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

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It appears, from the pictures, that a little more than material from the essays was used.

Which is fine, IMO.  The teacher used the Priesthood ban topic to illustrate the purpose of the lesson:

 "To show class members that the Lord continues to guide the Church through revelation to latter-day prophets, seers, and revelators." 

I think the true history regarding the priesthood ban is a perfect example of this (bolded part above), don't you?

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by ALarson

[cinepro]

51 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I feel that members are starved for lessons such as the one described in the OP.  I'd like to hear cinepro's opinion on whether or not it was faith increasing....

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.

 

 

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The purpose of the lesson was not to dispel false notions.  The stated purpose was " To show class members that the Lord continues to guide the Church through revelation to latter-day prophets, seers, and revelators." 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-42-continuing-revelation-to-latter-day-prophets?lang=eng

And those modern prophets have refuted old justifications for the ban, which were apparently held by some who attended the class.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Within a 40 minute class period if the white board and surrounding wall space is plastered with text posters on what amounts to about 20 percent of the lesson's content, it's a reasonable conclusion.

 

Why though?  

We have repeatedly been told that we should not try to cover everything in the lesson and that it is acceptable to only cover one or two topics if that coverage is a good discussion and the Spirit is present.  That is one of the new focuses of Teaching the Savior's Way. 

So given that, how can knowing that the majority of the time was spent on 20% of the material, by itself, mean the lesson didn't accomplish the right goals?

 

[ALarson]

Just now, 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.

Fair enough 

But did it illustrate well what the purpose of the lesson was (posted in my post above)?  Or do you believe it failed?

[bluebell]

13 minutes 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.

 

 

From my perspective, any lesson, regardless of the topic, where the Spirit is present will increase faith.  And I don't think there is anything about the priesthood ban itself that would prohibit the Spirit from being present if it was being discussed.

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

History is a basis for many church lessons.  It should, however, not be the focus.  And yes, I do think that when history is being taught that it should be as accurate as possible.  But if obtaining that accuracy overshadows other aspects of the lesson then I think we have lost focus.

The stated purpose of the lesson in question was "To show class members that the Lord continues to guide the church through revelation to latter-day prophets, seers, and revelators."  (I'm assuming it was gospel doctrine lesson 42 being taught.)  While some background into the priesthood ban would be helpful, if that history becomes the dominant feature of the lesson then focus on the purpose of the lesson has been lost.

 

48 minutes 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.

 

38 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I said "if."  As I don't know the specifics of that particular class I was speaking in general terms. 

 

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Within a 40 minute class period if the white board and surrounding wall space is plastered with text posters on what amounts to about 20 percent of the lesson's content, it's a reasonable conclusion.

 

 

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why though?  

We have repeatedly been told that we should not try to cover everything in the lesson and that it is acceptable to only cover one or two topics if that coverage is a good discussion and the Spirit is present.  That is one of the new focuses of Teaching the Savior's Way. 

So given that, how can knowing that the majority of the time was spent on 20% of the material, by itself, mean the lesson didn't accomplish the right goals?

 

Please refer to the preceding posts.

What I identified as "a reasonable conclusion" was that the bulk (if not all) of the lesson time was spent on a fraction of the content. I said nothing about whether the lesson "accomplish[ed] the right goals." Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.

 

[bluebell]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

 

 

Please refer to the preceding posts.

What I identified as "a reasonable conclusion" was that the bulk (if not all) of the lesson time was spent on a fraction of the content I said nothing about whether the lesson "accomplish[ed] the right goals." Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.

 

I thought you were saying that because "the bulk (if not all) of the lesson time was spent on a fraction of the content", that's how you knew the lesson wasn't impressive.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[CA Steve]

Because somehow being over prepared and having too much material to cover in a short time is a bad thing.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I thought you were saying that because "the bulk (if not all) of the lesson time was spent on a fraction of the content", that's how you knew the lesson wasn't impressive.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

What I meant with my earlier posting is that a picture of posters on a white board is not impressive to me, especially if it is evident the bulk of the time was spent on a fraction of the content. Though that is sometimes advisable, I don't think it necessarily is and may in fact be an indication of inordinate focus. Hence, my remark that I was not impressed.

[jkwilliams]

35 minutes 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.

That seems to be the consensus among those who object to the lesson as given: spending an "inordinate" amount of lesson time on the origins of the ban and why it persisted wouldn't exactly "promote" faith or invite the spirit. Apparently, some people prefer to ignore difficult issues instead of confronting them and possibly leading toward a deeper, more grounded faith.

[CA Steve]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

That seems to be the consensus among those who object to the lesson as given: spending an "inordinate" amount of lesson time on the origins of the ban and why it persisted wouldn't exactly "promote" faith or invite the spirit. Apparently, some people prefer to ignore difficult issues instead of confronting them and possibly leading toward a deeper, more grounded faith.

