JLHPROF Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 http://www.wheatandtares.org/22032/doctrinal-mastery-changes-to-the-prophets-and-revelation-section/ Wheat and Tares posted an observation that is apparently making the rounds on "social media" (whatever that refers to). This year's seminary materials remove the following: Segment 5 covered the difference between “Eternal laws” (which do not change), and “Laws of priesthood administration and Church management” (which may change). This includes an exercise sheet listing the priesthood ban which was to be classified as administrative. Segment 6 including a discussion centered around the revelatory process President Nelson described concerning the November 5th policy. Exercise 3 which was designed to discuss/explain why the some doctrines (like plural marriage and the priesthood ban) can be seem to be changed after much social pressure and others (like SSM) ought not to be changed by social pressure. So my discussion topic (since the Mod's hate linked articles with no topic to discuss): - Does this represent a reduction in clarity on how revelation works? Does this make our understanding of revelation more vague? A backtrack away from recent claims of revelation? 2 Link to comment
bluebell Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) I'm confused by the changes in Segment 6. It was november 2015 that the policy came out, right? So they had it put into the seminary doctrinal mastery for spring 2016 (that's really quick printing and distribution considering they only had until the first week of Jan. to get it out!) but have taken it out now? Edited September 2, 2016 by bluebell Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted September 3, 2016 Author Share Posted September 3, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, bluebell said: I'm confused by the changes in Segment 6. It was november 2015 that the policy came out, right? So they had it put into the seminary doctrinal mastery for spring 2016 (that's really quick printing and distribution considering they only had until the first week of Jan. to get it out!) but have taken it out now? I have no idea. I just found the article interesting given how much discussion is going on now about the nature of revelation, and what things are/aren't revelation and what things can/can't be expected to be changed by revelation. Kind of makes me long for a day when people would live as Joseph said "when God commands, do it." Faith seems to have been replaced by skepticism. And not for the better. Edited September 3, 2016 by JLHPROF Link to comment
Popular Post bluebell Posted September 3, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted September 3, 2016 16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I have no idea. I just found the article interesting given how much discussion is going on now about the nature of revelation, and what things are/aren't revelation and what things can/can't be expected to be changed by revelation. Kind of makes me long for a day when people would live as Joseph said "when God commands, do it." Faith seems to have been replaced by skepticism. And not for the better. I think that a lot of us have lost the ability (or we still have it but we have to really fight for it) to do what other people say. We have no problem saying that we will obey God in theory, but unless God Himself comes down to tell us something, we struggle with obeying people, even prophets. Our faith, as a people, in prophets seems to be weak. 5 Link to comment
Danzo Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Our kids are studying the new testament this year, so it doesn't seem to apply over here. Link to comment
Popular Post rongo Posted September 3, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted September 3, 2016 (edited) I don't like that "doctrinal mastery" has replaced "scripture mastery." It seems that we are waving the white flag with kids reading and studying less and less. Instead of trying to retrench and change this trend, we just don't require them to know where to find things --- just know the things. And the things are . . . the 12 "Come Follow Me" doctrines only. I see "Come Follow Me" as a lower bar, too, in teaching of the youth (the Church resources are video clip-centric with foofy options like "how the hymns help deepen my understanding of ____"). When they get it in 2nd and 3rd hour, the same twelve doctrines (only) year after year (in my stake, the stake speakers on the 4th Sunday also speak on the corresponding "Come Follow Me" topic of the month), it has led to less kids being interested in studying the wide open field of Mormon doctrine and scriptural and Church history. It makes the gospel look mind-numbingly boring when it isn't --- and in spite of good teachers, too. There is only so much you can do with a whole month of "The Godhead" when they've had two hours a Sunday of it for a whole month for the last four years. It reminds me of Orson Scott Card's definition for "investigator" in "Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary:" "A person who suspects that, despite the missionaries' insistence on sticking with the lesson, there are deep and powerful truths in the gospel." Edited September 3, 2016 by rongo 6 Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted September 3, 2016 Author Share Posted September 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, rongo said: It reminds me of Orson Scott Card's definition for "investigator" in "Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary:" "A person who suspects that, despite the missionaries' insistence on sticking with the lesson, there are deep and powerful truths in the gospel." Love this. Is there also a term for members who feel the same way despite the manuals? 2 Link to comment
