Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One need make no intellectual preparation to leave any religion, including Mormonism.  It is absurd even to make that suggestion.  Everyone is qualified to leave any religion at any time.  The only problem arises when someone who doesn't actually have an intellectual understanding of Mormonism claims that he is leaving for intellectual reasons.  Most leave for other than intellectual reasons, and I have no problem with that.

Anyone can leave a religion any time he desires, although I understand that some Muslim countries permit execution of a Muslim who leaves, and I further understand that the Amish and the Scientology community will bring several types of punishment to bear.

I can not think of anyone who has left the LDS faith for adequate intellectual reasons, but grant that it is likely that some have done it.  Perhaps you could name some for me.  That way I could evaluate their rationales.

Your continual dodging of questions reveals the weakness of your argument.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You (and Ash) are making assumptions about people and I see you providing not actual justification for those assumptions.

If you go and join, for example, the Mormon Stories Podcast Community and A Thoughtful Faith groups on Facebook and read the accounts of LDS on those pages, you would find something very different from what you are describing.  So many people there are staying involved (or stayed involved for a long time) for social reasons even though they no longer have/had a testimony of the religious aspects and truth claims.  Social reasons tend to keep them in.  Doctrinal reasons push them out.

I don't know what false statements you are referring to.

Mike Ash published his book on the subject with full citation of sources and went to considerable length to detail his claims,  The book in now in a revised, second edition.  You might want to point out his specific mistakes for us here on this board.  Otherwise it is difficult to understand why you automatically reject his book as mere "assumptions."  Yet when you discuss Mormon Stories, etc., you take them seriously -- as though they are fact-based.

I agree that many people remain in a given religion as a matter of social inertia.  No surprise there.  When people do leave, they often imagine and claim to be leaving for "doctrinal" reasons, but they are nearly always wrong in their understanding of those doctrines because they have no theological context in which to place them.  They know neither the doctrine nor the historical context.  We have met false statements about both repeatedly on this board over the years.  I should have thought that you would recall at least some of that.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's true... your assertions are not the same as fact.

I have a solid understanding of epistemology and Moroni's challenge.  There is not a firewall between my intellect and my spirit.  They operate together.  To suggest otherwise is folly.

You are obviously in "lala land," rockpond -- a good movie, by the way.  

Of course there is not a firewall between the intellect and the spirit, but I never said there was.  What I did correctly say is that they are very different modes of thought.  By not understanding this, you are indicating considerable lack of understanding of logic and critical thinking.  You have made a major category mistake.

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree there are no shortcuts but it seems that you are saying a church member who has spent four decades of his life actively serving in the church, graduating from seminary, graduating from BYU, serving a mission, teaching from the curriculum, studying daily, and praying daily STILL lacks the knowledge sufficient to make a valid decision about the truth claims of the church.  Is that correct?

Not that is not correct, even though you keep repeating it (I suppose that is your CV).  Anyone is qualified to leave a religion any time he wishes to do so, and his desire must be honored.  It is an entirely valid decision on its face.  What is at issue here has been the false claim that your curriculum vitae qualifies you to claim that you are leaving for intellectual reasons.  It does not.  People may leave for any reason, of course, even invalid ones, but their claims may not necessarily pass intellectual muster.  People on this board sometimes make blatantly false statements about Mormonism as justification for declaring it untrue, and such also comes under that general heading.

[why me]

27 minutes ago, Thinking said:

What the Catholics or Protestants do should have no bearing on what a church does that claims to be God's restored church. If anything, the actions of God's restored church should be higher than those churches who [allegedly] aren't God's church. If you accept that your actions are at their level, then perhaps your saving power is at their level too.

For catholics, their church is the true church. For a catholic that is all that matters. Not their history. For a lutheran, martin luther is the founder of their church and its direction is the truth because of it. I need to look at the catholic church from a catholic point of view and the same for the lutheran church. And history seems not to matter for lutherans and catholics regardless of how they look at their church. However, for mormons, according to critics, it should be different. Why? Restored church? So, all history must be known and perfectly taught according to what the critics say it should be.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Mike Ash published his book on the subject with full citation of sources and went to considerable length to detail his claims,  The book in now in a revised, second edition.  You might want to point out his specific mistakes for us here on this board.  Otherwise it is difficult to understand why you automatically reject his book as mere "assumptions."  Yet when you discuss Mormon Stories, etc., you take them seriously -- as though they are fact-based.

