"Priesthood Ban" in Gospel Doctrine - What Happens When a PhD Historian Teaches...

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Define truth?  The Spirit is present on an individual basis and its, of course, rather subjective.  What's true to you and thus invites the Spirit may not be for another, which other might find truth in a competing thought or proposition and thus feel the Spirit when you do not.  That's why, of course, we have different propositions held by Churches and groups who claim the Spirit's provenance.  

The Truth is available to all those that want it. We get to decide whether we accept what God has put out there as Truth.

[Ushuaia]

Cinepro, thanks for sharing!

As a non-Ph.D-holder and a non-historian (but as a very interested Mormon), I am impressed with the courage of the teacher to talk about hard things.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm talking about truth as in something that's accurate.  When it comes to historical data, truth isn't relative (though it is often difficult to discern).  There doesn't seem to be any reason that the spirit could not be present during a discussion that focus's on the history of the priesthood ban. 

And I disagree the reason that we have different church's is because the Spirit just confirms what we personally agree with.  That's not what the scriptures teach the Spirit does and it hasn't been my experience with the Spirit.  But that's a different discussion than the OP I think.

I didn't say the spirit just confirms what we personally agree with.  But it does turn out, oddly enough, that the spirit's workings on man has certainly not proven to be foolproof...and as it turns out, in comparison to God we are all just a bundle of fools.  

I mentioned the deplorable manuals because often they teach things as true, like in history, but the stories have been shown to be not true.  And yet, as it turns out, I'd go ahead and offer a splitting of hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge and a pumpkin for a beetle for anyone who thinks that some Mormon didn't walk away having felt the Spirit when the false stories were told.  

But as I suggested, and it seems you disagree with, the Spirit is felt by many people in many situations confirming, often, many contradicting "truths".  

 

[bsjkki]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you mean to imply by this that there is not?

The only manual, that I know of, that specifically refers to the essays is the Teaching the Saviors Way manual. Maybe seminary too. I have not seen them referenced in the Come Follow Me lessons but I don’t teach from them so... I know many are still unaware they exist.

[rongo]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

It's a fair point (and when I teach, I'm always very aware of those goals.)  I certainly don't think we need 48 lessons each year that go into this kind of depth.

But maybe it's not a bad thing to cover this specific subject with a little more rigor once every four years in the class about "Church History".  In the past, it may have been well and good to give the Hallmark-card version of this lesson, but based on the comments from different class members, this is a subject that continues to be brought up by non-LDS in conversations about the Church, and it might not be a bad thing for LDS to be prepared with the best information. 

I'm not sure that teaching Paul Reeve's version of this as a gospel doctrine lesson is a good thing, either (I think you or someone else indicated that all of her quotes came from this book). The topic is a lot bigger than just this, and if we're going to try to teach a rigorous version of this, it shouldn't just be one unique take. This isn't the only instance I'm aware of where a teacher reads someone's book and teaches exclusively from that. I don't think that's a good thing. 

What Reeve didn't address in his essay (he's supposed to be the actual author of the Gospel Topics essay), and which is the 800 pound gorilla in the living room, is: what do we do with prophetic statements when they are later disavowed? To cover the board with cards with quotes pounding away at how wrong past prophetic statements were is one thing (that appeared to be the lesson some are ga-ga over), but then what are the implications of that (both looking back and looking forward and in the present)? We still look at the pre-existence as impacting mortality in positive ways (Abraham 3, foreordination, Alma 13, etc.). What effect does disavowing statements that tie mortality to the pre-existence have on selectively using these scriptures for things that don't involve race? The Reeve-ian / Darius Gray approach also dismisses many other statements out of hand that undercut the argument that this was all Brigham Young's fault (e.g., Zebedee Coltrin, Abraham Smoot, etc.). Shouldn't these statements also be considered and factored in in an ostensible rigorous treatment? 

The gospel topics essays are not "shovel ready" for teaching or discussing --- they still have large holes and gaps. They are a start, and are better than nothing, but it would be even better if we had prophets, seers, and revelators weighing in and sharing their thoughts and insights on these significant issues. They are purposely silent, choosing to let third parties speak anonymously for them, and thus avoid getting dirtied by the fray (and possibly have to be "disavowed" in the future). 

