New Institute Manuals Discuss Controversial Topics

[rockpond]

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?

 

¨

 

You don't seem to hold our fellow church members in too high a regard.  Personally, I don't like the "follow the prophet" mantra.  We are to follow Christ.

 

So let's take the point you brought up...  If the foundation of the LDS church rests on the truth claim of the Book of Mormon, do the historical events surrounding it's discovery and coming forth matter?

[cinepro]

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.

 

The Lutheran Church is almost 500 years old.  The LDS Church is 185 years old. 

 

Unless you know what the LDS Church will be like in 315 years, and what it will and won't be teaching about Joseph Smith and its history (and how the members fell about that history), it's not a very good comparison.

 

 A better comparison would be the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Scientologists.  Each of those groups have a different approach to how they frame their leaders' accomplishments and character, and that approach in turn influences how their members feel about that leader, and how that feeling relates to their belief in the church in general.  I'll leave it up to you to figure out which of those three is most similar to Mormonism in how it treats their leader, and whether their members are similarly vulnerable to negative information about said leader.

Edited June 26, 2015 by cinepro

[why me]

The Lutheran Church is almost 500 years old.  The LDS Church is 185 years old. 

 

Unless you know what the LDS Church will be like in 315 years, and what it will and won't be teaching about Joseph Smith and its history (and how the members fell about that history), it's not a very good comparison.

 

 A better comparison would be the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Scientologists.  Each of those groups have a different approach to how they frame their leaders' accomplishments and character, and that approach in turn influences how their members feel about that leader, and how that feeling relates to their belief in the church in general.  I'll leave it up to you to figure out which of those three is most similar to Mormonism in how it treats their leader, and whether their members are similarly vulnerable to negative information about said leader.

History is history. If the lds had a 500 year history, I am sure that the critics would be pinpricking the 500 years for all to see and experience, attempting to get the lds members to leave the fold. Why quite something that is working quite well. The lds church is a restoration church and has a restoration message complete with new scripture. And joseph made quite an impact on US history at that time, not to mention the founding of an  United States territory by Brigham Young, and eventually a state. I would rather put the lds with the main churches that impacted chritianity through their history.

[cinepro]

History is history. If the lds had a 500 year history, I am sure that the critics would be pinpricking the 500 years for all to see and experience, attempting to get the lds members to leave the fold.

 

No, "History" isn't "history".  The Church decides what it wants to emphasize, and the members base their judgment of "history" based on that. 

 

For example, in the mid 1900s, the Presiding Patriarch of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith (not the same person as the prophet) was gay.  Now, you could tell every Mormon you know that little known fact and I'd bet you dollars to donuts that not a single one would care.  No faith crises.  No questions or doubts about their testimonies. 

 

And why is that? Because he isn't part of the History of the Church.  He's never been mentioned.  It just isn't part of the story.  Children didn't sing songs about him in primary. Hymns weren't composed in his honor.  Missionaries didn't show his picture in a little flipbook to all their investigators.  People weren't told to pray about whether or not he was a true Patriarch, and to get up every month and publicly declare that they knew he was a "true Patriarch".  If they had (and it continued to this day), then you can bet it would be a very big deal.

 

Same "history", but totally different reaction based solely on the emphasis and presentation. 

[cinepro]

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

 

This manual has an "English approval" date of 8/14.

 

2014 > 2001

 

The talks themselves might pre-date 2001, but when the talks are used in a manual, that re-sets the clock.

Edited June 26, 2015 by cinepro

[stephenpurdy]

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

Im ok with it too.  Look at this example:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explain to students that Joseph Smith wrote, either personally or with the help of scribes, at least four different accounts of the First Vision. Additionally, several accounts of this vision were recorded by Joseph Smith’s contemporaries. Each account emphasizes different aspects of Joseph’s experience, but they all share essential elements of what Joseph saw and heard. To help explain why there are differences in the various accounts, ask students to consider the following:

• •

  Think of a significant or meaningful experience you have had in your life. How might your account of that experience differ depending on who your audience is? How might it change depending on when or why you are telling about the experience?

