New Institute Manuals Discuss Controversial Topics

[strappinglad]

I guess I lived during one of Brant Gardner's Camelot times. I was taught about the MMM and Joseph's polygamy in seminary in my High school years which was over 50 years ago. I agree that the Church has had a variety of approaches to its history in the past and it is currently more open , but there were few impediments to finding out stuff if one actually did some searching.

When it comes to history of any era, telling the truth, the whole truth , and nothing but the truth may be a laudable goal but ultimately impossible.

[cinepro]

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 

 

Sometimes we don't see what we don't want to see.  This is the first source in the recommended "Background Reading" items:

 

 

The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God.¹² Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam.

 

Russell M. Nelson, “The Creation,” Ensign, May 2000, 84–86.

 

Then this quote from Elder McConkie is used as part of the lesson:

 

 

“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” (Bruce R. McConkie, “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, June 1982, 9).

 

 

So...yeah.

 

 

 

And if any students are confused by those two quotes, they may be adventurous and click on the link to the talk by Elder McConkie, wherein they would read this as is currently found on the Church website:

 

At this point we must insert a statement from our tenth article of faith: “We believe … that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.”[A of F 1:10] That is to say, when the earth was first created it was in a paradisiacal state, an Edenic state, a state in which there was no death. And when the Lord comes again, and the Millennial era is ushered in, the earth will return to its paradisiacal state and be renewed. It will be made new again; it will become a new heaven and a new earth whereon dwelleth righteousness. In that day, “there shall be no sorrow because there is no death” as we know it. (D&C 101:29.)

 

Thus we learn that the initial creation was paradisiacal; death and mortality had not yet entered the world. There was no mortal flesh upon the earth for any form of life. The Creation was past, but mortality as we know it lay ahead. All things had been created in a state of paradisiacal immortality. It was of this day that Lehi said: “And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.” (2 Ne. 2:22.) If there is no death, all things of necessity must continue to live everlastingly and without end.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/06/christ-and-the-creation?lang=eng

Edited June 25, 2015 by cinepro

[Nevo]

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):

 

Danel Bachman should know what he's talking about, but in this case I don't think he does. There's nothing wrong with the word "transparency." Smoot shouldn't apologize for it. President Uchtdorf has used it, the Church Historian has used it, the Assistant Church Historian has used it, Church History Department staff have used it, and so on. It's not "inappropriate"; in fact, it's the word the Church itself uses to describe what it is trying to do.

[cinepro]

Wow, this is interesting:

 

 

 

Before concluding the lesson, it may be wise to tell students that some people who have apostatized from the Church are practicing plural marriage today. They urge people to pray and ponder about whether it is right to practice plural marriage today. We should not seek to receive revelation that is contrary to what the Lord has revealed through His prophets. The Lord has revealed through His prophet that the practice of plural marriage has ceased in the Church. Anyone who advocates the practice of plural marriage today is not a servant of the Lord.

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-manual/lesson-20-plural-marriage?lang=eng

 

This could possibly be the first time I've ever seen the Church tell us not to pray about something, and it sets a very..."odd" precedent.

Edited June 25, 2015 by cinepro

[mapman]

Wow, this is interesting:

 

 

 

 

This could possibly be the first time I've ever seen the Church tell us not to pray about something, and it sets a very..."odd" precedent.

Yeah, I noticed that too. It's not a completely unheard of idea, though. It's basically the same teaching that appears in Preach My Gospel, chapter 5 on receiving revelation under the section, "A Word of Caution." It seems to me that it would be better to teach members how to recognize the Spirit and then trust that God won't give people false answers. I think this was one of the worse examples of the fear that seems to be behind some of the writing in this manual.

Edited June 25, 2015 by mapman

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Wow, this is interesting:

This could possibly be the first time I've ever seen the Church tell us not to pray about something, and it sets a very..."odd" precedent.

That struck me as well. It clearly contradicts James 1:5 and seems to go against Moroni 10:5 as well.

[cinepro]

It reminds me of this.  Oh how the Mormons laughed.

 

 

Who's laughing now?

 

[The Nehor]

Not sure if the two are equivalent. The warning is not to "seek revelation opposed to the church". I think there is a danger if you want the answer and can either self-deceive or let the devil deceive you. I see no problem with praying to know if polygamy is right. I do see a problem if you are desperately looking for a reason to practice "spiritual wifery" or are dreaming of harems or are motivated by a lust for power or even just plain lust.

I have learned via personal experience that it is a bad idea to pray about exceptions to commandments while in the midst of temptation.

[theplains]

It seems like Willard Richards was one of the brave ones in the room. He didn't try to run

away or use a gun to kill any of the mob. He used his cane to beat back the guns and

deflect the mob at the door (mentioned in the manual).  As Worf (from Star Trek: The Next

Generation) would say, "Your attempt ... was an act of unmitigated gall ... I admire gall". 