That's the problem with objecting to the lesson based on it not being faith promoting. Evidently those most likely in the classroom to not find it faith promoting are the ones most in need of the lesson, those Cinepro mentioned that kept saying things like the blacks not being ready for the priesthood which have been corrected by church leaders. So if faith promotion is the final goal of any lesson, shouldn't a lesson that provides the most current leadership view on a subject be considered faith promoting? If someone's faith is based on incorrect principals, is it faith promoting to allow them to continue in that belief or is it faith promoting to provide correct principals?

[stemelbow]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, any lesson, regardless of the topic, where the Spirit is present will increase faith.  And I don't think there is anything about the priesthood ban itself that would prohibit the Spirit from being present if it was being discussed.

The biggest problem I have with this type of standard is the Spirit is present any time anyone feels it.  Its as possible for the Spirit to be present when a teacher goes on about Joseph's good and bad behavior when it came to polygamy, Brigham's Adam-God teachings, when false stories as told as truth (like so many in the manuals), or personal stories are shared that pertain to the lesson topic, or at any time for that matter.  While we put it on the teacher to make it happen, it can happen or not no matter what the teacher does, or prepares for.  When someone has the standard of the Spirit was present in order for a class to be good, that person is really just saying, "class works if I let it".  

Yesterday's anti-Mormonism is found in today's essays, which we're supposed to be able to use in our class lessons these days.  

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Which is fine, IMO.  The teacher used the Priesthood ban topic to illustrate the purpose of the lesson:

 "To show class members that the Lord continues to guide the Church through revelation to latter-day prophets, seers, and revelators." 

I think the true history regarding the priesthood ban is a perfect example of this (bolded part above), don't you?

 

I think it will help doubts if the church spells it out that prophets/leaders can make mistakes. Especially when they show that our church is so young compared to many other faiths and how they have histories stemming way back that weren't that great either. Humans are running churches and they get it wrong sometimes. 

[Bob Crockett]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

I'm with you on this.  Whereas I avoid HP lessons, happily, while serving in the YM's program for most of my adult life, at times I find myself there when I'm teaching early morning seminary.  I do not carry my burden of helping the instructors make it more interesting.  But I'm glad for the topics and reminders and for the simplicity of the gospel.  I'm happy and gratified to know that one does not need to know Greek to understand the New Testament, nor be a sociologist to understand Joseph Smith. 

I'd be super annoyed as a bishop to hear somebody's gone of the rails with a lesson like that.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm with you on this.  Whereas I avoid HP lessons, happily, while serving in the YM's program for most of my adult life, at times I find myself there when I'm teaching early morning seminary.  I do not carry my burden of helping the instructors make it more interesting.  But I'm glad for the topics and reminders and for the simplicity of the gospel.  I'm happy and gratified to know that one does not need to know Greek to understand the New Testament, nor be a sociologist to understand Joseph Smith. 

I'd be super annoyed as a bishop to hear somebody's gone of the rails with a lesson like that.

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

[cinepro]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, any lesson, regardless of the topic, where the Spirit is present will increase faith.  And I don't think there is anything about the priesthood ban itself that would prohibit the Spirit from being present if it was being discussed.

Obviously, if the lesson focuses on the revelatory aspects of the end of the ban, I can see moments where the Spirit might burn in the hearts of the class.

But as you can see, this lesson focused on helping class members try and understand how much we know (and don't know) about why we had the ban in the first place, and about how mistaken Church leaders and members were about why there was a ban.  We were discussing things that were taught in the Church for decades as policy and doctrine that weren't true (or at least are disavowed by the current leadership). 
 

I also might not be the best gauge for whether or not the Spirit was felt.  There may have been some raging racists in the room* who found the subject matter quite uplifting.

 

*obviously referring to remarks in the talk about racists in the Church, not the person giving the talk

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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

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

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, cinepro said:

But as you can see, this lesson focused on helping class members try and understand how much we know (and don't know) about why we had the ban in the first place, and about how mistaken Church leaders and members were about why there was a ban.  We were discussing things that were taught in the Church for decades as policy and doctrine that weren't true (or at least are disavowed by the current leadership). 

I'm not sure why the Spirit wouldn't be able to be present in that kind of a discussion.  The Spirit is supposed to confirm truth.  Learning more accurate information about a theological topic (such as the priesthood ban) seems like it would be right up the Spirit's alley.

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

When someone has the standard of the Spirit was present in order for a class to be good, that person is really just saying, "class works if I let it".  

Why?  I don't really understand what you are saying.  The Spirit is present when truth is presented, for example.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 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.

 

 

Which is why the focus in a Sunday School lesson should not be on the history of the ban, as it were (too much that is unknown), but rather, on the revelation that ended it. As outlined in the lesson manual, that is the focus, or one of the foci.

 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why?  I don't really understand what you are saying.  The Spirit is present when truth is presented, for example.

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 Nehor]

2 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.

 

 

Both could be true.  

[bluebell]

6 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.  

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.

[Jeanne]

Shoot.,,If I had a gospel doctrine class like this in the past..I would have ate this up..interesting..loving history...and something real to discuss.  Wow.  I think this is great.