New Institute Manuals Discuss Controversial Topics

[mapman]

The church has put up the manuals for the new institute courses: Foundations of the Restoration and Jesus Christ and the Everlasting Gospel. Foundations of the Restoration has chapters about polygamy, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and the priesthood/temple ban against blacks. The Gospel Topics essays on controversial subjects are referenced and quoted frequently throughout.

 

One of the bloggers at By Common Consent has criticized the manual for being overly defensive (as well as not mentioning women hardly at all):

I found the framework of many of the chapters, especially the ones dealing with the more “controversial” aspects of church history to be roundly negative in tone. Almost like the writers felt like they needed to over-defend aspects of church history before bringing up the issue.

Our college students deserve so much better. This framework teaches them to be afraid of our church history in a brace-yourself-fashion that is not going to be helpful in the long run.

 

 

I however feel like despite its flaws, it is pretty amazing that a church manual is addressing these issues at all, and I think it goes to show that the church really does want people to study the essays. I liked the comment of Ardis Parshall in the BCC page:

These new lessons show a guarded willingness to entertain new understanding, new materials and outlooks in teaching Church history. It’s a huge step, the exercise of an unfamiliar trust and stepping into the unknown by those who develop the curriculum. This doesn’t mean that things won’t get better, and quickly. They may need only a brief experiment to be sure students and their teachers can handle the new ideas, and feel confident enough to approach them more positively very, very soon. These new lessons incorporating the essays have been produced quickly. The next ones could follow just as quickly. These may be only transitional.

 

What do you all think of the new manuals?

Edited June 24, 2015 by mapman

[TheSkepticChristian]

What do you all think of the new manuals?

 

I am glad the new JESUS CHRIST AND THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL TEACHER MANUAL doesn't teach anti-science stuff. 

 

The chapter "Jehovah Created the Earth"  does not talk about 

1.  No blood 

2. No animal death 

3.  anti-Evolution 

 

It is clear that new manuals (after 2001) no longer teach anti-evolution stuff 

Edited June 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Rivers]

I agree that the restoration manual is too defensive.  I wish they would talk about the historical issues without so blatantly trying to rationalize things.

[Tacenda]

At the end of the lesson it says this:  "Share your testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith. You may want to testify that he received and obeyed revelation from God, just as did the ancient prophets Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

 

This is terribly misleading, there is nowhere that God revealed revelation to practice polygamy concerning Abraham, Isaac or Jacob in my "very strong" opinion.  

Edited June 25, 2015 by Tacenda

[Rivers]

Section 132 states that Joseph was given wives.  This the is the same expression used in the Old Testament (2 Sam 12:7-8 ). Is that the same as being commanded?

Edited June 25, 2015 by Rivers

[PeterPear]

I am glad the new JESUS CHRIST AND THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL TEACHER MANUAL doesn't teach anti-science stuff. 

 

The chapter "Jehovah Created the Earth"  does not talk about 

1.  No blood 

2. No animal death 

3.  anti-Evolution 

 

It is clear that new manuals (after 2001) no longer teach anti-evolution stuff

"Jehovah Created the Earth"

Which part of The Theory of Evolution believes "Jehovah Created the Earth?"

You may believe "Jehovah Created the Earth" using Evolution.

But Evolution doesn't believe "Jehovah Created the Earth."

Thus your belief system doesn't agree with either.

[canard78]

I couldn't help but smile when I saw that Stephen Smoot had written for Interpreter:

It appears that by including these topics the Church is taking steps towards more transparency when it comes to its history...

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/what-you-will-read-about-in-the-new-institute-manual-on-early-church-history/

Hang on... An admission that the church is becoming more transparent? Does that mean that before this manual and before the essays the church was less transparent. Is this finally an acknowledgement that the church really did used to hide its history (or at the very least, used to be less than transparent)?

Edited June 25, 2015 by canard78

[Calm]

Knowing Stephen, I suspect he means the Church as an institution is pushing towards a more holistic treatment of history as opposed to emphasizing in teaching certain parts that members are most comfortable with.

 

I will be surprised if it is meant that in the past the Church hid its history (which is a proactive behavior) but possibly he sees it as neglect.

