Gospel topics essays

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I've told the story before, but I remember the moment in time when I was on the internet, can't remember what word I put in, but the website http://wivesofjosephsmith.org/ came up. I had never really known about his having wives. Just that he was commanded to live polygamy in the Work and the Glory series and vaguely remember that even.

I just remember feeling like everything froze, and I was reading something I'd never heard or read. I walked outside after viewing several wives and their ages, and saw my neighbor across the road. I walked over to talk with her and asked about what I'd just seen. She said, "Oh, that's just anti stuff". And told me her non-LDS mother was anti, and told her a bunch of lies like that one, and for me not to believe it. I nearly left it at that until again some stuff come up, this time it was the StayLDS site, and from there I saw MormonStories, and well, the rest is history.

ETA: Several years later, I spoke with my sister in law about not being able to attend her son's wedding at the temple because I was struggling with my testimony after reading about JS. I had kept it a secret all those years, and she said she only knew about Helen Mar Kimball and that it was a sealing only.

Well, I wasn't about to tell her about the rest of the wives. Figured she would know more than that. Her husband was a CES teacher for years at a high school and later at Utah State's LDS Institute of Religion. They've served as mission presidents, and later two missions. She and her husband are currently serving a mission at the London Temple. 

If she didn't know, how do people expect me and others to?

 

Yep - I can completely relate to that feeling.

John McLay (see his Mormon Stories interview) was a full-time CES seminary teacher and then institute director, he was a high councilman in my stake at one point, he taught and directed EFY's... He was shocked to learn, in his 30's, the details of Joseph Smith's polygamy.

My dad who has served as a seminary teacher, stake president, and mission president denied some of the information that is in the essays.

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes I have.  One can give a 5000 word essay on a topic or a 500 word essay.  For most people, perhaps the 500 word essay is probably enough.  I do think the Church should have been giving out more but for some people, there will never be enough. 

The Church published a manual:  Teachings of the Prophets - Brigham Young that expunged what he taught on polygamy.  It was the curriculum for all adults in the church for at least a year and half.  I'd call that more than an omission.

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, JulieM said:

Why would you accuse Rockpond of lying about what he was taught while attending BYU?  He can only state what his personal experience was.

I also got my degree at BYU and had to take many religion classes. I was not taught details about church history that are now in the essays or have come out in other ways.

It would be interesting to know how many on here who went to BYU learned the details about how polygamy was lived (and polyandry), the numerous versions of the first vision, and etc., from their professors there.

I attended BYU and took church history courses that most definitely did not include any information about Joseph's polygamy or other information that is now finally being published by the church.

Robert Smith's attacks on rockpond are completely uncalled for here, IMO. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I'd suggest that, if that 90% number is true, it's likely that they don't care because they don't know the information exists.  That was the case with me.

Then I'll suggest that it's likely they don't care because their testimony doesn't hang on this or that fact of Church history. They're like Davis Bitton, who famously said, "I don't have a testimony of Church history."

That is the case with me.
 

Quote

 

I didn't say there was a deliberate attempt to not disseminate the information.  They published it on LDS.org.  That's an effort to disseminate.  

 

Now you're changing your narrative. Here is your prior post in which you misquoted Elder Snow. I have added emphasis for reference.

Quote

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.

 

Quote

 

But, as you noted, they aren't making a "well publicized campaign".  Basically, they only want those who are wondering or seeking it out to find it.  Agreed?

Except for the youth.   They want to inoculate them.   What are your thoughts on the logic behind that dichotomy?  Use the info to inoculate the youth but don't work hard to put publicize it to the majority of the church?

 

What "well-publicized campaign" or "big campaign" is transpiring with the youth? I haven't seen it.

What I have noted is that references to the essays are being incorporated into the youth curriculum as applicable, but, notwithstanding my CFR's, you have yet to show that won't be happening eventually with adult curriculum as well, your misquotations of Elder Snow notwithstanding. In fact, in a follow-up post in which you rescinded your misquotation, you allowed that "they may over time" be including references to the essays in adult curriculum.

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I attended BYU and took church history courses that most definitely did not include any information about Joseph's polygamy or other information that is now finally being published by the church.

Robert Smith's attacks on rockpond are completely uncalled for here, IMO. 

I remember taking a Doctrine and Covenants class at BYU that pretty much followed the thesis of the instructor's book: the importance of the temple. The class was supposed to cover church history, but that pretty much went out the window because we were talking about how much of the D&C is about temple covenants. Obviously, most of us knew better than that, but we sure didn't get a better understanding of church history from that class. I would imagine most people who grow up in the church, read their scriptures regularly, attend seminary, church, and institute think they have a pretty good knowledge of church history. But according to some people, they are ignorant, and it's their own fault. 