I've been know for teaching "meaty" lessons when I have been a teacher, but I don't like this lesson as it has been represented. I think it pushed a specific agenda that is by no means settled, and in fact, has significant counterpoints that are purposely not considered.  

Edited November 20, 2017 by rongo

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That's why there should be curriculum that covers the essays.

No.  I guess on that argument one should say that we ought to spend ten years going through the essays in the Encyclopedia.  

[rongo]

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm not sure that teaching Paul Reeve's version of this as a gospel doctrine lesson is a good thing, either (I think you or someone else indicated that all of her quotes came from this book). The topic is a lot bigger than just this, and if we're going to try to teach a rigorous version of this, it shouldn't just be one unique take. This isn't the only instance I'm aware of where a teacher reads someone's book and teaches exclusively from that. I don't think that's a good thing. 

What Reeve didn't address in his essay (he's supposed to be the actual author of the Gospel Topics essay), and which is the 800 pound gorilla in the living room, is: what do we do with prophetic statements when they are later disavowed? To cover the board with cards with quotes pounding away at how wrong past prophetic statements were is one thing (that appeared to be the lesson some are ga-ga over), but then what are the implications of that (both looking back and looking forward and in the present)? We still look at the pre-existence as impacting mortality in positive ways (Abraham 3, foreordination, Alma 13, etc.). What effect does disavowing statements that tie mortality to the pre-existence have on selectively using these scriptures for things that don't involve race? The Reeve-ian / Darius Gray approach also dismisses many other statements out of hand that undercut the argument that this was all Brigham Young's fault (e.g., Zebedee Coltrin, Abraham Smoot, etc.). Shouldn't these statements also be considered and factored in in an ostensible rigorous treatment? 

The gospel topics essays are not "shovel ready" for teaching or discussing --- they still have large holes and gaps. They are a start, and are better than nothing, but it would be even better if we had prophets, seers, and revelators weighing in and sharing their thoughts and insights on these significant issues. They are purposely silent, choosing to let third parties speak anonymously for them, and thus avoid getting dirtied by the fray (and possibly have to be "disavowed" in the future). 

I've been know for teaching "meaty" lessons when I have been a teacher, but I don't like this lesson as it has been represented. I think it pushed a specific agenda that is by no means settled, and in fact, has significant counterpoints that are purposely not considered.  

I'll also add (and ask cinepro): what lifelines were offered for those with little background knowledge or with a very traditional bent? Was this just an exultant "Here's a full-dose of Paul Reeve ---- now swallow it, and like it!"? Can we get more detail about how the teacher handled questions and responses from students who didn't like the information? Trying to give a lot of quotes to prove that the prophets were very, very wrong about this is harmful and worse than the poor treatment of the past if we don't offer concrete explanations for why prophets are dependable. I think the pooh-poohing of, say the 1949 First Presidency letter (they were wrong, prophets aren't infallible, the Church in 2017 has disavowed this so it doesn't matter any more) have been totally inadequate. I'm guessing she didn't address any of this, huh?

I can tell you that being upfront with the class that her entire lesson came from "Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness" would have significantly taken a lot of wind out of her sails. I mean, that's one perspective (probably not a perspective that should be pounded in a gospel doctrine class), but, goodness gracious. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by rongo

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

Then why say anything?  Obviously, some people were impressed and wanted to discuss it.  Was it your intent to simply rain on their parade?  Look "smarter"?  What, exactly?

The last time I checked, one can contribute to a discussion by sharing his or her opinion on the topic, no?

Edited November 20, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[cinepro]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'll also add (and ask cinepro): what lifelines were offered for those with little background knowledge or with a very traditional bent? Was this just an exultant "Here's a full-dose of Paul Reeve ---- now swallow it, and like it!"? Can we get more detail about how the teacher handled questions and responses from students who didn't like the information? 

I can tell you that being upfront with the class that her entire lesson came from "Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness" would have significantly taken a lot of wind out of her sails. I mean, that's one perspective (probably not a perspective that should be pounded in a gospel doctrine class), but, goodness gracious. 

