A light in the darkness for anti-correlation-ites?

[kimchicoug]

Search for a series of posts called "an uncorrelated history of correlation" on a blog called by common consent.

I've finally finished the article and it is very good and compelling (but don't worry everyone, I made sure to read it "critically"). I echo my thanks. To be honest, I wish they would've just let the author speak and not had the interview format with the BCC guy. The BCC seemed to interject more personal feelings than Daymon.

The Correlation part was definitely interesting and has me thinking; however, I don't think it was as painful for me as it could've been because I spent a lot of time researching the life and journals of Moses Thatcher. He is in my family and we still have the need/desire to defend the good Apostle. So I've learned a lot of the back history up until Correlation and the Correlation parts match what I've already suspected and learned to deal with. The article helped me bridge the gap which was very helpful.

Anyway, I have many questions and thoughts, but I will need to chew on them for awhile. There is only one question I have for everyone: was being homosexual or having homosexual tendencies more accepted or at least tolerated before Correlation? If there wasn't an "ideal Mormon" who had the "correct Mind", were they more excepting of those who were LGTB?

[Pheidippides]

I've finally finished the article and it is very good and compelling (but don't worry everyone, I made sure to read it "critically"). I echo my thanks. To be honest, I wish they would've just let the author speak and not had the interview format with the BCC guy. The BCC seemed to interject more personal feelings than Daymon.

The Correlation part was definitely interesting and has me thinking; however, I don't think it was as painful for me as it could've been because I spent a lot of time researching the life and journals of Moses Thatcher. He is in my family and we still have the need/desire to defend the good Apostle. So I've learned a lot of the back history up until Correlation and the Correlation parts match what I've already suspected and learned to deal with. The article helped me bridge the gap which was very helpful.

Anyway, I have many questions and thoughts, but I will need to chew on them for awhile. There is only one question I have for everyone: was being homosexual or having homosexual tendencies more accepted or at least tolerated before Correlation? If there wasn't an "ideal Mormon" who had the "correct Mind", were they more excepting of those who were LGTB?

I had the same thought - clearly the interviewer had read the dissertation and knew the background but I found myself wishing he'd let Daymon thresh out the information as he is the expert. A minor quibble, true.

I don't have an answer to your question, however. Certainly there is the tale of Joseph Fielding Smith (not the prophet; the patriarch) who was gay but was removed from office quietly. This was in the 1950s IIRC. Quinn has a lot to say about this in some of his works but I haven't read those ones and am a bit skeptical because of a potential agenda there. But that may be a place to start at least. I think his main work on it is called Same Sex Dynamics in 19th Century Mormonism or something like that.

[Omaha 680]

We visited my in-laws' ward in Rancho Santa Margarita today and the Bishop gave a short presentation on this pilot program. My FIL snagged a few of the draft manuals for us to look through. I like them. If this is adopted church-wide, showing up and reading from the manual for an entire lesson won't be an option.

[DU Ute]

I taught what I felt was a great lesson in EQ today and only read one short paragraph from the manual.

[pellegrino]

I actually remember this conference talk and I remember discussing it in a PEC meeting some years afterward. The consensus then was that that's teachers were to stick to the manual, and not stray from it. Just a few years ago when I was in a SS presidency, the bishop and his counselors referenced this talk and "invited" us as a presidency to make sure our teachers were using only the manuals.

Now, I think there are plenty of people who are practical and take the approach that you suggested, but that's not really what Oaks is saying and that's not how people I've heard reference this talk have understood it, either.

Just received the following note from the primary presidency:

Dear Teachers,

The wireless internet at the church is now fully functional throughout the building. It can be now easily accessed for lessons. The password is Pioneer47. Please use only church approved materials to enhance your lessons. Here are some great websites to use:

https://www.lds.org/service/serving-...imary?lang=eng
www.lds.org
www.mormonchannel.org
www.mormon.org

Enjoy!

Sincerely,
Primary Presidency

why is it we Mormons love our manuals so much?

[Moliere]

Just received the following note from the primary presidency:



why is it we Mormons love our manuals so much?

I prefer to drive a manual, but that's a discussion for another thread....

On a somewhat serious note (it's a true story but a funny one) when I was a primary teacher back in good ole WVC our primary presidency was making a huge push for teachers to only use pictures of Christ that portrayed him as a real person (meaning no cartoonish type drawings). I can't remember the reason, but I do remember that from that day forward I had to conceal my use of the BoM cartoon storybook, which oddly enough is published by teh church.