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The Church published a manual:  Teachings of the Prophets - Brigham Young that expunged what he taught on polygamy.  It was the curriculum for all adults in the church for at least a year and half.  I'd call that more than an omission.

This is an old anti-Mormon attack.

The manual to which you refer was never intended to be a history book. It was to be a compilation of President Young's doctrinal teachings to serve as a basis for doctrinal lessons in Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society meetings.

I agree it was a mistake to remove any reference to President Young's plural marriages, and the error was never repeated, as subsequent manuals in the series covering the teachings of other presidents of the Church who practiced plural marriage did make note of the fact.

But this was a proverbial mountain made out of a molehill, and I am more than disappointed that a professedly loyal member of the Church continues to jump on this anti-Mormon bandwagon so many years after the fact.

By the way, you have misidentified the manual in question. The title is Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young. When you are leveling criticisms against the Church of Jesus Christ, I don't think it is too much to ask that you make an effort to be accurate.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is an old anti-Mormon attack.

The manual to which you refer was never intended to be a history book. It was to be a compilation of President Young's doctrinal teachings to serve as a basis for doctrinal lessons in priesthood and Relief Society meetings.

I agree it was a mistake to remove any reference to President Young's plural marriages, and the error was never repeated, as subsequent manuals in the series covering the teachings of other presidents of the Church who practiced plural marriage did make note of the fact.

But this was a proverbial mountain made out of a molehill, and I am more than disappointed that a professedly loyal member of the Church continues to jump on this anti-Mormon bandwagon so many years after the fact.

By the way, you have misidentified the manual in question. The title is Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young. When you are leveling criticisms against the Church of Jesus Christ, I don't think it is too much to ask that you make an effort to be accurate.

Oh, brother, quibbling over a misremembered title? I would guess most members know Brigham Young was a polygamist, but at the time it seemed rather odd to completely omit it from that manual. It gave the distinct impression that the church really does not want to talk about polygamy.

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The Church published a manual:  Teachings of the Prophets - Brigham Young that expunged what he taught on polygamy.  It was the curriculum for all adults in the church for at least a year and half.  I'd call that more than an omission.

And they omitted the family photo that included his wives and children at Brigham Young's home in SL, and nothing about them at his home is St. George either. What is the church's deal?? I remember as a child seeing the photo at the Lion House. So I know it was there.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Tacenda

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And they omitted the family photo that included his wives and children at the Brigham Young Home, and nothing about them at his home is St. George either. What is their deal! I remember as a child seeing the photo at the Lion House. So I know it was there.

One might think the church was embarrassed about polygamy, or something.

Edited July 24, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Oh, brother, quibbling over a misremembered title? I would guess most members know Brigham Young was a polygamist, but at the time it seemed rather odd to completely omit it from that manual. It gave the distinct impression that the church really does not want to talk about polygamy.

I've said it was not a wise decision, and it was one that was never repeated in any of the several subsequent manuals in the series. This was how many years ago?* Can we not move on?

And I do believe it is bordering on the hypocritical to criticize the Church for its narratives and to be careless with one's own facts and details in doing so.

*Edited to add:

Weren't you working for Church curriculum about that time?

 

Edited July 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

There is quite a significant amount about plural marriage at lds.org now, including an article about Mercy Thompson, the first woman sealed in an eternal marriage with her dead husband if read it correctly in the history section.

There is also a good article on George Cannon's reaction to the Manifesto.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Calm

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then I'll suggest that it's likely they don't care because their testimony doesn't hang on this or that fact of Church history. They're like Davis Bitton, who famously said, "I don't have a testimony of Church history."

That is the case with me.
 

Now you're changing your narrative. Here is your prior post in which you misquoted Elder Snow. I have added emphasis for reference.

What "well-publicized campaign" or "big campaign" is transpiring with the youth? I haven't seen it.

What I have noted is that references to the essays are being incorporated into the youth curriculum as applicable, but, notwithstanding my CFR's, you have yet to show that won't be happening eventually with adult curriculum as well, your misquotations of Elder Snow notwithstanding. In fact, in a follow-up post in which you rescinded your misquotation, you allowed that "they may over time" be including references to the essays in adult curriculum.

What campaign is happening with the youth?

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

Quote

You should be among the first, outside your students’ families, to introduce authoritative sources on topics that may be less well-known or controversial so your students will measure whatever they hear or read later against what you have already taught them.