I agree that many people remain in a given religion as a matter of social inertia.  No surprise there.  When people do leave, they often imagine and claim to be leaving for "doctrinal" reasons, but they are nearly always wrong in their understanding of those doctrines because they have no theological context in which to place them.  They know neither the doctrine nor the historical context.  We have met false statements about both repeatedly on this board over the years.  I should have thought that you would recall at least some of that.

The lived experiences of people are factual and should be taken seriously.

I don't have a copy of Ash's book but his statement doesn't match the reality I have experienced in the church.

Regarding your statement that I have bolded above:  Assuming that this were true (and I don't believe it is, at least not in the broad way you state it), how do we correct that without requiring them to spend years in advanced degree programs?

Let's take a hypothetical and maybe you can explain what you mean by that statement.  Suppose a church member who was active and faithful for decades learns that prophets had denied saving ordinance to generations of church members solely on their race/skin color.  They realize that the policy was a matter of racism and not revelation.  They decide that they cannot be involved in a church led by prophets that went that far astray.  What context have they failed to understand?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are obviously in "lala land," rockpond -- a good movie, by the way.  

Of course there is not a firewall between the intellect and the spirit, but I never said there was.  What I did correctly say is that they are very different modes of thought.  By not understanding this, you are indicating considerable lack of understanding of logic and critical thinking.  You have made a major category mistake.

Not that is not correct, even though you keep repeating it (I suppose that is your CV).  Anyone is qualified to leave a religion any time he wishes to do so, and his desire must be honored.  It is an entirely valid decision on its face.  What is at issue here has been the false claim that your curriculum vitae qualifies you to claim that you are leaving for intellectual reasons.  It does not.  People may leave for any reason, of course, even invalid ones, but their claims may not necessarily pass intellectual muster.  People on this board sometimes make blatantly false statements about Mormonism as justification for declaring it untrue, and such also comes under that general heading.

Yes, loved the movie!

Can you give an example of a blatantly false statement that someone here has made as justification for leaving the church?

[Robert F. Smith]

46 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I believe for some this may be true..but for so many that leave rather quietly..you are definitely painting us with a broad brush.  Sad. Your love and empathy is so lacking to so many.

I am merely stating the facts as to why people leave any religion, and there is no mystery to it.  Like any divorce (which I have never experienced) it  must be painful to leave something that has been so much a part of one's life, and the pain may be a permanent fixture in life.  There are many venues in which to voice that pain.

This thread is about what reasons are given for leaving, and not all of those reasons are valid.  Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris both left the early LDS Church, both for invalid reasons.  They later came back to the faith, and many have done likewise.  Sometimes merely stating facts is interpreted as being cruel and lacking in empathy.  I assure you that is not the intent.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Fair enough.  Hard to punctuate on this device I am dictating.

 Truth is not relative to anything.

 I think this was an unfortunate use of words on his part. What he is saying is that there are no terms that are synonymous with truth that can be used to describe the term.

 Definitions use words to describe the meanings of other words.  there are no other words that satisfactorily explain the word truth. It is undefinable. just as the word God is undefinable so is the word truth undefinable.

We know how to use the word truth explaining the way things  appear but we do so without defining the word. Is the cat on the bed? Did the suspect fire the shot?  we know what the word means and we can answer those questions without a problem but when we get into what the word means in a deeper level we find that we have no one definition that fits all uses of the word truth.

The answer to the question what is truth is undefinable. We know how to use the word correctly but that's about the best we can do.

Thanks for the reply.

I need a little further clarification.  I just want to make sure everything is crystal clear.  

