Jump to content

Inaccurate material in Primary manual


bsjkki

Recommended Posts

So, if you were the Primary President and knew that the Primary 5 manual lesson number 31 contained an inaccurate historical statement, would you inform your Primary teachers? The church acknowledges this new information but has not corrected it in the online manual? The Primary 5 manual lesson 31 states, "Twelve miles east of Far West was Haun’s Mill, a small town founded by a member of the Church named Jacob Haun."  https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history/lesson-31-the-extermination-order?lang=eng  This statement is found at lds.org, "Jacob Hawn established his mill in 1835 along Shoal Creek in Caldwell County, Missouri. He was not a member of the Church,4 but he and his family were friendly with the 15–20 Latter-day Saint families who built a small settlement in the area." https://history.lds.org/article/hawns-mill-face-wheel?lang=eng  I wish the church would at least put a footnote in the online edition with a correction. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765574566/Picturing-history-Hauns-Mill.html

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So, if you were the Primary President and knew that the Primary 5 manual lesson number 31 contained an inaccurate historical statement, would you inform your Primary teachers? The church acknowledges this new information but has not corrected it in the online manual? The Primary 5 manual lesson 31 states, "Twelve miles east of Far West was Haun’s Mill, a small town founded by a member of the Church named Jacob Haun."  https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history/lesson-31-the-extermination-order?lang=eng  This statement is found at lds.org, "Jacob Hawn established his mill in 1835 along Shoal Creek in Caldwell County, Missouri. He was not a member of the Church,4 but he and his family were friendly with the 15–20 Latter-day Saint families who built a small settlement in the area." https://history.lds.org/article/hawns-mill-face-wheel?lang=eng  I wish the church would at least put a footnote in the online edition with a correction. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765574566/Picturing-history-Hauns-Mill.html

I cannot imagine why such information would need to be taught to children. What difference does such information make? The only lesson should be, they were told to admonished to leave, they didn't and 18 men and boys died, due to mob rule. That is like quibbling over the street number of the "Upper Room" for the "last supper". 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I cannot imagine why such information would need to be taught to children. What difference does such information make? The only lesson should be, they were told to admonished to leave, they didn't and 18 men and boys died, due to mob rule. That is like quibbling over the street number of the "Upper Room" for the "last supper". 

It is the knowingly inaccurate information I have a problem with. The Deseret News article and historical journals show Haun did not tell people that Joseph counseled them to leave. 

"As difficulties between the Mormons and local Missourians escalated, the Prophet Joseph Smith counseled Haun to bring the Haun's Mill settlers to the relative safety of Far West, but Haun failed to do so. 

It is now thought that Haun did not inform the others of Joseph's counsel. On Oct. 30, 1838, a group of 240 locals attacked Haun's Mill, killing at least 17 men and boys."

So "they" may have not known to leave. It does matter to their descendants that the true account is taught.

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

So, if you were the Primary President and knew that the Primary 5 manual lesson number 31 contained an inaccurate historical statement, would you inform your Primary teachers? The church acknowledges this new information but has not corrected it in the online manual? The Primary 5 manual lesson 31 states, "Twelve miles east of Far West was Haun’s Mill, a small town founded by a member of the Church named Jacob Haun."  https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history/lesson-31-the-extermination-order?lang=eng  This statement is found at lds.org, "Jacob Hawn established his mill in 1835 along Shoal Creek in Caldwell County, Missouri. He was not a member of the Church,4 but he and his family were friendly with the 15–20 Latter-day Saint families who built a small settlement in the area." https://history.lds.org/article/hawns-mill-face-wheel?lang=eng  I wish the church would at least put a footnote in the online edition with a correction. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765574566/Picturing-history-Hauns-Mill.html

 Primary manuals are quite old.  Have you tried using the feedback info to ask for a footnote addendum?  My memory from the last updating (90s?) were they were last changed and even with the process going to simpler manuals it took some time for the roll out to be complete.  Given this time they are rolling out a new way of teaching, teacher's council, more online material they need to be taught to use, etc., it could be a few more years.

You might want to include the point it is not just wrong, but out of correlation with other Church materials and could cause confusion.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

 Primary manuals are quite old.  Have you tried using the feedback info to ask for a footnote addendum?  My memory from the last updating (90s?) were they were last changed and even with the process going to simpler manuals it took some time for the roll out to be complete.  Given this time they are rolling out a new way of teaching, teacher's council, more online material they need to be taught to use, etc., it could be a few more years.

You might want to include the point it is not just wrong, but out of correlation with other Church materials and could cause confusion.

