Gospel topics essays

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That was my understanding... that Come Follow Me was designed to allow for the introduction of tougher/deeper discussions.  But how can our teachers bring those topics in if they are not familiar with them either?

Beats me. If the youth are familiar and the instructor is not, then what happens when the youth themselves want to discuss them?  I think this is the type of situation that always get's youth poor answers, poor avenues for outlet, and poor impressions of the Church, it's teaching and history.  But that's no different then when I was a youth, at least. 

[HappyJackWagon]

36 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Of course.  What do we expect from 18 and 19 year olds.  Especially if they are more well versed on text messaging or playing a video game than church history or knowing scriptures.  I am in the Sunday School Presidency and the current manual really does not prepare the youth.  The same basic lessons for the 13 year old kids are given to the 17 year old kids.   Perhaps they are taught at a higher level but still If I was a kid and I went through these lessons year after year I would get bored. 

I find this sentiment pervasive and frustrating. It's as if it is ridiculous to assume Church leaders and missionaries that are called to represent the church have a clue what they're talking about. We've seen it a couple of times on this thread already. They're just missionaries- what do you expect? They're just leaders, but they're busy and they're not professional historians anyway, so what do you expect? Apparently some people expect very little.

What do I expect?
If the church is going to teach church history as an important part of church doctrine/theology I expect the church to know and teach accurate history

If the church is going to ask 18-19 year old missionaries to represent the church, I expect them to be able to represent the church accurately.

If the church. its leaders and its missionaries, are incapable of doing these things then perhaps they shouldn't be doing them.

Continually lowering the bar of expectations is a losers game.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I find this sentiment pervasive and frustrating. It's as if it is ridiculous to assume Church leaders and missionaries that are called to represent the church have a clue what they're talking about. We've seen it a couple of times on this thread already. They're just missionaries- what do you expect? They're just leaders, but they're busy and they're not professional historians anyway, so what do you expect? Apparently some people expect very little.

What do I expect?
If the church is going to teach church history as an important part of church doctrine/theology I expect the church to know and teach accurate history

If the church is going to ask 18-19 year old missionaries to represent the church, I expect them to be able to represent the church accurately.

If the church. its leaders and its missionaries, are incapable of doing these things then perhaps they shouldn't be doing them.

Continually lowering the bar of expectations is a losers game.

Amen.

This attitude of "well, what do you expect?" is ridiculous.  Especially when we also see the attitude of "well, you have no excuse for not knowing the true history, since it's always been taught or in print for you to read" from the same people. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'll rescind that because upon review I don't think that's exactly what Elder Snow was saying.  I think they may, over time, but according to Elder Snow there isn't an effort to widely disseminate the information in the essays except when it comes to the youth and those who are searching stuff out online.

He explains that they are intentionally using a “soft” roll-out, telling leaders where to find them and placed where people who are interested can find them, acknowledging that, while a lot of people struggling (and particularly young people) – probably up to10% according to his casual wording -- it is a small audience Church-wide. I think it admirable that their needs are being given a high priority and accommodated, and that the leaders have confidence in them that they will pass the word among themselves. It is also apparent that the stronger members can still find these essays if interested (and I think they are inoculating themselves through other means).

The approach to the roll-out seems to be a function of assessing the number of people who could benefit, and their interest; followed by the number of people who won't benefit as urgently but who are still interested.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If the church is going to ask 18-19 year old missionaries to represent the church, I expect them to be able to represent the church accurately.

It's done primarily with testimony: "…proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world; That faith also might increase in the earth; That mine everlasting covenant might be established; That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers. (D&C 1:18-23)."

 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It's done primarily with testimony: "…proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world; That faith also might increase in the earth; That mine everlasting covenant might be established; That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers. (D&C 1:18-23)."

 

Well, bearing testimony isn't really an answer and it doesn't excuse giving inaccurate information.

Remember, Elder Ballard recently said...

Quote

Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue.

I think this would apply to missionaries as well. Aren't they teachers?

If missionaries don't know the answers to these questions they should get very comfortable with saying "I don't know." I think it would become their new mantra.

Edited July 22, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He explains that they are intentionally using a “soft” roll-out, telling leaders where to find them and placed where people who are interested can find them, acknowledging that, while a lot of people struggling (and particularly young people) – probably up to10% according to his casual wording -- it is a small audience Church-wide. I think it admirable that their needs are being given a high priority and accommodated, and that the leaders have confidence in them that they will pass the word among themselves. It is also apparent that the stronger members can still find these essays if interested (and I think they are inoculating themselves through other means).