He mentioned "Truth with a capital-T" as if to distinguish it from some other truth.  To me, Truth with a capital-T means absolute truth.  He then compared it to God, and said it was not relative.  I acknowledge that you suggest "relative" was a poor choice of words, but all of these things suggests to me that he is talking about absolute truth.  If he is not talking about absolute truth, what is he talking about when he says "capital-T Truth"?  Another unfortunate use of words?

Quote

For Postmodernists, since there is no universal Truth (capital “T”), there are only “truths” (small “t”) that are particular to a society or group of people and limited to individual perception. Written or verbal statements can reflect only a particular localized culture or individual point of view. A well-worn catchphrase we hear in this regard is, “That may be true for you, but not for me.”  http://www.allaboutworldview.org/postmodern-philosophy.htm

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by pogi

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am merely stating the facts as to why people leave any religion, and there is no mystery to it.  Like any divorce (which I have never experienced) it  must be painful to leave something that has been so much a part of one's life, and the pain may be a permanent fixture in life.  There are many venues in which to voice that pain.

This thread is about what reasons are given for leaving, and not all of those reasons are valid.  Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris both left the early LDS Church, both for invalid reasons.  They later came back to the faith, and many have done likewise.  Sometimes merely stating facts is interpreted as being cruel and lacking in empathy.  I assure you that is not the intent.

Can you define a valid reason for leaving the church?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The lived experiences of people are factual and should be taken seriously.

I don't have a copy of Ash's book but his statement doesn't match the reality I have experienced in the church.

Regarding your statement that I have bolded above:  Assuming that this were true (and I don't believe it is, at least not in the broad way you state it), how do we correct that without requiring them to spend years in advanced degree programs?

One does not need any advanced degree (I don't have one) in order to be a faithful Mormon, or to leave the Mormon faith.  Any given Mormon has all he needs if he has a testimony via the Holy Spirit, and if he lives the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Of course, that entails a lot, but it does not entail any sort of academic training in theology, history, or the like.  If he comes to dislike the religion, he may leave at any time -- although we would probably all counsel him not to leave for "light and transient causes," but only after careful consideration.

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Let's take a hypothetical and maybe you can explain what you mean by that statement.  Suppose a church member who was active and faithful for decades learns that prophets had denied saving ordinance to generations of church members solely on their race/skin color.  They realize that the policy was a matter of racism and not revelation.  They decide that they cannot be involved in a church led by prophets that went that far astray.  What context have they failed to understand?

We have discussed this very issue many times on this board.  And I have always pointed out that only someone who has been raised in a very narrow and rigid home would see that as a reason to leave.  Why?  Because, even though Mormon prophets are explicitly defined as fallible humans who make mistakes, this notion is rejected in favor of infallible prophets.  Indeed, the mindset most likely to leave is ironically that which accepted as "Gospel" the false claims made on race and such by Bruce R. McConkie in his well-known book on Mormon Doctrine.  in the end, Elder McConkie had to eat crow.

However, it goes much further than that.  Those well-read in LDS history already knew that Joseph and his brethren had been ordaining Black men and that no such prohibition existed until adopted by Brigham Young.  Moreover, Joseph's platform as a serious presidential candidate included the end of slavery -- which brought major persecution in Missouri.  It also includes false assumptions that the Book of Mormon contains racist claims.  The entire matter begins to be far more complex than at first imagined.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Can you define a valid reason for leaving the church?

As I have repeated umpteen times, one may leave any church for any reason, imagined or real.  One may leave for reasons of social discomfort of any kind, or one may find another religion which seems far more attractive.  These are personal decisions, and may be valid to the one leaving, while perhaps seeming too abrupt or unjustified by family and friends.  We must learn to accept such decisions with good graces.  Even when someone leaves claiming that their reason(s) is doctrinal, we should honor that decision.  In reflecting upon it later, we make take issue with that "doctrinal" reason, whether because we simply disagree with the tenor of that doctrinal claim, or because we think it is a false claim.

Just because Ash and I agree that most of those leaving for intellectual reasons misunderstand the LDS faith, and are unprepared to make a valid intellectual decision, that does not mean that such folks should not leave.  After all, they are exercising free will and choice.  Besides, there are very likely other, non-intellectual reasons for their leaving anyhow.  We should wish them well and remain friends.