[Katy Lied]

I taught the Samson lesson in primary yesterday. The lesson cautioned me to only relate events in Samson's life that showed him triumphing over the Philistines. The lesson linked to the Lion, to Delilah, and to the razing of the temple, but not to the Honeybees, the wedding bet, Samson's lust for bad girls, his quick temper, etc. The bible itself gives us no information on any of the court cases and issues handed down by Samson, and something I am most curious about, how did Samson manage to segregate his life so that he could continuously lie with foreign prostitutes, kill people at will, drink, touch dead bodies, and foment sabotage and rebellion, while at the same time serve as the highest judge in the land for 20 years?

Anyway, if you use just the verses referenced in the lesson manual, the story gets disjointed and confusing. What was the significance of the lion kill when you don't discuss the honeybees and the wedding? What was it about Delilah that Samson would choose to give into her beguilement four times in a row, when you don't talk about Samson's preference for loose philistine whores? Samson seems to break every rule of being a Nazarite- he threw drinking parties, stripped dead bodies of belongings breaking the rule against touching a dead body (never mind the jaw of a freshly diseased ass). Without all this background, we just feel sorry for Samson that he was tricked by an utterly evil woman, when it was Samson slowly breaking every vow that his father made for him as a Nazarite. So when the lesson (correctly) tells us that Samson's hair removal was a sign that he had broken his commitment with God, which destroyed his power, rather than his power being in the physical length of his hair, it is not a logical conclusion.

[Bo Diddley]

I taught the Samson lesson in primary yesterday. The lesson cautioned me to only relate events in Samson's life that showed him triumphing over the Philistines. The lesson linked to the Lion, to Delilah, and to the razing of the temple, but not to the Honeybees, the wedding bet, Samson's lust for bad girls, his quick temper, etc. The bible itself gives us no information on any of the court cases and issues handed down by Samson, and something I am most curious about, how did Samson manage to segregate his life so that he could continuously lie with foreign prostitutes, kill people at will, drink, touch dead bodies, and foment sabotage and rebellion, while at the same time serve as the highest judge in the land for 20 years?

Anyway, if you use just the verses referenced in the lesson manual, the story gets disjointed and confusing. What was the significance of the lion kill when you don't discuss the honeybees and the wedding? What was it about Delilah that Samson would choose to give into her beguilement four times in a row, when you don't talk about Samson's preference for loose philistine whores? Samson seems to break every rule of being a Nazarite- he threw drinking parties, stripped dead bodies of belongings breaking the rule against touching a dead body (never mind the jaw of a freshly diseased ass). Without all this background, we just feel sorry for Samson that he was tricked by an utterly evil woman, when it was Samson slowly breaking every vow that his father made for him as a Nazarite. So when the lesson (correctly) tells us that Samson's hair removal was a sign that he had broken his commitment with God, which destroyed his power, rather than his power being in the physical length of his hair, it is not a logical conclusion.

Wait. What? Spoiler alert!

[Jeff Lebowski]

I taught the Samson lesson in primary yesterday. The lesson cautioned me to only relate events in Samson's life that showed him triumphing over the Philistines. The lesson linked to the Lion, to Delilah, and to the razing of the temple, but not to the Honeybees, the wedding bet, Samson's lust for bad girls, his quick temper, etc. The bible itself gives us no information on any of the court cases and issues handed down by Samson, and something I am most curious about, how did Samson manage to segregate his life so that he could continuously lie with foreign prostitutes, kill people at will, drink, touch dead bodies, and foment sabotage and rebellion, while at the same time serve as the highest judge in the land for 20 years?

Anyway, if you use just the verses referenced in the lesson manual, the story gets disjointed and confusing. What was the significance of the lion kill when you don't discuss the honeybees and the wedding? What was it about Delilah that Samson would choose to give into her beguilement four times in a row, when you don't talk about Samson's preference for loose philistine whores? Samson seems to break every rule of being a Nazarite- he threw drinking parties, stripped dead bodies of belongings breaking the rule against touching a dead body (never mind the jaw of a freshly diseased ass). Without all this background, we just feel sorry for Samson that he was tricked by an utterly evil woman, when it was Samson slowly breaking every vow that his father made for him as a Nazarite. So when the lesson (correctly) tells us that Samson's hair removal was a sign that he had broken his commitment with God, which destroyed his power, rather than his power being in the physical length of his hair, it is not a logical conclusion.

"Hold my beer." -- Pope Alexander VI