The approach to the roll-out seems to be a function of assessing the number of people who could benefit, and their interest; followed by the number of people who won't benefit as urgently but who are still interested.

 

I'm not seeing a lot of "stronger members" reading the essays.  What I am seeing is some members reading the essays, raising concerns to other members, and being told that the information they got from the essays is "anti" or incorrect.  I've seen it over and over.

I understand it's a process and will take time.  But I think we may need something more than the soft roll out that has been happening.  It's caused great discord in my family as adult siblings learn these new things are troubled and then go to our father (former stake pres and mission pres) only to be told that they are wrong.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Beats me. If the youth are familiar and the instructor is not, then what happens when the youth themselves want to discuss them?  I think this is the type of situation that always get's youth poor answers, poor avenues for outlet, and poor impressions of the Church, it's teaching and history.  But that's no different then when I was a youth, at least. 

When you have a young person going to a teacher and/or someone he looks up to and admires and asking.."what about this..or what does this mean"?  and this person is not in the know, it changes everything.  I believe learning together ..all groups..is a positive thing.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Jeanne

[consiglieri]

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 10:29 AM, Storm Rider said:

I suspect that certain people will never be happy or accept anything the Church does as positive or helpful.  For them the Church will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Read those with captial D because, I guess, that has more impact and adds more drama.  

The Church put itself in this position by refusing to be open about its history until forced to by the easy access of information on the Internet.

And when I say "open," I mean only as open as they feel they have to be.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

And yet...all those horrible anti-mormons ended up being right on a lot of things.  Those essays are things that were brought up by horrible anti's.. Without those questions..those essays would not exist and a lot of people..would still be in the dark on a lot of issues.

It is not only possible but not very difficult to be factually correct while conveying falsehood by means of slanting.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is not only possible but not very difficult to be factually correct while conveying falsehood by means of slanting.

Okay.  And perhaps there was some slanting on both sides.  Not untruths..just not the whole truth.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'll rescind that because upon review I don't think that's exactly what Elder Snow was saying.  I think they may, over time, but according to Elder Snow there isn't an effort to widely disseminate the information in the essays except when it comes to the youth and those who are searching stuff out online.

Again, CFR.

I would like a precise quote and citation, if possible.

I have been told more than once that the new  youth curriculum is, among other things, a forerunner to how the adult curriculum will eventually be restructured. I presume this would include selections from the Gospel Topics essays when appropriate and applicable.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Again, CFR.

I would like a precise quote and citation, if possible.

I have been told more than once that the new  youth curriculum is, among other things, a forerunner to how the adult curriculum will eventually be restructured. I presume this would include selections from the Gospel Topics essays when appropriate and applicable.

Sure hope so, I'm so tired of feeling like I'm the only one in my RS/GD classes. Of course I'm in the Primary the majority of the time, but before when I'd be in the adult classes it was torture since learning of these things. 

I'm sure some on this board have been through that. In fact I bet some on this board are like the people in their ward that appear to be kind of off, because they come up with things people have never heard before. I can't believe I had these people in my ward, now I'd go back now and just want to visit with them, instead of thinking they were from another planet. Or so above me in knowledge of the church, that I wouldn't dare open my mouth for fear they would find out the truth that I knew nothing. But now I don't know a soul like this, we've changed ward boundaries or moved, I know of maybe two people throughout my lifetime. Not many...

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sure hope so, I'm so tired of feeling like I'm the only one in my RS/GD classes. Of course I'm in the Primary the majority of the time, but before when I'd be in the adult classes it was torture since learning of these things. 

I'm sure some on this board have been through that. In fact I bet some on this board are like the people in their ward that appear to be kind of off, because they come up with things people have never heard before. I can't believe I had these people in my ward, now I'd go back now and just want to visit with them, instead of thinking they were from another planet. Or so above me in knowledge of the church, that I wouldn't dare open my mouth for fear they would find out the truth that I knew nothing. But now I don't know a soul like this, we've changed ward boundaries or moved, I know of maybe two people throughout my lifetime. Not many...