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thanks for the reply.

I need a little further clarification.  I just want to make sure everything is crystal clear.  

He mentioned "Truth with a capital-T" as if to distinguish it from some other truth.  To me, Truth with a capital-T means absolute truth.  He then compared it to God, and said it was not relative.  I acknowledge that you suggest "relative" was a poor choice of words, but all of these things suggests to me that he is talking about absolute truth.  If he is not talking about absolute truth, what is he talking about when he says "capital-T Truth"?  Another unfortunate use of words?

 

As I said it is not relative to other words to explain it. That is the only explanation of his use of that word which is consistent with his other positions and indeed with his other statements on that video. He might also have meant the word relevant instead instead of relative.

 Concentrating on one word in one unedited conversational interview of someone who has written numerous books is pretty silly, but is consistent with literalist thinkers.

The comma Johanneum comes to mind.

Or maybe he meant that there is absolute truth for those who accept it, but it still can't be be defined.

Rorty does discuss the rationality of a religious paradigm for those who accept it. That's the main reason I called him so much. Here is an atheist postmodern philosopher who understands that religion is rational. For me that's reason enough to understand his thinking process.

 If an idea can be used to refute atheism I'm for it.

Here we have an atheist saying that believing in religion is rational. To me understanding how he gets to that conclusion is all that is important.

My goal is to show those who have lost their faith due to idiots like Dawkins have a reason to come back.

 it is a mystery to me why Mormons would oppose that because they think I contradicts something that was said 50 or 100 years ago by someone who wasn't making that argument to begin with.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am merely stating the facts as to why people leave any religion, and there is no mystery to it.  Like any divorce (which I have never experienced) it  must be painful to leave something that has been so much a part of one's life, and the pain may be a permanent fixture in life.  There are many venues in which to voice that pain.

This thread is about what reasons are given for leaving, and not all of those reasons are valid.  Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris both left the early LDS Church, both for invalid reasons.  They later came back to the faith, and many have done likewise.  Sometimes merely stating facts is interpreted as being cruel and lacking in empathy.  I assure you that is not the intent.

Yes..it is painful and not an easy thing.  My reasons were valid and very real to me and as far as intellectual knowledge..trying to get anything from the church in past is like pulling teeth!

[pogi]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Concentrating on one word in one unedited conversational interview of someone who has written numerous books is pretty silly, but is consistent with literalist thinkers.

The comma Johanneum comes to mind.

First of all, Insults are not constructive to effective communication.  Second of all, I would not classify myself as a "literalist".  I am nothing close to Bible literalists.  Third of all, I am not focusing on one word.  There are 3 reasons why I assumed that he was talking about absolute truth.  

1. He said, "Truth is not relative to anything"  

2. He was talking about "Truth with a capital-T"

3. He compared "Truth with a capital-T" to "God"

Is it really that "silly" of me to assume that he was talking about absolute truth?  I have never read a single book of his, but I do know the common use of the phrase "Truth with a capital-T".  Surely you can see my confusion.  I don't claim to know what he is trying to say.  I was only seeking clarity as to why you don't think he was talking about absolute or universal truth.  And honestly, you never answered my question.  What did he mean by "Truth with a capital-T" if he was not talking about absolute truth?

First you say:

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

As I said it is not relative to other words to explain it. That is the only explanation

Then you say:

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Or maybe he meant that there is absolute truth for those who accept it, but it still can't be be defined.

 So which is it?  Am I silly for thinking that he was talking about absolute truth, or am I "maybe" right?

Edited January 7, 2017 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

First of all, Insults are not constructive to effective communication.  Second of all, I would not classify myself as a "literalist".  I am nothing close to Bible literalists.  Third of all, I am not focusing on one word.  There are 3 reasons why I assumed that he was talking about absolute truth.  

1. He said, "Truth is not relative to anything"  

2. He was talking about "Truth with a capital-T"

3. He compared "Truth with a capital-T" to "God"

Is it really that "silly" of me to assume that he was talking about absolute truth?  I have never read a single book of his, but I do know the common use of the phrase "Truth with a capital-T".  Surely you can see my confusion.  I don't claim to know what he is trying to say.  I was only seeking clarity as to why you don't think he was talking about absolute or universal truth.  And honestly, you never answered my question.  What did he mean by "Truth with a capital-T" if he was not talking about absolute truth?