Rain Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, bluebell said: I'm confused by the changes in Segment 6. It was november 2015 that the policy came out, right? So they had it put into the seminary doctrinal mastery for spring 2016 (that's really quick printing and distribution considering they only had until the first week of Jan. to get it out!) but have taken it out now? We first heard about the policy in November. What Elder Nelson said came later (early January or late December maybe?) So if it happened it is an even quicker change. Edited September 3, 2016 by Rain 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Am I reading this right, this blog is referencing what it looked like before the changes? If so, this is dated Jun 30, so the changes were maded sometime in the last two months. http://rationalfaiths.com/lds-church-believe-priesthood-ban-divine-origin-not/ Link to comment
cdowis Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Shall we see if "Wheat and Tares" is actually wheat, or is it tares. Has anyone actually seen the changes? 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 There were two links showing the original and this one showing the absence: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrinal-mastery-new-testament-teacher-material/prophets-and-revelation?lang=eng 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Archive.org shows the original dated July 2: https://web.archive.org/web/20160702112123/https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrinal-mastery-new-testament-teacher-material/prophets-and-revelation?lang=eng 2 Link to comment
Popular Post HappyJackWagon Posted September 3, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted September 3, 2016 15 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I have no idea. I just found the article interesting given how much discussion is going on now about the nature of revelation, and what things are/aren't revelation and what things can/can't be expected to be changed by revelation. Kind of makes me long for a day when people would live as Joseph said "when God commands, do it." Faith seems to have been replaced by skepticism. And not for the better. I think this topic illustrates why there is so much skepticism. -Policy is leaked -It's later called a revelation -It's added as an example of revelation in CES course material -It's removed as an example of revelation in CES course material We have the usual issues of Adam/God where one prophet states a teaching as essential doctrine and that a person will be damned if they don't accept it, while another prophet claims the teaching to be a damnable heresy. We have "theories" about the reason for the priesthood/temple ban taught by prophets as doctrine only to have other prophets denounce those theories as racist. We have prophets teaching that the practice of polygamy is essential for salvation and that it will never be taken from the earth while others claim it was a temporal practice (similar to a policy) and that it is not essential for exaltation. As long as we have dueling prophets, there will continue to be confusion about what is doctrine and what is not. We are left to choose which prophet is truly speaking for God and it is reasonable that different people will come up with different answers. 9 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 14 hours ago, Danzo said: Our kids are studying the new testament this year, so it doesn't seem to apply over here. Why doesn't it apply? This is the CES curriculum for all seminaries for this school year. I like that the church is opening a discussion to the differences of policy and doctrines, but they don't seem to be clear themselves. 2 Link to comment
carbon dioxide Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: I think this topic illustrates why there is so much skepticism. -Policy is leaked -It's later called a revelation -It's added as an example of revelation in CES course material -It's removed as an example of revelation in CES course material We have the usual issues of Adam/God where one prophet states a teaching as essential doctrine and that a person will be damned if they don't accept it, while another prophet claims the teaching to be a damnable heresy. We have "theories" about the reason for the priesthood/temple ban taught by prophets as doctrine only to have other prophets denounce those theories as racist. We have prophets teaching that the practice of polygamy is essential for salvation and that it will never be taken from the earth while others claim it was a temporal practice (similar to a policy) and that it is not essential for exaltation. As long as we have dueling prophets, there will continue to be confusion about what is doctrine and what is not. We are left to choose which prophet is truly speaking for God and it is reasonable that different people will come up with different answers. I don't see there are dueling prophets. I see prophets who speak according to their own understanding in the day they were living. Prophets don't know everything. They only know what God has revealed to them and even then they might not have a clear understanding of that. We can expect a prophets who live in different time periods have different takes on a subject if they are basing their view on some new information or understanding that another prophet did not have. Link to comment
Jeanne Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 15 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I don't see there are dueling prophets. I see prophets who speak according to their own understanding in the day they were living. Prophets don't know everything. They only know what God has revealed to them and even then they might not have a clear understanding of that. We can expect a prophets who live in different time periods have different takes on a subject if they are basing their view on some new information or understanding that another prophet did not have. I have a question. And..I am not being snarky or anything okay? But why would God reveal them something and not make it clear? 4 Link to comment
waveslider Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: I have a question. And..I am not being snarky or anything okay? But why would God reveal them something and not make it clear? I think we don't realize just how far we have fallen from God's presence in the fall of Adam. We have a long way before we can return into God's presence and see things so clearly. As was written by the apostles shortly after Christ's mortal time: "9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:9-12 2 Link to comment