You know we give medical inoculations to our precious missionaries before sending them into the mission field so they will be protected against diseases that can harm or even kill them. In a similar fashion, please, before you send them into the world, inoculate your students by providing faithful, thoughtful, and accurate interpretation of gospel doctrine, the scriptures, our history, and those topics that are sometimes misunderstood.

To name a few such topics that are less known or controversial, I’m talking about polygamy, seer stones, different accounts of the First Vision, the process of translation of the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham, gender issues, race and the priesthood, or a Heavenly Mother.

The efforts to inoculate our young people will often fall to you CES teachers. With those thoughts in mind, find time to think about your opportunities and your responsibilities.

Church leaders today are fully conscious of the unlimited access to information, and we are making extraordinary efforts to provide accurate context and understanding of the teachings of the Restoration. A prime example of this effort is the 11 Gospel Topics essays on LDS.org that provide balanced and reliable interpretations of the facts for controversial and unfamiliar Church-related subjects.

Take the above along with Elder Snow's statements in the OP's audio clip.

There is an emphasis being placed on proactively addressing these issues with the youth that does not seem to exist with the adults. Do you disagree or are you just arguing with me for the sake of arguing?

Finally, my testimony was not and is not based on church history.  My testimony was based on truth and right.  Unfortunately, what the Church chose to teach me about truth and right wasn't always true or right.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've said it was not a wise decision, and it was one that was never repeated in any of the several subsequent manuals in the series. This was how many years ago?* Can we not move on?

And I do believe it is bordering on the hypocritical to criticize the Church for its narratives and to be careless with one's own facts and details in doing so.

*Edited to add:

Weren't you working for Church curriculum about that time?

No, they started that series after I left. I'm not harping on it, but it seems a bit of an overreaction to label rockpond an anti-Mormon for bringing it up, and petty to go after him for misremembering a manual title in an online conversation. 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is an old anti-Mormon attack.

The manual to which you refer was never intended to be a history book. It was to be a compilation of President Young's doctrinal teachings to serve as a basis for doctrinal lessons in Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society meetings.

I agree it was a mistake to remove any reference to President Young's plural marriages, and the error was never repeated, as subsequent manuals in the series covering the teachings of other presidents of the Church who practiced plural marriage did make note of the fact.

But this was a proverbial mountain made out of a molehill, and I am more than disappointed that a professedly loyal member of the Church continues to jump on this anti-Mormon bandwagon so many years after the fact.

By the way, you have misidentified the manual in question. The title is Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young. When you are leveling criticisms against the Church of Jesus Christ, I don't think it is too much to ask that you make an effort to be accurate.

 

 

Who said that it needed to be a history book?

I love that you'll correct me on the title while seeing no problem at all with a book about the teachings of Brigham Young having removed all of his teachings about plural marriage and altering his teachings about marriage to make them singular rather than plural.  You think that's appropriate?  They misrepresented his teachings so as to not have to address the issue of polygamy with members.  Now we're all paying the price.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've said it was not a wise decision, and it was one that was never repeated in any of the several subsequent manuals in the series. This was how many years ago?* Can we not move on?

And I do believe it is bordering on the hypocritical to criticize the Church for its narratives and to be careless with one's own facts and details in doing so.

*Edited to add:

Weren't you working for Church curriculum about that time?

 

It's being mentioned to establish what happened in the past.  It was in the past 15 or so years.  Yes, we can move on.  Will you concur that the Church intentionally avoided certain controversial topics, including stripping them from the curriculum?  Because I'm being personally insulted on this thread by Robert for my failures and for not having parents and BYU professors who were good enough to teach me the true narrative.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is quite a significant amount about plural marriage at lds.org now, including an article about Mercy Thompson, the first woman sealed in an eternal marriage with her dead husband if read it correctly in the history section.

There is also a good article on George Cannon's reaction to the Manifesto.

Yes, they are increasingly publishing more.  And the Joseph Smith papers project is awesome.  Hopefully all of it, including the Gospel Topics essays, will make it into the Sunday curriculum for adults.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's being mentioned to establish what happened in the past.  It was in the past 15 or so years.  Yes, we can move on.  Will you concur that the Church intentionally avoided certain controversial topics, including stripping them from the curriculum?  Because I'm being personally insulted on this thread by Robert for my failures and for not having parents and BYU professors who were good enough to teach me the true narrative.

Just accept it. It was your fault. Now can we just move on?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

No, they started that series after I left. I'm not harping on it, but it seems a bit of an overreaction to label rockpond an anti-Mormon for bringing it up, ...

I didn't label him an anti-Mormon. I expressed disappointment that he would jump on an old anti-Mormon bandwagon.