Invite a student to read the following statement aloud, and ask students to listen for what historians expect when an experience is recounted multiple times:

“The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail. Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details. Indeed, differences similar to those in the First Vision accounts exist in the multiple scriptural accounts of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus and the Apostles’ experience on the Mount of Transfiguration [Acts 9:3–9; 22:6–21; 26:12–18; Matthew 17:1–13; Mark 9:2–13; Luke 9:28–36]. Yet despite the differences, a basic consistency remains across all the accounts of the First Vision. Some have mistakenly argued that any variation in the retelling of the story is evidence of fabrication. To the contrary, the rich historical record enables us to learn more about this remarkable event than we could if it were less well documented” (“First Vision Accounts,” Gospel Topics, lds.org/topics).

As an example of the differences in the accounts, you might tell students that “whereas the 1832 account emphasizes the more personal story of Joseph Smith as a young man seeking forgiveness, the 1838 account focuses on the vision as the beginning of the ‘rise and progress of the Church’” (“First Vision Accounts,” Gospel Topics, lds.org/topics). Remind students that their assigned reading includes the Gospel Topics article “First Vision Accounts,” which provides a more detailed analysis of each of the different accounts of the First Vision. Invite students to study the article outside of class to better understand how each account contributes to our knowledge about the First Vision. (Note: Remind students of the importance of reading the assignments under “Student Readings” before class. Doing so will help them contribute to class discussions.)

• •

  How could multiple accounts of the First Vision support the validity and enrich our understanding of this sacred event? (Help students understand that the multiple accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision enable us to learn more about this sacred experience than we could if it were less well documented.)

Display the following statement by President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008), and invite a student to read it aloud:

“I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the First Vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time” (“God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear,” Ensign, Oct. 1984, 5).

[why me]

• •

  How could multiple accounts of the First Vision support the validity and enrich our understanding of this sacred event? (Help students understand that the multiple accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision enable us to learn more about this sacred experience than we could if it were less well documented.)

Display the following statement by President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008), and invite a student to read it aloud:

“I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the First Vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time” (“God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear,” Ensign, Oct. 1984, 5).

 

I think that this is a good point. Like I wrote earlier much was known earlier because the ensign had much information and GAs were talking about these things such as the multiple accounts of the first vision. It was not hidden. However, for several years, it was not mentioned in the magazine or in general conferences. Back in the day, we also had firesides about many issues from a strengtheing the testimony point of view.

 

I also remember discussing the translation process with joseph's head in the hat because that was also in the ensign. Unfortunately, the church dropped the ball at the beginning of the internet age when they began to focus attention to other areas and the ensign became a mere shadow of its former self.

[TheSkepticChristian]

This manual has an "English approval" date of 8/14.

 

2014 > 2001

 

The talks themselves might pre-date 2001, but when the talks are used in a manual, that re-sets the clock.

 

It says "Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam." 

That statement is ambiguous, but even if you are right I still wonder why do you want LDS members to believe in creationism?

 

You are simply promoting creationism

Edited June 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Tacenda]

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.

How extensive was the lesson on JS's polygamy?

[Calm]

The essays' information has now been included in the LDS Institutes of Religion curriculum, aimed at Mormon college students — though some observers believe the church manual, "Foundations of the Restoration," overemphasizes attacks from outsiders and underplays the role of women in LDS history.

"There is so little, too little, practically nothing that I saw wherein women were mentioned or quoted until Page 39," writes blogger Emily Jensen on By Common Consent. "And then after that, few and far between."

That's a shame, she says. "They should know better."

Mormon women resources are widely available at the LDS Church History Library, Jensen says, "and in this digital age, a curriculum supplement would not be difficult to add."

There's no reason not to use them. The Gospel Topics essays are meant to be helpful, Snow says in the video. "As the information is upon us … we feel we owe it to the rising generation to provide good reliable information."

 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2667419-155/memo-to-mormons-those-essays-have

[cinepro]

It says "Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam." 