 

 

On the other hand, Joseph (the 'lamb') tried to become the 'lion' instead. I don't see

anything mentioned that he tried to protect the lives of others, unlike what is said of Hyrum

too.

 

Regards,

Jim

[The Nehor]

On the other hand, Joseph (the 'lamb') tried to become the 'lion' instead. I don't see

anything mentioned that he tried to protect the lives of others, unlike what is said of Hyrum

too.

Do you think he jumped through the window because he thought it was a good way to survive or did he, knowing who the mob was after, remove the main target to save the others there.

[theplains]

Do you think he jumped through the window because he thought it was a good way to survive or did he, knowing who the mob was after, remove the main target to save the others there.

 

Not sure.  The other person (John Taylor) was mentioned as trying to jump out the window before

Joseph, and he was shot several times.  It is unclear if he believed he would survive that way too.

Or maybe Mr. Taylor thought he was a target so he tried to remove himself to save others.

 

But if Joseph was really trying to save others, he would have offered his life in exchange to protect

the others ... and this he didn't do.  The way the article describes the events, only Hyrum and Willard

were the ones trying to save the others.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Calm]

I guess I lived during one of Brant Gardner's Camelot times. I was taught about the MMM and Joseph's polygamy in seminary in my High school years which was over 50 years ago. I agree that the Church has had a variety of approaches to its history in the past and it is currently more open , but there were few impediments to finding out stuff if one actually did some searching.

I would limit that to one being in the US though and English speaking. Before the internet, stuff was limited outside (maybe not including Canada, at least Western...the wards and institutes there had these massive libraries attached to them).  Also would depend on local libraries (colleges and cities) and if one was friendly enough to figure out who were the people who enjoyed history in the ward who were willing to share their books with (this would be between the time that the HPs would have a bookstore available in practically every ward and the internet).

[The Nehor]

Not sure.  The other person (John Taylor) was mentioned as trying to jump out the window before

Joseph, and he was shot several times.  It is unclear if he believed he would survive that way too.

Or maybe Mr. Taylor thought he was a target so he tried to remove himself to save others.

 

But if Joseph was really trying to save others, he would have offered his life in exchange to protect

the others ... and this he didn't do.  The way the article describes the events, only Hyrum and Willard

were the ones trying to save the others.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Oh yeah, if Joseph had just asked the nice mob pointing guns into the room shooting to take him and leave his friends I'm sure they would have heard him clearly over the gunfire and their murder-driven minds would have seen sense and amicably accepted.

[cinepro]

Not sure if the two are equivalent. The warning is not to "seek revelation opposed to the church". I think there is a danger if you want the answer and can either self-deceive or let the devil deceive you. I see no problem with praying to know if polygamy is right. I do see a problem if you are desperately looking for a reason to practice "spiritual wifery" or are dreaming of harems or are motivated by a lust for power or even just plain lust.

I have learned via personal experience that it is a bad idea to pray about exceptions to commandments while in the midst of temptation.

 

 

The problem, as I understand it, is that FLDS present some LDS with the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young etc. about the important and everlasting nature of the doctrine of polygamy, and then ask them to pray about it.  Some people then come to the spiritual epiphany that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young etc. were telling the truth about polygamy not going away and such, and that subsequent LDS leaders weren't doing what they should, and believe that the spirit wouldn't lead them astray because that's what they've been told their whole lives.

 

Either that or it's harems.  You're probably right.  Definitely harems.

[The Nehor]

The problem, as I understand it, is that FLDS present some LDS with the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young etc. about the important and everlasting nature of the doctrine of polygamy, and then ask them to pray about it.  Some people then come to the spiritual epiphany that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young etc. were telling the truth about polygamy not going away and such, and that subsequent LDS leaders weren't doing what they should, and believe that the spirit wouldn't lead them astray because that's what they've been told their whole lives.

 

Either that or it's harems.  You're probably right.  Definitely harems.

 

I hope it is harems. Given the choice to practice plural marriage because this guy told you to:

 

 

or because of this:

 

 

which one would you pick?

 

I do not believe you can get a spiritual epiphany of the necessity for plural marriage. Furthermore even if you did you would need the keys of sealing to pull it off so you need an angel to come and give them to you. Then you come across the problem that the scriptures also say that the keys will never be taken from the earth again until the end. Kind of get stuck.

 

I would stick with plural marriage being an everlasting principle because sealed plural marriages are eternal. For all I know every exalted man gets multiple wives. Or maybe in heaven taking additional wives (and husbands?) is just something you do.