The tongue can hurt for awhile from biting it so much.  I do understand where you are coming from.  Parts of you want to shout..the other part is thinking..."shut up".

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

The Church put itself in this position by refusing to be open about its history until forced to by the easy access of information on the Internet.

And when I say "open," I mean only as open as they feel they have to be.

Imagine how differently things would have turned out had the Brethren not put a stop to Leonard Arrington's work in the late 1970s. The information now causing the church so much grief would have been greeted with a shrug. Too bad no one could have seen this coming. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by jkwilliams

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

What do I expect?
If the church is going to teach church history as an important part of church doctrine/theology I expect the church to know and teach accurate history

If the church is going to ask 18-19 year old missionaries to represent the church, I expect them to be able to represent the church accurately.

If the church. its leaders and its missionaries, are incapable of doing these things then perhaps they shouldn't be doing them.

Continually lowering the bar of expectations is a losers game.

I do believe the missionaries do their best to represent the church accurately.  I did as a missionary as well.  But they are not going to have a very broad knowledge of LDS history and even doctrine.  Much of that probably is not necessary to fulfill their calling anyway.  Not all Church history however is important to LDS to know.  Perhaps the majority of it really is not going to matter on one salvation.  Nobody is going to lose Celestial glory by failing a trivia test on how many wives Joseph Smith had or specifics about Mountain Meadows.  So the question is what aspects of history are really important and which are not.  The answer to that I guess depends on the individual but if the Church is going to teach or present an issue in church history in classes, missionary discussions, ect it should teach the issue fully and as accurately as possible.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Okay.  And perhaps there was some slanting on both sides.  Not untruths..just not the whole truth.

In his clarification in the recent kerfuffle over Richard Bushman talking about "reconstructing the narrative," he said he still believes the same things he did as a missionary 60 years ago. So whatever new thing has been disclosed, it has not changed the thrust of the overall message -- not in Bushman's perspective, at least.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Well, bearing testimony isn't really an answer and it doesn't excuse giving inaccurate information.

Remember, Elder Ballard recently said...

I think this would apply to missionaries as well. Aren't they teachers?

If missionaries don't know the answers to these questions they should get very comfortable with saying "I don't know." I think it would become their new mantra.

Testimony may not provide a scholarly answer to a specific historical question but it is the actual strategy and the way the Lord saves His people through the weak and simple of the earth. While there are many weak and simple that fight against that premise, the Church is pulling together her resources to match the need as assessed by the “10%.” And of course testimony and companionship of the Holy Ghost is our key protection in the first place, and cannot edify if the intent to drawn upon it is to avoid a question (that would be fear), either by the questioner or the respondent. Both explanation and testimony are obviously helpful in their proper place and priority.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm not seeing a lot of "stronger members" reading the essays.  What I am seeing is some members reading the essays, raising concerns to other members, and being told that the information they got from the essays is "anti" or incorrect.  I've seen it over and over.

I understand it's a process and will take time.  But I think we may need something more than the soft roll out that has been happening.  It's caused great discord in my family as adult siblings learn these new things are troubled and then go to our father (former stake pres and mission pres) only to be told that they are wrong.

With respect for what you see, I’ll refer back to the numbers—about 10% are struggling with issues addressed by the essays, at least according to the OP. The struggling members with stake and mission presidents and fathers (an extremely low percentage of total membership, I imagine) must be included in that. You’re also describing an additional layer of family dynamics which (with the exception of the nuance of father’s Church service) might be common among that 10% that I’m not sure the Church can or should have a program to reach into. Knowing the intent of the roll-out, hopefully you can make it work for you.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 7/22/2016 at 11:42 AM, Calm said:

Since you are a wordsmith, I will assume you won't might my nitpicking/dissection of the term  here. 

Innoculation involves taking a weaker/dead form of the disease to build up an immunity to it.  But when we teach youth historical facts we are not presenting it in an antimormon way, just in smalldoses or weakened, but (hopefully) in a more accurate as well as faithful context.  We don't teach our youth how to resist temptations, lies, porn, etc. by presenting them with a little temptation, a little lie, a little porn, but rather we try to teach what we believe is the truth about temptations and so forth.

I am not going to protest the use of the term in general, but if the usage comes up in conversations like this one, I figure someone is interested enough in exploring appropriateness to speak out about it, so why not me too.

Use of a term like "inoculation" implies an analogy.