That statement is ambiguous, but even if you are right I still wonder why do you want LDS members to believe in creationism?

 

You are simply promoting creationism

That's not what it says. The quote, as shown in my post is this:

 

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

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

The sentence you cited omitted the previous sentence. In the previous sentence, Elder Nelson states that the Earth was created in a "paradisaical" state.

Now, that is a pretty problematic thing for an Apostle to say if we want to argue that when God created the Earth and animals, he did so by evolving the animals through millions of generations of birth (procreation) and death (their spirits leaving their bodies).  The second sentence would have to read "Mortality and death came back into the world through the Fall of Adam."

 

That is pretty much the opposite of a "paradisaical planet", and it negates the possibility of evolution being used in the creation process.

Then you totally ignored the McConkie quote, which reinforces Elder Nelson's statement and makes it even less ambiguous:

 

 

“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).

 

Then you accuse me of "wanting the LDS members to believe in creationism."  Who the heck cares what I "want"?  If you're correct, then you should be asking why Elders Nelson and McConkie want the LDS to believe in "creationism", and why the Church is publishing this in a manual meant for college students in 2015!

 

But either way, it's disingenuous to go around pretending that Church publications say something that they obviously don't.  You should just suck it up, accept that even in 2015 LDS leaders and publications are anti-evolution, and instead of saying "the new manual doesn't teach anti-scientific stuff" you should be saying "Holy cow!  This new manual is a disaster for LDS who want to believe that the Theory of Evolution is compatible with the LDS doctrine of the creation!"

Edited June 27, 2015 by cinepro

[TheSkepticChristian]

The sentence you cited omitted the previous sentence. In the previous sentence, Elder Nelson states that the Earth was created in a "paradisaical" state.

 

I omitted that because it is still ambiguous, I hope you agree that LDS leaders sometimes make ambiguous statements.

 

  You should just suck it up, accept that even in 2015 LDS leaders and publications are anti-evolution

 

Even if you are right, it is simply not good to promote those teachings. 

 

Then you accuse me of "wanting the LDS members to believe in creationism."  Who the heck cares what I "want"?  If you're correct, then you should be asking why Elders Nelson and McConkie want the LDS to believe in "creationism", and why the Church is publishing this in a manual meant for college students in 2015!

 

I will ask Elder Nelson if I ever have the chance, but if you are right it means that you are helping them promote creationism .

Edited June 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[cinepro]

I omitted that because it is still ambiguous, I hope you agree that LDS leaders sometimes make ambiguous statements.

 

 

Even if you are right, it is simply not good to promote those teachings. 

 

 

I will ask Elder Nelson if I ever have the chance, but if you are right it means that you are helping them promote creationism .

 

Ignoring what the manual says doesn't help either. 

 

The only way to "help" is to say "The manual and apostles say this...  I disagree, and think they are in error."  That obviously comes with it's own risks, but at least it's more honest than pretending a manual doesn't say something when it clearly does.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Ignoring what the manual says doesn't help either. 

 

The only way to "help" is to say "The manual and apostles say this...  I disagree, and think they are in error."  That obviously comes with it's own risks, but at least it's more honest than pretending a manual doesn't say something when it clearly does.

 

So do you agree or disagree with creationism? 

[TheSkepticChristian]

I disagree, and think they are in error."  That obviously comes with it's own risks, but at least it's more honest than pretending a manual doesn't say something when it clearly does.

 

Many have been doing that for years, but it is not working because no one will change their mind, and that approach is not welcomed here at the MDDB. 

 

Theistic Evolution is more successful. 

Edited June 29, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mormonmaniac]

So do you agree or disagree with creationism?

LDS doctrine has more similarities with creationism than it does with atheistic evolution.

[BCSpace]

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

 

 

The older OT manuals didn't teach anti-evolution stuff either except as a possible alternative.

[cinepro]

The older OT manuals didn't teach anti-evolution stuff either except as a possible alternative.

 

It may have been a while since you last reviewed the Institute manuals for the Old Testament, so I recommend you skim them before making such claims:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

 

Just do a search for "evolution" on that page and you'll see how it was presented (spoiler alert: it's not a "possible alternative").  Much of the chapter is quoting from a pamphlet written by this guy!