 

In any case I am okay with people praying about it. They might be led astray but nothing I can do about that. I do not believe you can be deceived to that level without self-deception so the sin is on them. My advice if someone asked would still be not to pray about it if they crave exhibit B above.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Sometimes we don't see what we don't want to see

 

I agree,  I am open to the possibility of being wrong. but I said 

 

 

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

Edited June 26, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[canard78]

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):

Thanks. I think his first version is probably more accurate, I don't think the church's approach in the past was very transparent. If Stephen feels he's misrepresented them and prefers to describe it as a change of emphasis then that's fine. Either way, emphasis or transparency, this British Mormon, went through several gut punch discoveries in 2012/13. I'm glad that the church's emphasis/transparency makes that a less likely experience for future generations.

[why me]

Either way, emphasis or transparency, this British Mormon, went through several gut punch discoveries in 2012/13. I'm glad that the church's emphasis/transparency makes that a less likely experience for future generations.

The different versions of the first vision was in the ensign years ago. Old timers would recognize the information in many of the essays. I believe that knowledge about church history was generational inside the church with old timers knowing more than people of generations that came later.

 

I am still trying to understand mormon psychology. I do believe that members of other churches are not much affected by their churches nooks and crannies as mormons are. For example, martin luther was extremely anti-semetic and supported polygamy. I don't know how many lutherans know those facts or if they did find out, if it would matter to them. Likewise for other protestants and for catholics. I think that it may have to do with mormon ideas of perfectionism and how they are led to believe that their history is perfection without any misfires etc.

 

Also, mormon history is extremely positive when one looks at the details of what was happening during joseph's and hyrum's time. Many faith promoting events were happening but church members  are also rather ignorant of these positives. Back in the 70s many members read Arrington's book about the history of latter day saints. It contained much information in it but it wasn't published by the church but by an independent publisher.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mormon-Experience-HISTORY-LATTER-DAY/dp/0252062361

 

Back then, we had no internet and so, books were the main way to find information. I don't remember any members leaving after reading this book or the other books that were published.

 

https://books.google.fi/books/about/Reflections_of_a_Mormon_Historian.html?id=l0YmAQAAIAAJ&source=kp_cover&hl=en

 

My point is simple: books are out there written by church members but not published by the church. I don't know if it is a cburch's responsiblity to publish books on their history. It should be left up to scholars.

Edited June 26, 2015 by why me

[why me]

As I said in my previous thread, I don't think that any church should be in the history writing business. We just need to look at this thread and the discussion that has come about. It causes contention and disagreement according to historical interpretation and what should have been included in the writings of the essay's etc. But I suppose that the lds needed to do so to protect members from what the critics are saying and writing. Too mnay 'testimonies' were being destroyed by historical events.

 

But on the other hand, how many mainstream publishers are interested in a scholarly written book about lds history? Not many. I don't think that it is a money maker. Now if Romney became president, many would have been written because interest would be high.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Not sure if the two are equivalent. The warning is not to "seek revelation opposed to the church". I think there is a danger if you want the answer and can either self-deceive or let the devil deceive you. I see no problem with praying to know if polygamy is right. I do see a problem if you are desperately looking for a reason to practice "spiritual wifery" or are dreaming of harems or are motivated by a lust for power or even just plain lust.

I have learned via personal experience that it is a bad idea to pray about exceptions to commandments while in the midst of temptation.

 

This is a very male centered view of things. Most of those that need convincing are women (at least at a ratio of 2:1). These women pray about polygamy (just as Joseph's wives did) and have firm spiritual witnesses that polygamy is correct. For an example of such a woman, you can listen to Christine Jeppsen, part 4 start at minute 55. 

[rockpond]

As I said in my previous thread, I don't think that any church should be in the history writing business. We just need to look at this thread and the discussion that has come about. It causes contention and disagreement according to historical interpretation and what should have been included in the writings of the essay's etc. But I suppose that the lds needed to do so to protect members from what the critics are saying and writing. Too mnay 'testimonies' were being destroyed by historical events.

 

But on the other hand, how many mainstream publishers are interested in a scholarly written book about lds history? Not many. I don't think that it is a money maker. Now if Romney became president, many would have been written because interest would be high.

 

We are a restoration church.  I don't know how you get our church OUT of the history writing business.  

[The Nehor]

This is a very male centered view of things. Most of those that need convincing are women (at least at a ratio of 2:1). These women pray about polygamy (just as Joseph's wives did) and have firm spiritual witnesses that polygamy is correct. For an example of such a woman, you can listen to Christine Jeppsen, part 4 start at minute 55.

I just assume any woman that interested in polygamy to pray about whether they should live it in defiance of the apostles is secretly a lesbian or bi. That is probably also a male-centered view.

[why me]

We are a restoration church.  I don't know how you get our church OUT of the history writing business. 

The lutheran church is a reformation church and yet, they do not seem to be writing their own history. But scholars are. Likewise for the catholic church, which claims to be the true church of  christ. They play an important role in christian history and yet, they do not seem to be writing their own history either. But scholars are. Thus, my point.