I went and filled out the feedback and requested a footnote. I think of all the teachers and the children who will be teaching and learning this lesson this month and it is not 100 percent accurate. It asks this question, 

  • Why didn’t Jacob Haun and the settlers at Haun’s Mill do what Joseph Smith told them to do? Point out that Jacob Haun knew what the Prophet said, but he thought he had a good reason for not doing it. He had worked hard to build his mill and the community around it, and he did not want to give them up. He thought he would be able to protect them. How might the tragedy at Haun’s Mill have been avoided?

This is my brother-in-laws ancestor with this account, "6 David Lewis, a Hawn’s Mill resident, believed Hawn purposely misrepresented Joseph Smith’s position and deliberately deceived community members. He wrote that Hawn “returned and said if we thought we could maintain the mill it was Joseph’s council for us to do so . . . and not to come to Farewest [sic] and we thought from the way the thing was represented it would be like cowards to leave and not try to maintain it . . . [and] we thought to guether [gather] up all our affects and leave our houses would be useless, for we did not know that it was Joseph’s decided council for us to do so.”27 Lewis’s statement is supported by Philo Dibble, who, although not a Hawn’s Mill resident, reported to have knowledge concerning the conversation between Hawn and Smith. “While I was at Far West,” he wrote, “Brother Joseph had sent word by Haun, who owned the mill, to inform the brethren who were living there to leave and come to Far West, but Mr. Haun did not deliver the message.”

Jacob Haun's actions and the settlers actions should be analyzed from two very different perspectives. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, bsjkki said:

It is the knowingly inaccurate information I have a problem with. The Deseret News article and historical journals show Haun did not tell people that Joseph counseled them to leave. 

"As difficulties between the Mormons and local Missourians escalated, the Prophet Joseph Smith counseled Haun to bring the Haun's Mill settlers to the relative safety of Far West, but Haun failed to do so. 

It is now thought that Haun did not inform the others of Joseph's counsel. On Oct. 30, 1838, a group of 240 locals attacked Haun's Mill, killing at least 17 men and boys."

So "they" may have not known to leave. It does matter to their descendants that the true account is taught.

Again, why would a primary child need, or want to hear this information. Their little eyes would just glass over, just before falling asleep. You say it has been corrected, in one place but not the other. So teach the information that is corrected...well, don't go into that kind of detail. Maybe in Gospel Doctine, I would speak of it, but children don't have any such an attention span. I am absolutely sure it would matter to their descendants, but you began with a correction in a primary book. So which is the concern?

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I cannot imagine why such information would need to be taught to children. What difference does such information make? The only lesson should be, they were told to admonished to leave, they didn't and 18 men and boys died, due to mob rule. That is like quibbling over the street number of the "Upper Room" for the "last supper". 

Yes, I am sure the street number is 42.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Again, why would a primary child need, or want to hear this information. Their little eyes would just glass over, just before falling asleep. You say it has been corrected, in one place but not the other. So teach the information that is corrected...well, don't go into that kind of detail. Maybe in Gospel Doctine, I would speak of it, but children don't have any such an attention span. I am absolutely sure it would matter to their descendants, but you began with a correction in a primary book. So which is the concern?

I tend to not lie to children. I tend to not want false information to be taught in primary. I don't want them to be taught that Jacob Haun (Hawn) was a member of the church when he wasn't and I don't want them to think those darn, disobedient settlers caused their own destruction. I also don't want very young primary teachers to teach false information and then later wonder how many other things they have been taught that were wrong. You say we should not teach this in primary but the primary manual teaches these things inaccurately...why do you not see a problem? I don't get it. 

I cannot imagine why such information would need to be taught to children. What difference does such information make? The only lesson should be, they were told to admonished to leave, they didn't and 18 men and boys died, due to mob rule. That is like quibbling over the street number of the "Upper Room" for the "last supper". 

This is unknowable information...the Haun's Mill information is known but in the manual has inaccurate information. I don't see how these things are similar. A proper narrative surrounding this instance should be important to everyone. I think Elder Holland has shown that correcting the details is important.

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Again, why would a primary child need, or want to hear this information. Their little eyes would just glass over, just before falling asleep. You say it has been corrected, in one place but not the other. So teach the information that is corrected...well, don't go into that kind of detail. Maybe in Gospel Doctine, I would speak of it, but children don't have any such an attention span. I am absolutely sure it would matter to their descendants, but you began with a correction in a primary book. So which is the concern?

So...without my being so defensive, you would let the teachers know the the manual is incorrect? 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:
31 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

That is like quibbling over the street number of the "Upper Room" for the "last supper". 

 

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is unknowable information...the Haun's Mill information is known but in the manual has inaccurate information. I don't see how these things are similar. A proper narrative surrounding this instance should be important to everyone. I think Elder Holland has shown that correcting the details is important.