 

Harold Coffin

Edited June 29, 2015 by cinepro

[cinepro]

So do you agree or disagree with creationism?

No, I'm probably best classified as believing in "Theostic Evolution."

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

It may have been a while since you last reviewed the Institute manuals for the Old Testament, so I recommend you skim them before making such claims:

 

At least it is clear that there is an improvement. 

 

It is possible to interpret this quote differently 

 

 

“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[what state?]. The coming fall would take them downward and forward and onward. [Human?]Death and procreation had yet to enter the world”

 

I know what Elder Mcconkie meant, it is clear that Elder Mcconkie didn't believe in death before the Fall, but I noticed that manuals sometimes quote sentences without explaining them, they want the reader to interpret them. 

The manual is not teaching "no death" before the Fall, or perhaps it is teaching "no death" before the Fall, but I am not going to promote creationism. 

 

 

No, I'm probably best classified as believing in "Theostic Evolution."

 

Good, but promoting creationism is not going to make it go away. 

Edited June 29, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[cinepro]

Good, but promoting creationism is not going to make it go away. 

 

Pretending the manuals say something they don't say isn't going to make it go away.  The only way to make it "go away" is to acknowledge what is being taught and then voice your objection.  There's always the risk that it still won't go away because that is what Church leaders truly believe and they don't care what we think (see point 7), but there's always hope.

[readstoomuch]

No, I haven`t read the Institute manuals, but there hasn`t been heavy anti-evolution for me in sunday school since the early 80s. If I don`t bring up the fact that organic evolution took place, then someone else does.

Are there anti-evolution people in the Church-yes. Are there many evolutionists like myself-yes. BYU Studies has been sympathetic to evolution also. Thats my take on it.

[TheSkepticChristian]

No, I haven`t read the Institute manuals, but there hasn`t been heavy anti-evolution for me in sunday school since the early 80s. If I don`t bring up the fact that organic evolution took place, then someone else does.

Are there anti-evolution people in the Church-yes. Are there many evolutionists like myself-yes. BYU Studies has been sympathetic to evolution also. Thats my take on it.

 

Yes, I think BYU is helping a lot, but it is sad that BYU does not have a Climate and Environmental Sciences department

http://departments.byu.edu/

 

 

Pretending the manuals say something they don't say isn't going to make it go away.  The only way to make it "go away" is to acknowledge what is being taught and then voice your objection.  There's always the risk that it still won't go away because that is what Church leaders truly believe and they don't care what we think (see point 7), but there's always hope.

 

Okay dude, but disagreeing with the LDS church is not welcomed here, and I could lose my temple recommend, and no one is going to change their mind. 

[BCSpace]

 

It may have been a while since you last reviewed the Institute manuals for the Old Testament, so I recommend you skim them before making such claims:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

 

Just do a search for "evolution" on that page and you'll see how it was presented (spoiler alert: it's not a "possible alternative").  Much of the chapter is quoting from a pamphlet written by this guy!

 

Harold Coffin

 

 

Done!  No change and my statements stand.  Coffin was presented as an alternative in the OT manual.  Still is:

 

 

Harold G. Coffin, Professor of Paleontology and Research at the Geoscience Research Institute, Andrews University in Michigan, presented one scientist’s view of how life began.

 

 

I've been at this far longer than you cinepro and had to defend my views to the young men's presidency and the Bishop when I was still a teen.  The 'Coffin' issue did come up...

[tonie]

Done!  No change and my statements stand.  Coffin was presented as an alternative in the OT manual.  Still is:

 

 

I've been at this far longer than you cinepro and had to defend my views to the young men's presidency and the Bishop when I was still a teen.  The 'Coffin' issue did come up...

 

And if you keep reading the manual, you find in the next  in the following paragraph

 

“[C]reation best explains the origin of life." - Harold Coffin

 

 

So how is a creationist an alternative to creationism?

Edited June 30, 2015 by tonie