 

- The part of the discussion regarding the revelation that all brethren who are worthy can receive the Priesthood, was a great part of the lesson.  Many got emotional in relating their memory of the announcement.

 

There was more, but I wanted to try to make this brief for those who may be interested.  Again overall, this went really well.  The Bishop wants to meet with me soon to review how I felt it went, to discuss the next 5th Sunday discussion (what we'd do differently or the same, etc.) and get planning for the next one. 

[Tacenda]

I thought I'd post regarding how the lesson went yesterday.  I feel that it went really well and the Bishop was pretty happy with it too.  There were a few tense moments and some things were brought up that I feel the Bishop handled well.  

 

We passed out copies of the essay ("Race and the Priesthood"), the week before and asked that the adults read the essay (and to discuss it with any of their kids if they felt inspired to do so). So, the great majority in attendance had read through the essay and some had come with questions or comments prepared.

 

We stuck pretty strictly to the essay itself as an outline for the discussion of course, but it veered off a few times and we had to work to keep the discussion focused.  The links and ideas that were given to me on here by many of you helped a great deal.

 

Here are some of the things that were of interest:

 

- We asked how many had read any of the essays prior to us handing it out the week before.  I'd estimate that about 25% raised their hands.  Out of the other 75%, some had heard of the essays but not read them and many had not even heard about them.

 

- Many of the "older" members had the most difficulty accepting that what they had been "taught" by past leaders and teachers regarding the ban was now not believed or taught by current leaders.  The essay states that "None of these explanation is accepted today as the official doctrine of the church", and that was upsetting to some of them.  They asked why a Prophet of God wouldn't "know" why this occurred.  So, a discussion started about wondering how we know if what President Monson and other leaders are currently teaching will not be official doctrine in years ahead.  One man had even brought all the quotes from past leaders about the blacks and bans (from Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith and others).  This is an emotional topic for many.

 

- I would guess that at least 90% didn't previously know that Joseph Smith had ordained black men to the Priesthood.

 

- The Book of Abraham was brought up by one brother and how it was the "source" in the scriptures for the ban.

 

- One person did ask about the recent Sunday School teacher that was released for using this essay to teach their lesson (this was in the question and answer time afterwards).  The Bishop told them that we don't have all the facts for the incident, but as far as our ward goes, he wants the teachers to feel free to use the essays published on lds.org.  However, he stressed that they have their place and should pertain to the topic being taught, etc.

 

- The part of the discussion regarding the revelation that all brethren who are worthy can receive the Priesthood, was a great part of the lesson.  Many got emotional in relating their memory of the announcement.

 

There was more, but I wanted to try to make this brief for those who may be interested.  Again overall, this went really well.  The Bishop wants to meet with me soon to review how I felt it went, to discuss the next 5th Sunday discussion (what we'd do differently or the same, etc.) and get planning for the next one. 

ALarson, what a progressive ward you live in.  I would love that, where do you live!! 

Edited June 1, 2015 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

I thought I'd post regarding how the lesson went yesterday.  I feel that it went really well and the Bishop was pretty happy with it too.  There were a few tense moments and some things were brought up that I feel the Bishop handled well.  

 

We passed out copies of the essay ("Race and the Priesthood"), the week before and asked that the adults read the essay (and to discuss it with any of their kids if they felt inspired to do so). So, the great majority in attendance had read through the essay and some had come with questions or comments prepared.

 

We stuck pretty strictly to the essay itself as an outline for the discussion of course, but it veered off a few times and we had to work to keep the discussion focused.  The links and ideas that were given to me on here by many of you helped a great deal.

 

Here are some of the things that were of interest:

 

- We asked how many had read any of the essays prior to us handing it out the week before.  I'd estimate that about 25% raised their hands.  Out of the other 75%, some had heard of the essays but not read them and many had not even heard about them.

 

- Many of the "older" members had the most difficulty accepting that what they had been "taught" by past leaders and teachers regarding the ban was now not believed or taught by current leaders.  The essay states that "None of these explanation is accepted today as the official doctrine of the church", and that was upsetting to some of them.  They asked why a Prophet of God wouldn't "know" why this occurred.  So, a discussion started about wondering how we know if what President Monson and other leaders are currently teaching will not be official doctrine in years ahead.  One man had even brought all the quotes from past leaders about the blacks and bans (from Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith and others).  This is an emotional topic for many.