Uh, you quoted me when you should have quoted Papa Lee on that street number thing.  I just responded lightheartedly that the street number was 42.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So...without my being so defensive, you would let the teachers know the the manual is incorrect? 

Well, I think I would, if I were the Primary President, which, thank goodness, I am not.

On the other hand, are the children in question going to remember this little detail?  And if they do, is it likely to damage their testimonies when they learn that Haun was not LDS?  I have my doubts about that.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I think I would, if I were the Primary President, which, thank goodness, I am not.

On the other hand, are the children in question going to remember this little detail?  And if they do, is it likely to damage their testimonies when they learn that Haun was not LDS?  I have my doubts about that.

Don't forget the teachers...they too learn while teaching. For many, this is their first calling as an adult. I don't think many of us can pinpoint when we learned many historical facts or gospel doctrines but they accumulate over time to knowledge about history and gospel doctrines that get shared and built upon. I want accurate foundations built on fully accurate sources (when possible). I don't think this faulty historical nugget will damage testimonies but it seems accuracy should be desired. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

So...without my being so defensive, you would let the teachers know the the manual is incorrect? 

I am not being defensive, I am being practical. I had four children and eight grandchildren in Primary, I am not even sure why this is in the Primary Book. Did you not say it has been corrected in one place, just not the other? As far as telling the "teachers", is this not one error in one book? 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I tend to not lie to children. I tend to not want false information to be taught in primary. I don't want them to be taught that Jacob Haun (Hawn) was a member of the church when he wasn't and I don't want them to think those darn, disobedient settlers caused their own destruction. 

Here is where you are losing me. You are trying to take something in error and turn it into a lie. By so doing establishing your moral high ground and calling other "liars", or at the very least "dishonorable". Why? I tend not to lie to children, I am not the teacher or the Primary President however. This is called, "planting the seed of doubt" and then "cultivating the seed of doubt", it is anti-Mormonism 101.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I am not being defensive, I am being practical. I had four children and eight grandchildren in Primary, I am not even sure why this is in the Primary Book. Did you not say it has been corrected in one place, just not the other? As far as telling the "teachers", is this not one error in one book? 

I was being defensive...not you. It is corrected on lds.org on a "history" page (nothing to do with Primary) and has been written about in the Deseret News and Church News. The official manual is now "inaccurate." 

 

17 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Here is where you are losing me. You are trying to take something in error and turn it into a lie. By so doing establishing your moral high ground and calling other "liars", or at the very least "dishonorable". Why? I tend not to lie to children, I am not the teacher or the Primary President however. This is called, "planting the seed of doubt" and then "cultivating the seed of doubt", it is anti-Mormonism 101.

It was an error and is still an error. The lie would come if I taught it because I know it is not true. I will probably link to an lds.org source and ask the teachers to read through it before teaching lesson #31 out of the Primary 5 manual and explain what historians had discovered. The whole story is fascinating (to me...but I'm weird that way.) I think I am trying to avoid "seeds of doubt" by not sharing inaccurate historical details at church.  

Link to comment

I should not have started looking  through the manual. How many faith promoting rumors can you find in this story? I did not know this account of  this story was in the Primary 5 manual. These manuals need an update.

"When the people of the Martin handcart company arrived at the Sweetwater River, they were very weak. They saw no way they could cross the river, which was deep and wide and very cold. All they could do was pray. Then three eighteen-year-old boys from the relief party came to their rescue. George W. Grant, David P. Kimball, and C. Allen Huntington plunged into the icy water and began carrying people across the river. They made many trips and carried almost the entire company across. The cold water caused health problems for the boys, and years later all three died from these health problems. When President Brigham Young heard what these three boys had done, he wept. He later said that this act alone would ensure the three young men places in the celestial kingdom."  http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3783&context=byusq  https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-10-number-2-2009/sweetwater-revisited-sour-notes-and-ways-learning

And this story: "An old man sitting in the classroom listened for a few moments and then spoke out, asking that the criticism be stopped. He said, “Mistake to send the Handcart Company out so late in the season? Yes. But I was in that company and my wife was in it. … We suffered beyond anything you can imagine and many died of exposure and starvation, but did you ever hear a survivor of that company utter a word of criticism? Not one of that company ever apostatized or left the Church, because everyone of us came through with the absolute knowledge that God lives for we became acquainted with him in our extremities [difficulties]." http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3772&context=byusq

I think the true stories of these events stand on their own and need no embellishment. While searching for references, I ran across many ex-mormons quoting these stories and claiming the church lied--I don't believe they were lies but faith promoting, embellished stories that were told for generations and everyone believed them. Kids are smart these days and we need to be accurate and not give them a reason to doubt because of embellished stories taught throughout their youth. 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I was being defensive...not you. It is corrected on lds.org on a "history" page (nothing to do with Primary) and has been written about in the Deseret News and Church News. The official manual is now "inaccurate." 