waveslider Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 14 hours ago, rongo said: It seems that we are waving the white flag with kids reading and studying less and less. These kids are expected to read more than I ever was when I went to seminary. They now are required to read the entire set of standard scriptures before they can even graduate. Link to comment
rongo Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Or say that they read it. We were always required to read the book of scripture for honors. Why not expect them to continue to know references for 25 doctrines? Especially if required to read the whole book? Link to comment
Teancum Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 19 hours ago, JLHPROF said: http://www.wheatandtares.org/22032/doctrinal-mastery-changes-to-the-prophets-and-revelation-section/ Wheat and Tares posted an observation that is apparently making the rounds on "social media" (whatever that refers to). This year's seminary materials remove the following: Segment 5 covered the difference between “Eternal laws” (which do not change), and “Laws of priesthood administration and Church management” (which may change). This includes an exercise sheet listing the priesthood ban which was to be classified as administrative. Segment 6 including a discussion centered around the revelatory process President Nelson described concerning the November 5th policy. Exercise 3 which was designed to discuss/explain why the some doctrines (like plural marriage and the priesthood ban) can be seem to be changed after much social pressure and others (like SSM) ought not to be changed by social pressure. So my discussion topic (since the Mod's hate linked articles with no topic to discuss): - Does this represent a reduction in clarity on how revelation works? Does this make our understanding of revelation more vague? A backtrack away from recent claims of revelation? Well you won't like my answer but this is a dodge and step dance to avoid owning things that past leaders have taught as well as put an emphasis on the idea that the curent leaders are getting revelation for today and you better follow it. Segment 6 emphasizing revelation for a policy change seems pretty stark. Link to comment
Teancum Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: I don't see there are dueling prophets. I see prophets who speak according to their own understanding in the day they were living. Prophets don't know everything. They only know what God has revealed to them and even then they might not have a clear understanding of that. We can expect a prophets who live in different time periods have different takes on a subject if they are basing their view on some new information or understanding that another prophet did not have. Yep not only do prophets not know everything they seem to know little about anything more than you or I do. There was a time it seemed that what prophets and apostles said meant something. But no longer. Thjey see through the glass as darkly as you or I do. 1 Link to comment
Teancum Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 44 minutes ago, waveslider said: I think we don't realize just how far we have fallen from God's presence in the fall of Adam. We have a long way before we can return into God's presence and see things so clearly. As was written by the apostles shortly after Christ's mortal time: "9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:9-12 Oh well growing up in the Church and then going out to the world as a missionary I was taught, and then I taught that having a Prophet met God was telling the LDS Church and its adherents that we had something far better than anyone else. In the words of President Benson we had today's news today. I guess really having prophets and apostles is not as helpful as I once thought it was. 1 Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted September 3, 2016 Author Share Posted September 3, 2016 29 minutes ago, Teancum said: Well you won't like my answer but this is a dodge and step dance to avoid owning things that past leaders have taught as well as put an emphasis on the idea that the curent leaders are getting revelation for today and you better follow it. Segment 6 emphasizing revelation for a policy change seems pretty stark. I don't dislike your answer, but I think it is a cynical one. It attributes motivations not in evidence, although I think your description of the action may perhaps be accurate. In other words, you may be right that they removed it to focus on current teachings, but not necessarily because they don't want to own the past. Also, D&C has many revelations directing administrative policies. That's hardly unusual. 1 Link to comment
Teancum Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I don't dislike your answer, but I think it is a cynical one. It attributes motivations not in evidence, although I think your description of the action may perhaps be accurate. In other words, you may be right that they removed it to focus on current teachings, but not necessarily because they don't want to own the past. Also, D&C has many revelations directing administrative policies. That's hardly unusual. Well then add the policy revelations to the D&C. Edited September 3, 2016 by Teancum 3 Link to comment
Jeanne Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 1 hour ago, waveslider said: I think we don't realize just how far we have fallen from God's presence in the fall of Adam. We have a long way before we can return into God's presence and see things so clearly. As was written by the apostles shortly after Christ's mortal time: "9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:9-12 Thanks for your reply. I will take into some consideration. It sure seems that as children of God, we have to learn everything the hard way! Link to comment
Recommended Posts