First you say:

Then you say:

 So which is it?  Am I silly for thinking that he was talking about absolute truth, or am I "maybe" right?

Sure why not

So what?

What was he saying then according to you?  

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are obviously in "lala land," rockpond -- a good movie, by the way.  

Of course there is not a firewall between the intellect and the spirit, but I never said there was.  What I did correctly say is that they are very different modes of thought.  By not understanding this, you are indicating considerable lack of understanding of logic and critical thinking.  You have made a major category mistake.

Not that is not correct, even though you keep repeating it (I suppose that is your CV).  Anyone is qualified to leave a religion any time he wishes to do so, and his desire must be honored.  It is an entirely valid decision on its face.  What is at issue here has been the false claim that your curriculum vitae qualifies you to claim that you are leaving for intellectual reasons.  It does not.  People may leave for any reason, of course, even invalid ones, but their claims may not necessarily pass intellectual muster.  People on this board sometimes make blatantly false statements about Mormonism as justification for declaring it untrue, and such also comes under that general heading.

What utter nonesense,   Many stop believing in Moromonsim due to intellectual reason.  In fact Mormonism does not stand up well to intellectual inquiry.  It's history and historical claims has so many large holes big enough to drive a truck through that it is amazing so many apparently intelligent people continue to buy into it.  However, most true believers don't really pursue the intellectual issues.   Nor does the leadership promote an Intellectual pursuit of Mormon truth claim but rattler promote gaining a testimony through feelings that are then attributed to revelation from the Holy Ghost.   Further many apologists here argue all they need to do is present a very low bar of "plausibility" for the LDS truth claims that then can encourage someone to pray for those feeelings from the "Holy Ghost" that can then be considered "revelation."  This is a really a pretty low end argument for finding out what is really true.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I have repeated umpteen times, one may leave any church for any reason, imagined or real.  One may leave for reasons of social discomfort of any kind, or one may find another religion which seems far more attractive.  These are personal decisions, and may be valid to the one leaving, while perhaps seeming too abrupt or unjustified by family and friends.  We must learn to accept such decisions with good graces.  Even when someone leaves claiming that their reason(s) is doctrinal, we should honor that decision.  In reflecting upon it later, we make take issue with that "doctrinal" reason, whether because we simply disagree with the tenor of that doctrinal claim, or because we think it is a false claim.

Just because Ash and I agree that most of those leaving for intellectual reasons misunderstand the LDS faith, and are unprepared to make a valid intellectual decision, that does not mean that such folks should not leave.  After all, they are exercising free will and choice.  Besides, there are very likely other, non-intellectual reasons for their leaving anyhow.  We should wish them well and remain friends.

FWIW I agree completely.  Mike and I hit it off pretty well.

[Teancum]

On 1/6/2017 at 7:07 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

As I have repeated umpteen times, one may leave any church for any reason, imagined or real.  One may leave for reasons of social discomfort of any kind, or one may find another religion which seems far more attractive.  These are personal decisions, and may be valid to the one leaving, while perhaps seeming too abrupt or unjustified by family and friends.  We must learn to accept such decisions with good graces.  Even when someone leaves claiming that their reason(s) is doctrinal, we should honor that decision.  In reflecting upon it later, we make take issue with that "doctrinal" reason, whether because we simply disagree with the tenor of that doctrinal claim, or because we think it is a false claim.

Just because Ash and I agree that most of those leaving for intellectual reasons misunderstand the LDS faith, and are unprepared to make a valid intellectual decision, that does not mean that such folks should not leave.  After all, they are exercising free will and choice.  Besides, there are very likely other, non-intellectual reasons for their leaving anyhow.  We should wish them well and remain friends.

You and Ash are the ones in lala land and need to tell yourselves this to confirm your own biases.  