The emphasis was on the Gospel Topics essay (and if I recall, the last thing they did was encourage anyone who still had questions to read that essay first.)  I guess I should have explained that she put up all the papers on the wall at the start of the lesson and not all of them were discussed.  

Honestly, there just wasn't enough time to do it justice; there were a ton of comments and the teacher did a great job allowing people to share their thoughts without letting them ramble on. 

The most frustrating thing were some of the older people who presented their comments as if they were the wise one coming down from the mountain, ready to blow our minds with their deep insight, but then just gave some version of "The black people in the 1960s just weren't ready for the Preisthood" (i.e. we were doing them a favor by protecting them from the responsibility of priesthood service or Temple covenants) or "The Church members weren't ready for it, so it was our fault..."  

 

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by cinepro

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

What would impress you with respect to a lesson on the lifting of the priesthood ban? How should it be taught from your perspective?

 

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  What did she get wrong?

I think Rongo has already addressed my primary concern, specifically the section I've bolded below:

Quote

I'm not sure that teaching Paul Reeve's version of this as a gospel doctrine lesson is a good thing, either (I think you or someone else indicated that all of her quotes came from this book). The topic is a lot bigger than just this, and if we're going to try to teach a rigorous version of this, it shouldn't just be one unique take. This isn't the only instance I'm aware of where a teacher reads someone's book and teaches exclusively from that. I don't think that's a good thing. 

 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

I think Rongo has already addressed my primary concern, specifically the section I've bolded below:

 

Where would you suggest teaching about this topic?  (Sincere question...)

In our ward we have devoted some 5th Sunday discussions to the different essay topics and these have gone well.  However, the time allowed is still not nearly enough to cover all of the material.  

We gave out a lot of references for additional reading (including printing and handing out the essays).  However, I don't know how many actually followed up with more reading and studying.  

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

In your opinion. Given you don't know the circumstances or the specifics of the class, I can't imagine how you can make a blanket statement.

So you disapprove of any response other than unalloyed approval.

Got it.

Question: wouldn't unalloyed approval qualify as a "blanket statement?"

[rongo]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Where would you suggest teaching about this topic?  (Sincere question...)

In our ward we have devoted some 5th Sunday discussions to the different essay topics and these have gone well.  However, the time allowed is still not nearly enough to cover all of the material.  

We gave out a lot of references for additional reading (including printing and handing out the essays).  However, I don't know how many actually followed up with more reading and studying.  

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. 

I discuss some of these holes and gaps in the essays, because they are concerns for good people, and they are completely not addressed in the essays, or by approaches that seek to shrug off the ban as a big mistake that was not God's will. There are a significant number of people in the Church, active people (many of whom are the elderly that cinepro found to be "frustrating" and "wise ones coming down from the mountain") for whom this approach is wholly inadequate and upsetting, and a cavalier approach with a simpering smirk saying "we're the new wave, deal with it! In a generation or two, your ilk will be stamped out!" is a travesty. We will be missing a lot in the Church in terms of experience, commitment, and wisdom when these generations pass on, and the current youngsters are running the show. 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. 

I completely agree and readily acknowledge that members need to do their own studying (especially now that the church is attempting to put out more information on some of the more troubling topics).  

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I discuss some of these holes and gaps in the essays, because they are concerns for good people, and they are completely not addressed in the essays, or by approaches that seek to shrug off the ban as a big mistake that was not God's will. There are a significant number of people in the Church, active people (many of whom are the elderly that cinepro found to be "frustrating" and "wise ones coming down from the mountain") for whom this approach is wholly inadequate and upsetting, and a cavalier approach with a simpering smirk saying "we're the new wave, deal with it! In a generation or two, your ilk will be stamped out!" is a travesty. We will be missing a lot in the Church in terms of experience, commitment, and wisdom when these generations pass on, and the current youngsters are running the show. 

I agree (and I like how you discuss issues with your ward members too...our Bishop does this as well).

[Hamba Tuhan]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where would you suggest teaching about this topic?  (Sincere question...)