 

- I would guess that at least 90% didn't previously know that Joseph Smith had ordained black men to the Priesthood.

 

- The Book of Abraham was brought up by one brother and how it was the "source" in the scriptures for the ban.

 

- One person did ask about the recent Sunday School teacher that was released for using this essay to teach their lesson (this was in the question and answer time afterwards).  The Bishop told them that we don't have all the facts for the incident, but as far as our ward goes, he wants the teachers to feel free to use the essays published on lds.org.  However, he stressed that they have their place and should pertain to the topic being taught, etc.

 

- The part of the discussion regarding the revelation that all brethren who are worthy can receive the Priesthood, was a great part of the lesson.  Many got emotional in relating their memory of the announcement.

 

There was more, but I wanted to try to make this brief for those who may be interested.  Again overall, this went really well.  The Bishop wants to meet with me soon to review how I felt it went, to discuss the next 5th Sunday discussion (what we'd do differently or the same, etc.) and get planning for the next one.

Sounds cool. In comparison our fifth Sunday lesson was a dud all around, I'd say.

[HappyJackWagon]

Sounds cool. In comparison our fifth Sunday lesson was a dud all around, I'd say.

Yeah, great job, ALarson. It sounds like a truly momentous lesson for your ward.

 

Our entire ward including YM and YW had a lesson about the YM Duty to God program. Not surprisingly my 2 teen daughters didn't get much out of that.

[bluebell]

 

 

Our entire ward including YM and YW had a lesson about the YM Duty to God program. Not surprisingly my 2 teen daughters didn't get much out of that.

 

Weird.

[ALarson]

Yeah, great job, ALarson. It sounds like a truly momentous lesson for your ward.

 

Our entire ward including YM and YW had a lesson about the YM Duty to God program. Not surprisingly my 2 teen daughters didn't get much out of that.

I wonder why they wouldn't just meet with the YM and their parents for this?  That is kinda strange.

[Tacenda]

I wonder why they wouldn't just meet with the YM and their parents for this?  That is kinda strange.

Maybe just little bit of patriarchy going on.  Not to show that men rule, but that men have the PH and should be explained, honored etc. in order to support & sustain.  They are just getting lessons early on.  

Edited June 1, 2015 by Tacenda

[HappyJackWagon]

I wonder why they wouldn't just meet with the YM and their parents for this?  That is kinda strange.

It is strange but not all that unusual. Think of all the Stake priesthood Leadership meetings (often associated with stake conferences) you've ever been to and ask yourself how many times there's been a focus on YW classes or leadership. Then ask yourself how many times YM organization, leadership, scouting has been talked about. Is there a difference?

 

There is a definite bias in most places I've lived toward focusing on Aaronic Priesthood instead of YW when many of the principles would apply evenly between them. We seem more focused on YM than YW.

 

For those who will say "yeah, but you asked about priesthood leadership meetings, of course those would be about priesthood"- Priesthood leaders (bishoprics/HC/Stake Presidencies etc) have the same stewardships for YW that they do YM but I have NEVER seen YW needs addressed in a meeting like this. EVER. And I've been to a lot.

 

ETA- Sorry, I do not intend this to be a threadjack away from ALarson's awesome meeting.

Edited June 1, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Tacenda]

It is strange but not all that unusual. Think of all the Stake priesthood Leadership meetings (often associated with stake conferences) you've ever been to and ask yourself how many times there's been a focus on YW classes or leadership. Then ask yourself how many times YM organization, leadership, scouting has been talked about. Is there a difference?

 

There is a definite bias in most places I've lived toward focusing on Aaronic Priesthood instead of YW when many of the principles would apply evenly between them. We seem more focused on YM than YW.

 

For those who will say "yeah, but you asked about priesthood leadership meetings, of course those would be about priesthood"- Priesthood leaders (bishoprics/HC/Stake Presidencies etc) have the same stewardships for YW that they do YM but I have NEVER seen YW needs addressed in a meeting like this. EVER. And I've been to a lot.

 

ETA- Sorry, I do not intend this to be a threadjack away from ALarson's awesome meeting.

Wow, this needs to have it's own thread!  I guess at my age it's just been part of my existence and I hadn't really thought about it like that.  Maybe that's why a good portion that leave Christianity or religion per se are women and it might be because of the second class position women are put into. Surely in these meetings the subject of women isn't too sacred to talk about.