Edited June 25, 2015 by calmoriah

[readstoomuch]

If it goes into some detail, it is a step forward.  The Church gets criticism for the essays and now some with these new manuals.  It actually makes me appreciate the fact that writing manuals isn`t going to make every one happy.  For some it is too negative, for others too positive.  What seems to come out and most agree on is that the manuals we use needed to cover controversial topics more thoroughly.  

[Tacenda]

I agree readstoomuch.  The thoroughness is paramount, since it all comes out in the end.  Thus the reason the church is back peddling now.  I listened to a podcast with Stephen and really like the guy.  And appreciate the holistic approach Calmoriah spoke about.   

[TheSkepticChristian]

"Jehovah Created the Earth"

Which part of The Theory of Evolution believes "Jehovah Created the Earth?"

You may believe "Jehovah Created the Earth" using Evolution.

But Evolution doesn't believe "Jehovah Created the Earth."

Thus your belief system doesn't agree with either.

 

It is possible for a God to use Darwinian Evolution by controlling subatomic particles

http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501

[Calm]

  I listened to a podcast with Stephen and really like the guy.  

 

Stephen is fantastic.

[Freedom]

"Jehovah Created the Earth"

Which part of The Theory of Evolution believes "Jehovah Created the Earth?"

You may believe "Jehovah Created the Earth" using Evolution.

But Evolution doesn't believe "Jehovah Created the Earth."

Thus your belief system doesn't agree with either.

the theory of evolution doesn't believe in anything. The theory of evolution simply explains the process. It does not address how live came to be. 

[carbon dioxide]

At the end of the lesson it says this:  "Share your testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith. You may want to testify that he received and obeyed revelation from God, just as did the ancient prophets Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

 

This is terribly misleading, there is nowhere that God revealed revelation to practice polygamy concerning Abraham, Isaac or Jacob in my "very strong" opinion.  

I believe the Saints in the 19th century understood polygamy to be commanded.  Jacob 2:30 does state there may be times when God does command polygamy and D&C 132 does allude to it being commanded.  I see no reason to believe it was not commanded in my strong opinion. 

[carbon dioxide]

I agree readstoomuch.  The thoroughness is paramount, since it all comes out in the end.  Thus the reason the church is back peddling now.  I listened to a podcast with Stephen and really like the guy.  And appreciate the holistic approach Calmoriah spoke about.   

Can't please everyone and someone is always going to complain that something was left out.  I am sure as time goes on, alterations will be made to expand into more things. 

[Kaleb Webb]

 

This is terribly misleading, there is nowhere that God revealed revelation to practice polygamy concerning Abraham, Isaac or Jacob in my "very strong" opinion.  

 

It's been a while since I read the Old Testament, but didn't Isaac only ever have one wife?

[why me]

If I go back three or four years, when the critics were complaining about the lack of transparancy, I said that certain people will never be happy regardless of what the church publishes or writes about their history. Now, certain church members on this forum and also the critics are moaning about a lack of interpretative details or the defensiveness of the manuals. I know of no church that has addressed its history as the lds church as done. And no church is under such pressure to write their history. And yet, I find it just a little strange that certain members are still being critical and using vocabulary such as back peddaling when it comes to the manuals.

 

I think that mormons need to have a reality check. I have been reading the biography of hyrum smith by O'Drisolll. Why I like this book because it does have the polygamy history but it also has many beautiful facts about mormon history at that time. Being on this forum for a number of years, it would be wonderful to start threads about the beatiful aspects of past lds history but since I am on limited I cant do so. Mormons seem to know very little about their history and if they would know or read the beautiful parts of their history, I think that their faith would be increased. Instead, I only hear negatives upon negatives. It seems to me that mormos are having an identity crisis because of all the negatives they hear about their history.

 

Here is one testimony from a brother littlefield at that time that I take from the O'Driscoll biography: "The meeting with Joseph and his brother hyrum was as might have been expected with such noble men". They were "united together by natural ties and with souls enlightened by divine influences, the fruits of which was to them the knowledge that God lived and communicated His will from the heavens to them as He had done anciently". 

 

I think that I will need to feel some positive pity for mormons and their identity crisis that I see on this forum and other lds forums.

Edited June 25, 2015 by why me

[Alan]

In my view the charge that they are too defensive is ridiculous.