An analogy, like other forms of imagery, must be seen as applying in only limited respects to the thing to which it is being compared or the concept it is being used to illustrate.

Here's why I think the term works in this instance:

With inoculation, an organism is introduced into the body in an innocuous form with the intent that the body will be stimulated to build up an immunity to what it might encounter later.

This can be compared to exposing human minds to certain knowledged in a benign or harmless way so that they will have opportunity to process it and thereby be strengthened against the slanted or distorted form in which it might be served up later by antagonists.

This particular imagery might not be to your liking, but it doesn't have to be so for everyone to be useful for some.  No imagery is perfect or applies in each and every respect.

An example of how the concept of inoculation applies: Being informed that Joseph Smith was raised in a milieu in which folk magic was commonplace and accepted by people who were generally reputable is useful when one later encounters antagonists who try to vilify Joseph for being a "treasure seeker" in his youth. One thus receives an "inoculation" of factual and thorough information that strengthens him against slanted information taken out of historical context.

 

Edited July 23, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

45 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I do believe the missionaries do their best to represent the church accurately.  I did as a missionary as well.  But they are not going to have a very broad knowledge of LDS history and even doctrine.  Much of that probably is not necessary to fulfill their calling anyway.  Not all Church history however is important to LDS to know.  Perhaps the majority of it really is not going to matter on one salvation.  Nobody is going to lose Celestial glory by failing a trivia test on how many wives Joseph Smith had or specifics about Mountain Meadows.  So the question is what aspects of history are really important and which are not.  The answer to that I guess depends on the individual but if the Church is going to teach or present an issue in church history in classes, missionary discussions, ect it should teach the issue fully and as accurately as possible.

This trivia test...it does matter.  For some it matters a lot. Paying 10% to a church that has a whole other story..yeah..it matters,

Edited July 22, 2016 by Jeanne

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This trivia test...it does matter.  For some it matters a lot. Paying 19% to a church that has a whole other story..yeah..it matters,

A good friend of mine joined the church when he was in college. He said it would have mattered a lot to him if he had known what some people seem to believe is trivial, as he may not have joined in the first place, but certainly would have taken a more open-eyed approach to investigating. He said he didn't realize until after he left the church how much it had affected how he interacted with his non-LDS family, but not long after he left, his mother told him she felt like she had her son back again after 25 years. I know my relationship with my non-member family members is much better than it used to be, even though I had never been conscious of the barriers I had put up between us. 

So, yes, these things matter to a lot of people. If they didn't matter, the church would not be dealing with them now. If someone wants you to commit to giving everything you have in life for a cause, they have a moral obligation to provide all the relevant information needed to make such a commitment. That the church has to "inoculate" people against finding out the rest of the story speaks volumes, IMO.

Edited July 22, 2016 by jkwilliams

[carbon dioxide]

47 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This trivia test...it does matter.  For some it matters a lot. Paying 10% to a church that has a whole other story..yeah..it matters,

It might matter to you but do you really think when you stand before God at judgement he is going to give you a knowledge test of LDS history?  One will not gain salvation by knowing a lot of history but one can lose their salvation but letting history issues get in the way of more important things. 

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

It might matter to you but do you really think when you stand before God at judgement he is going to give you a knowledge test of LDS history?  One will not gain salvation by knowing a lot of history but one can lose their salvation but letting history issues get in the way of more important things. 

If there is a God, I don't think he's going to ask us about Mormonism at all.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Beats me. If the youth are familiar and the instructor is not, then what happens when the youth themselves want to discuss them?  I think this is the type of situation that always get's youth poor answers, poor avenues for outlet, and poor impressions of the Church, it's teaching and history.  But that's no different then when I was a youth, at least. 

That's why in a recent meeting with CES employees, an apostle (M. Russell Ballard?) told them to teach the Gospel Essay Topics and learn them like the back of their hand. ETA: https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/evening-with-a-general-authority/2016/02/the-opportunities-and-responsibilities-of-ces-teachers-in-the-21st-century?lang=eng

Edited July 23, 2016 by Tacenda

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That's why a in recent meeting with CES employees, an apostle (M. Russell Ballard?) told them to teach the Gospel Essay Topics and learn them like the back of their hand.

My guess is that the church hopes kids will go as far as the essays but not dig any deeper. Of course, if they're like my son, the essays will just pique their curiosity.