Equally sincere answer: I don't have any issue whatsoever with this topic being discussed at church. My concern, as I'd hoped to make clear, is this: this is a large, complex topic. The data are all over the place. I'm absolutely certain that I could have filled a board with quotes that would have led the class in a completely different direction, pointing to a different conclusion. That people in the Church have reached different conclusions on this topic is not (necessarily) a function of some being more historically informed than others. There is room within this topic for people to reach a host of equally valid conclusions. I personally don't like it when a person uses 'history' to guide others to his/her own preferred understanding.

[jkwilliams]

36 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

So you disapprove of any response other than unalloyed approval.

Got it.

Question: wouldn't unalloyed approval qualify as a "blanket statement?"

So, what’s your opinion of this lesson? Are such lessons appropriate in a Gospel Doctrine class?

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

So you disapprove of any response other than unalloyed approval.

Got it.

Question: wouldn't unalloyed approval qualify as a "blanket statement?"

Um, no. You have it exactly wrong. 

Edited November 21, 2017 by ttribe

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

No.  I guess on that argument one should say that we ought to spend ten years going through the essays in the Encyclopedia.  

The church is losing thousands because of the hidden truth, coming out with the truth is not going to be worse. It may keep many in the church. I don't know that it will take ten years, but I do think it should be interspersed with different subjects.

[trim]

I taught lesson 42 (Continuing Revelation) this Sunday as well. To be honest, I shared a great deal more than what was captured in the opening post. The manual opens the opportunity to discuss the process that President Kimball went through before receiving this revelation. Kimball confided to F. Burton Howard that he had been praying about the issue of extending Priesthood to the African lineage for 15 years (that was in 1976). I traced the history of Kimball's association with the developments and attitudes around the Priesthood restriction from the David O. McKay era up through 1978. The spirit was strong as the class came to feel the long and difficult struggle that accompanied the revelation. Understanding the context and history is a powerful way to appreciate the magnitude of the event. I had many class members express gratitude for the insights and discussion that we had.

I agree with the many opinions shared here, that adult members crave this knowledge and benefit greatly from lessons that fill our minds as well as our spirits.

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, trim said:

I taught lesson 42 (Continuing Revelation) this Sunday as well. To be honest, I shared a great deal more than what was captured in the opening post. The manual opens the opportunity to discuss the process that President Kimball went through before receiving this revelation. Kimball confided to F. Burton Howard that he had been praying about the issue of extending Priesthood to the African lineage for 15 years (that was in 1976). I traced the history of Kimball's association with the developments and attitudes around the Priesthood restriction from the David O. McKay era up through 1978. The spirit was strong as the class came to feel the long and difficult struggle that accompanied the revelation. Understanding the context and history is a powerful way to appreciate the magnitude of the event. I had many class members express gratitude for the insights and discussion that we had.

I agree with the many opinions shared here, that adult members crave this knowledge and benefit greatly from lessons that fill our minds as well as our spirits.

One thing I like about the LDS church is that in the past they never segregated blacks in our church. They all attended together. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

So, what’s your opinion of this lesson? Are such lessons appropriate in a Gospel Doctrine class?

Yes and no.

The topic is appropriate for discussion.  Cramming it into an always time-crunched Sunday school class in a limited time is sure to prevent any real discussion or understanding.
And probably ensures that the teacher's opinion on events is the only one expressed.

But I'm sure the instructor enjoyed getting to give the class a download of their expertise.
I personally think the Church should provide forums for teaching things like this in detail over a reasonable amount of time.  I do think the Church needs to teach its doctrine and history much more thoroughly than it does to its average members.  Not sure this was the best attempt or time to do it.

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

Frankly, if anyone in the Church finds a discussion of the Priesthood Ban "faith increasing", then either they're in the wrong Church or I am.

 

 

You are not in the wrong.

[sunstoned]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Looks like a gospel hobbyist with an advanced degree. Ho-hum.

 

To me it sounds like a professional setting straight the correlated, whitewashed pap that often times passes for lessons.

[kiwi57]

43 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

You are not in the wrong.

I find that the more I learn about any topic, the more "faith increasing" it is.

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

So, what’s your opinion of this lesson? Are such lessons appropriate in a Gospel Doctrine class?

I don't really have an opinion of the lesson, because I wasn't there for it. I'm just not quite ready to gush with admiration over it.