Quote

... and petty to go after him for misremembering a manual title in an online conversation. 

As petty as harping on an error in judgement made in a lesson manual a couple of decades ago, one that was not repeated in any of the subsequent manuals in the series?

How many of the presidents of the Church who were polygamists have been covered in subsequent manuals? Let's see: There were Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith. That makes five. How long are we to continue to endure bashing of the Church for a decision made years ago and never repeated? And as you have conceded, those to whom the Brigham Young manual was directed are those who could be expected to be more than aware that President Young practiced and taught plurality of wives. This really is a silly complaint. I was making that point two decades ago when this thing first emerged; I find it incredible I'm having to repeat the same arguments now.

So as pertaining to pettiness, isn't there a proverb about people who live in glass houses?

Edited July 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't label him an anti-Mormon. I expressed disappointment that he would jump on an old anti-Mormon bandwagon.

As petty as harping on an error in judgement made in a lesson manual a couple of decades ago, one that was not repeated in any of the subsequent manuals in the series?

How many of the presidents of the Church who were polygamists have been covered in subsequent manuals? Let's see: There were Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith. That makes five. How long are we to continue to endure bashing of the Church for a decision made years ago and never repeated?

So as pertaining to pettiness, isn't there a proverb about people who live in glass houses?

I guess we define bashing differently. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

It's being mentioned to establish what happened in the past.  It was in the past 15 or so years.  Yes, we can move on.  

Now that you've gotten in one last dig, we can move on? Thank you for that generous dispensation.

It's about time. I haven't even heard anti-Mormons repeat this jab for quite a while now. I was a bit surprised to see somebody bring it up yet again, particularly one professing to be a member of the Church in good standing.

Quote

 

Will you concur that the Church intentionally avoided certain controversial topics, including stripping them from the curriculum?

 

Did you miss the statements in my posts where I said I thought it was an error in judgment to remove references to plural marriage from that first manual in the series? Why are you coming after me about it now?

Quote

Because I'm being personally insulted on this thread by Robert for my failures and for not having parents and BYU professors who were good enough to teach me the true narrative.

Your quarrel with Robert is not my affair.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

What campaign is happening with the youth?

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

Take the above along with Elder Snow's statements in the OP's audio clip.

There is an emphasis being placed on proactively addressing these issues with the youth that does not seem to exist with the adults. Do you disagree or are you just arguing with me for the sake of arguing?

Finally, my testimony was not and is not based on church history.  My testimony was based on truth and right.  Unfortunately, what the Church chose to teach me about truth and right wasn't always true or right.

What I see here is counsel given to teachers of youth in the Church. I don't see a "well-publicized campaign" or a "big campaign" to get youth to go to the websites.

The statements you refer to are addressed specifically to adults, not youth. Couldn't that be considered as much of a "campaign" for adults as it is for youth?

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess we define bashing differently. 

And pettiness too, it would seem.

[Five Solas]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is an old anti-Mormon attack.

The manual to which you refer was never intended to be a history book. It was to be a compilation of President Young's doctrinal teachings to serve as a basis for doctrinal lessons in Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society meetings.

I agree it was a mistake to remove any reference to President Young's plural marriages...

Anti-Mormon!  And you agree with the gist of their argument!?!  Does that make you anti-Mormon, Scott?  Or does it merely mean you now see some validity in outsider criticisms of the LDS Church?  And if so, is this the lone exception or are there other examples?  Perhaps you could start a new thread to unpack this development further...

:0)

--Erik 

[JulieM]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As petty as harping on an error in judgement made in a lesson manual a couple of decades ago, one that was not repeated in any of the subsequent manuals in the series?

How many of the presidents of the Church who were polygamists have been covered in subsequent manuals? Let's see: There were Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith.

Where in the manual studying Joseph Smith's life and teachings did it discuss his plural wives and the information on how he lived polygamy? (I only remember polygamy being mentioned in the introduction instructing not to teach about or discuss polygamy that year.)

Was there a second manual that included details about Joseph's polygamy?

 

Edited July 24, 2016 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Anti-Mormon!  And you agree with the gist of their argument!?!  Does that make you anti-Mormon, Scott?  Or does it merely mean you now see some validity in outsider criticisms of the LDS Church?  And if so, is this the lone exception or are there other examples?  Perhaps you could start a new thread to unpack this development further...

:0)

--Erik 

I never said I agreed with the gist of your arguments. I regarded them then and do now regard them as hostile and mean-spirited. I believe it was a mistake to leave out the references because having done so left the Church open to attacks from the likes of you.