 

It was an error and is still an error. The lie would come if I taught it because I know it is not true. I will probably link to an lds.org source and ask the teachers to read through it before teaching lesson #31 out of the Primary 5 manual and explain what historians had discovered. The whole story is fascinating (to me...but I'm weird that way.) I think I am trying to avoid "seeds of doubt" by not sharing inaccurate historical details at church.  

Let me slow this down a moment. 99.9% of all members would not know that such an error exists. Therefore it is not a lie to believe that whatever outdated (or not updated) material is flawed. You are speaking of something that "might be" taught to children in Primary, which seems more like a note to the teacher for "class prep". In the beginning of almost every Church handbook for classes is a section for "teacher prep", it is usually something that is only meant to set the stage, if you will. As for this comment (or change) it is talking about to whomever the "deed" was issued and "if" the message was relayed by "Mr. Haun". I can only wonder at the amount of "quote mining" was undertaken for such a fine point to be found. "Quote Minning", by the way done by someone looking for any "error", and "flaw", and "shortcoming". Yes of course "if someone knew" and still taught this it would be a lie, for that person, not the "simple error" of the person who wrote the material.

So much of Church History comes from personal journals, of people who lived in and through our history as a Church. For instance, Wilford Woodruff, was a great source of Church History. Not to mention the foresight that he had while serving a mission to "copyright" the Wentworth Letters" the "Articles of Faith", and other materiel. Because so much information comes from personal journals, such as the "King Follet Discourse", there are always differences in how (say), Willford Woodruff, or Brigham Young, or John Taylor, or Parely P Pratt, might remember different events. I use these names are only to make the point, not OT also be in error. Just as there are such differences in the Gospels of "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John", not lies, just minor differences and memories. So if I, as a Gospel Doctrine teacher, a calling in which I served on and off for at least 25 years of my 38 in the Church. If I fail to mention every misplaced word, or difference in the four Gospels in every year I taught the New Testament, I am not lying, I am not committing a fraud, I am working within the time constraints of a 40 min class. I can see this minor point means a great deal to you, but wonder why it is of such a nature as to cause a crisis of conscience. "If" you are a Primary teacher or the Primary President, do what you think is best, and no teacher under any circumstance should ever lie, "EVER". 

The Prophet Joseph Smith once said, "Cling close to the bark of the tree, least reaching for the limbs ye fall". Now I believe I quoted this correctly, and it may have come from someone's journal, but if not, I am not lying. I believe he said it, I believe that when Truman Madson said it was something he taught, therefore I write and teaching it without fear of lying. Just as most of the world and America thinks that Abraham Lincoln said that "A house divided against itself cannot stand", when it was Jesus Christ who said it. But for those who say it was Lincoln, they are not lying. Anyway, enough said. 

Link to comment

Yes, I absolutely would give my teachers the correct information (and a link to the source).   And I would also show them the address in the manual where they are asked to write and inform the manual makers of errors.   (And I'd copy the bishop's counselor over primary and the bishop on the correction, in case someone wants to protest the facts or allege some kind of wrongness on the part of the PP pointing out the error.)

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I think I would, if I were the Primary President, which, thank goodness, I am not.

On the other hand, are the children in question going to remember this little detail?  And if they do, is it likely to damage their testimonies when they learn that Haun was not LDS?  I have my doubts about that.

They probably won't remember...by why not be truthful or absolute because it is just the right thing to do?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

They probably won't remember...by why not be truthful or absolute because it is just the right thing to do?

It is the right thing to do. I just wonder if Primary children and classes is the place to do it? If is in error, the Church should do it, and direct Primary Presidents to address it. A path that it would seem they are already on. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. But when the thread takes the direction that "he or she" (really did not take note) would not lie to children, suggests that most others would happily do so. At least for me this seemed an agenda driven thread, to cast doubt, not only on the topic, but judgement upon all who do not immediately take up the same course. Having never taught in Primary, I don't even know what age group "Primary 5" is? Does anyone here know what age group this is? 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

It is the right thing to do. I just wonder if Primary children and classes is the place to do it? If is in error, the Church should do it, and direct Primary Presidents to address it. A path that it would seem they are already on. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. But when the thread takes the direction that "he or she" (really did not take note) would not lie to children, suggests that most others would happily do so. At least for me this seemed an agenda driven thread, to cast doubt, not only on the topic, but judgement upon all who do not immediately take up the same course. Having never taught in Primary, I don't even know what age group "Primary 5" is? Does anyone here know what age group this is? 

I was wondering about the age group too.  I understand what you are saying.  Looking back..I wish that I had learned so much more of real history and doctrine...so that is where I am coming from.  Children first..always.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...