Edited January 8, 2017 by Teancum

[SteveO]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What utter nonesense,   Many stop believing in Moromonsim due to intellectual reason.  In fact Mormonism does not stand up well to intellectual inquiry.  It's history and historical claims has so many large holes big enough to drive a truck through that it is amazing so many apparently intelligent people continue to buy into it.  However, most true believers don't really pursue the intellectual issues.   Nor does the leadership promote an Intellectual pursuit of Mormon truth claim but rattler promote gaining a testimony through feelings that are then attributed to revelation from the Holy Ghost.   Further many apologists here argue all they need to do is present a very low bar of "plausibility" for the LDS truth claims that then can encourage someone to pray for those feeelings from the "Holy Ghost" that can then be considered "revelation."  This is a really a pretty low end argument for finding out what is really true.

And then you have the gall to follow this up by saying:

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You and Ash are the ones in lala land and need to tell yourselves then to confirm your own biases.  

But you're the "unbiased" one right? 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

In fact Mormonism does not stand up well to intellectual inquiry.  It's history and historical claims has so many large holes big enough to drive a truck through that it is amazing so many apparently intelligent people continue to buy into it.

I have a PhD in history from a university viewed as a global leader in the field, and I just wrapped up almost five years as an editor for a history journal headquartered at the same university. I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that I have a better understanding of history and historical issues than you and many posting in this thread, and I completely disagree with your assertions. FWIW.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, SteveO said:

And then you have the gall to follow this up by saying:

But you're the "unbiased" one right? 

 

He has no basis for HIS "truth claims" but I am on my way out the door and taking on no new "clients" who need correction.

 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, why me said:

For catholics, their church is the true church. For a catholic that is all that matters. Not their history. For a lutheran, martin luther is the founder of their church and its direction is the truth because of it. I need to look at the catholic church from a catholic point of view and the same for the lutheran church. And history seems not to matter for lutherans and catholics regardless of how they look at their church. However, for mormons, according to critics, it should be different. Why? Restored church? So, all history must be known and perfectly taught according to what the critics say it should be.

I think you are mistaken.  Other religions are also being held accountable.  Perhaps this is why all christian faiths are loosing members.  The question is more like why would the Mormon church be immune to not having it's history examined and found wanting just like other religions.

[why me]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you are mistaken.  Other religions are also being held accountable.  Perhaps this is why all christian faiths are loosing members.  The question is more like why would the Mormon church be immune to not having it's history examined and found wanting just like other religions.

Many books have been writtten about the catholic history and many not in a positive light but I don't think that they have much of an effect on catholics. Now, secularism may have an effect, especially in the west. But not past history. There is also a problem with moral relativism. And the direction of values that may run counter to traditional christian values. All history would be found to have imperfections in them because history is made by human beings who are imperfect.

But for mormons, its critics stress history because they know it works. as a faith tumbler. If I were a critic I would use it too. And I would use the lds' conservative social positions against them too. But I would also know that such approaches are basically unfair to use. Many people are joining christian churches in the world. Not because of history but because of faith. But it seems that critics do not want people to find their faith in the lds church.

[cdowis]

23 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 I believe before any teacher delves into controversial and disputed material there should be full transparency on the part of the teacher, with full pre-lesson disclosures to the bishop, or at very least the Sunday School President, of what the teacher intends to disclose and discuss in class.. 

That is not how it is supposed to be done.  We have been told many times in teacher training and elsewhere that the teacher is bound to teach what is in the lesson material.  

If it aiin't there, don't teach it.

Edited January 7, 2017 by cdowis

[Bobbieaware]

31 minutes ago, cdowis said:

That is not how it is supposed to be done.  We have been told many times in teacher training and elsewhere that the teacher is bound to teach what is in the lesson material.  

If it aiin't there, don't teach it.

I agree. But but the individual who brought up the priesthood ban (in a very negative way) to a class of 17 year-olds likely thought that doing so was an important "clarification" to the principles presented in the lesson manual. In fact, based upon what he wrote, I believe the member in question probably rationalized within his mind that it was OK to bring up the ban because we often say a prophet doesn't always speak and  act as a prophet.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Bobbieaware