This is a church manual. It is not, nor should it be, objective.

Of course it's going to be defensive, I would be very concerned if it wasn't.

[Rivers]

In my view the charge that they are too defensive is ridiculous.

This is a church manual. It is not, nor should it be, objective.

Of course it's going to be defensive, I would be very concerned if it wasn't.

Things could be described from a positive perspective without being explicitly defensive.

[Alan]

Maybe, but they're not and that's just fine with me.

[The Nehor]

Things could be described from a positive perspective without being explicitly defensive.

I doubt you would get our critics to ever agree.

Luckily our leaders are smarter then those on the internet who believe it is possible to satisfy them.

[mapman]

I understand the criticisms of the new manual, and I agree with the idea that it comes off overly defensive. But I think we need to see the bigger picture. I just got back from my mission a few months ago, and I felt like there were some major changes in church culture when I got back in just two years. Two years ago I would not have expected the Gospel Topics essays to exist or institute manuals to talk about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. My anecdotal experience has been that generally members are more willing to talk about issues more openly and accept members who might have some "untraditional" beliefs now than they were during my childhood. And we have to give credit where credit is due. The existence of these manuals show a shift in the way CES are doing things, and it should be commended even if the first attempt comes off kind of awkwardly. As I looked through the manual yesterday, I thought about how students will probably react positively to being able to discuss these issues and so we will gain more self-confidence in this approach and they'll update the manuals to be less defensive. Things are changing fast, and I feel like overall things are changing for the better as God guides his church forward.

[Calm]

Knowing Stephen, I suspect he means the Church as an institution is pushing towards a more holistic treatment of history as opposed to emphasizing in teaching certain parts that members are most comfortable with.

 

Canard, I checked with Stephen because I don't want to misrepresent his viewpoint and he confirmed my comment above is how he meant it.

 

He also clarifies his use in a comment on the blog itself, he was in a hurry to get the blog out and made a poor choice of wording due to the connotations associated.

 

Here is the comment in a response that the use of tranparency and its variations was inappropriate by Dan Bachman (who if my memory serves me, should know what he is talking about):

 

This is actually a fair critique. I was hasty in my write-up of this blog post, mainly because I wanted to get it posted and on the web ASAP. I should’ve been more careful with my choice of language. Words like “transparency” and such are rhetorically-laden with all sorts of connotations that I didn’t intend. Basically, what I meant to say is this (from a follow-up guest post on my personal blog): “The reality is that there is no Church conspiracy to keep information from its members. It is true that in past decades the complexities of certain historical issues and the nuances of certain doctrinal topics were not explored in great length in Church magazines and manuals, but this was a matter of emphasis, not a cover up.”

I tried to communicate basically this in my concluding paragraph, but it looks like I failed.

In any event, thanks for your comment. I’ll try to be more careful in the future.

 

Edited June 25, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I like Brant Gardner's comment (from the same blog, link in canard's post):

 

Eric, if you invoke history it would be prudent to invoke even more history. While there was certainly a retrenchment that was a reaction to the “new history,” that had followed a period of openness that was known as a historical Camelot. That was preceded by a very restrictive time, and that was preceded (ultimately) by Joseph who recorded a lot of information and appears to have intended that it be read (at least until some later administrators closed down a few things).

Organizations change. We are in a great time now that is even better than the Camelot times. Don’t spend too much time focusing on such a short view of history–there is much more to it. In some of the times of most sanitized history, those who wrote it firmly believed in their version of history. Judging the past by our current preferences is unfair to many who lived through that past.

 

[Mormonmaniac]

I am glad the new JESUS CHRIST AND THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL TEACHER MANUAL doesn't teach anti-science stuff. 

 

The chapter "Jehovah Created the Earth"  does not talk about 

1.  No blood 

2. No animal death 

3.  anti-Evolution 

 

It is clear that new manuals (after 2001) no longer teach anti-evolution stuff

It does in fact teach there was no death before the fall of any of the living creatures.

“This first temporal creation of all things … was paradisiacal in nature. In the primeval and Edenic day all forms of life lived in a higher and different state than now prevails. The coming fall would take them downward and forward and onward. Death and procreation had yet to enter the world”