 

It is only the mormon church that needs to write their own interpretation of their history. Maybe one reason for this is that the testimony of its members are rather weak because lds history seems to impact their testimonies in negative ways because they are also ignorant of the positive aspects of lds history and these aspects are many. Or the critics have managed to convince the lds that their history determines the truth claims and yet, no one has proven to my knowledge that joseph  or sidney wrote the book of mormon. And I am not talking about joseph smith but every prophet after him seems to need to be perfect. It is very interesting to see this play out. But the lutherans have no such problem and yet, their church was on the cutting end of the reformation and luther was far from perfect. Likewise for knox, calvin wesley etc.

 

Christian history does not make for peaceful history and yet, in comparison, lds history shines forth like a northern star. But...not for many lds who lose their testimony over a historical fact.

Edited June 26, 2015 by why me

[rockpond]

The lutheran church is a reformation church and yet, they do not seem to be writing their own history. But scholars are. Likewise for the catholic church, which claims to be the true church of  christ. They play an important role in christian history and yet, they do not seem to be writing their own history either. But scholars are. Thus, my point.

 

It is only the mormon church that needs to write their own interpretation of their history. Maybe one reason for this is that the testimony of its members are rather weak because lds history seems to impact their testimonies in negative ways because they are also ignorant of the positive aspects of lds history and these aspects are many. Or the critics have managed to convince the lds that their history determines the truth claims and yet, no one has proven to my knowledge that joseph  or sidney wrote the book of mormon. And I am not talking about joseph smith but every prophet after him seems to need to be perfect. It is very interesting to see this play out. But the lutherans have no such problem and yet, their church was on the cutting end of the reformation and luther was far from perfect. Likewise for knox, calvin wesley etc.

 

Christian history does not make for peaceful history and yet, in comparison, lds history shines forth like a northern star. But...not for many lds who lose their testimony over a historical fact.

 

I don't see it as critics who have convinced LDS that history determines the truth claims.  It's our own church leaders that have taught that our history determines our truth claims.  Our historical accounts are used to show derivation of authority.  Stories of persecution and martyrdom are repeated to further endorse those truth claims.  The bringing forth of the Book of Mormon (a historical event/process) is brought forth as support for Joseph's prophetic calling.  (President Hinkcley's and Elder Holland's testimonies come to mind though President Monson is an obvious departure from the "history-based" testimonies.)

 

I suspect that the need for "perfect prophets" (despite our reassurances of fallibility) arises out of the cultural "follow the prophet" requirement of total fealty to his words.  One comment by the prophet and suddenly wearing two earrings (Pres Hinckley) makes one an unworthy potential spouse (Elder Bednar).  In his recent "Boise Rescue" message, Elder Oaks placed a top priority on adherence to the words of the prophet and apostles.  Such fealty can be problematic when followers realize that the messages are sometimes opinions of imperfect men rather than the word of God.

[why me]

I don't see it as critics who have convinced LDS that history determines the truth claims.  It's our own church leaders that have taught that our history determines our truth claims.  Our historical accounts are used to show derivation of authority.  Stories of persecution and martyrdom are repeated to further endorse those truth claims.  The bringing forth of the Book of Mormon (a historical event/process) is brought forth as support for Joseph's prophetic calling.  (President Hinkcley's and Elder Holland's testimonies come to mind though President Monson is an obvious departure from the "history-based" testimonies.)

 

I suspect that the need for "perfect prophets" (despite our reassurances of fallibility) arises out of the cultural "follow the prophet" requirement of total fealty to his words.  One comment by the prophet and suddenly wearing two earrings (Pres Hinckley) makes one an unworthy potential spouse (Elder Bednar).  In his recent "Boise Rescue" message, Elder Oaks placed a top priority on adherence to the words of the prophet and apostles.  Such fealty can be problematic when followers realize that the messages are sometimes opinions of imperfect men rather than the word of God.

I don't think that church leaders stress history at all in its complete form. Rather, they tend to focus on specific events such as the coming forth of the book of mormon and the official version of the first vision. The manuals when they covered the doctrine and covenants stressed the situation around the revelation etc. But there has not been an official history of the lds church manual to study,. So, no stress at all.

 

The foundation of the lds church depends on one fact: is the book of mormon what it is claimed to be? If yes, the rest of the lds history is fluff. If no, then the rest of lds history is meaningless. I don't think that members are very good at following the prophet. And I do believe that most have not remembered what was said at last general conference. Fortunately, they can read the talks again. What did the prophet say at the last conference? Most likely it was to live well, and in righteousness and to remember that christ is our redeemer. I am sure that catholics who are devote also follow the pope and what he says.

 

So what does follow the prophet mean? Sounds like a brainwashing when put your way. And where should I follow him?

 

¨