Changing ordinances

[ERCougar]

Apparently conceding all the other issues, ERC suggests that by saying if someone is saddened by silence in SS that someone should either say something or not complain I am attempting to squelch discussion here. JIC seconds the notion, referring to my 'protestations' against posting this sort of issue here.

So as doctors can we assume that you would both agree that if someone comes in and says "it hurts every time I stick my finger in my eye ball" you should avoid pointing out the obvious solution because you wouldn't want to squelch self-reporting?

I am not (let me repeat, NOT) putting this on EJ, as he has explained himself further in this thread. But let's also be clear: just as anyone is free to complain about the church or some aspect of it here (and does anyone feel like they are not permitted to do so?) so anyone else, even me, can offer a contrary POV.

You're just begging for those four eye rolls, aren't you?

I can't imagine a more uninteresting point of discussion, but I'm bored, so what the heck? The doctor analogy isn't very good for obvious reasons--there is no other solution than to stop sticking your finger in your eyeball. How's this one? Your friend comes to you and complains that his boss always wears a watch that doesn't match his belt. It's not that big of a deal, he's not going to quit his job, he just can't imagine why a guy who can obviously afford to upgrade his wardrobe doesn't do it. However, his boss is very sensitive about things like this, so it probably isn't very wise to say something to him. What's your response? "Either say something to him or stop complaining? I don't want to hear it."

We're completely belaboring this point, since you obviously haven't stopped EJ from discussing things here. The larger point is that it often isn't productive to try to fix everything. Some things don't necessarily need fixing, and the lack of deep discussion over peripheral doctrinal issues in sunday school may be one of those things, particularly when outlets like this exist, where participation is completely voluntary.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Indeed. If one of this historically educated on her cares to refute the point I'm all ears, but my own reading makes it hard for me to come to any conclusion other than the temple in it's inception was all about polygamy and specifically the concealment thereof by JS.

Interesting theory. Please elaborate.

[creekster]

Your is a different perspective, but I think it is also a cop out....sorry no offense. Is having a lesson as presented by the current manual really a spiritual experience for most? I would say no. In fact, I would say that we have been predisposed to think it is a spiritual experience when in fact it is simply a facade (not sure if that is the right word) put on to make people feel comfortable. This goes back to a thread I started a while back about feeling the spirit and being comfortable and how can one know the difference. I think it's a complicated issue but I doubt many people really are having consistent spiritual experiences in GD class. I know I'm not, but yes I do have them but they are not consistent.

How on earth could you possibly know that 'most' or even 'many' people arent having a spiritual experience when they say they are? Are they having 'consistent' spiritual experiences? that would vary widely, from class to class, but it certainly doesn't undermine LAUte's point, which is that his bishopric's goal, and it is a good one from my simpleton, CB-esque POV, is to promote an environment that allows for spiritual experiences. SHeesh, what facade builders.

I'm not expecting an indepth look into the symbolism of Isaiah . . .

Why not? we have gotten that in our ward in the past.

[ERCougar]

You aren't squelching it, you are just giving the standard CB answer of "if you don't like it then leave."

By "sadden" I meant to imply that I think we miss out on a lot more spiritual and thought provoking discussion in church teachings. This is not a new thought to this board but is instead one that I'm not coming to realize. I'll continue to do my part to put in my $0.02 and opinions where I want during GD but those won't always be well received, which is another thing I need to learn to live with.

Let's just say that four years ago I was the type of member that poopooed the people that skipped GD class. Now I understand, at least for some, the reason that they skip that class.

I'm not sure you need to feel obligated to offer you $.02 on controversial subjects. There are all kinds of people in Gospel Doctrine, from pelagius to UD to Solon to Tex to your average CBer. The only thing all of these people have in common is hopefully that they all want to leave a little better than when they come. Discussing the history of ordinance changes may be really interesting to you, but it very well may not be to the rest of the class, and may even distract from their original point of attending. So really, out of respect for everyone in the room, it may be best just to bite your tongue, as long as something completely outlandish isn't said.

I spent a year in a really progressive student ward. I remember one week in which all of the talks in sacrament meeting were on women's issues in the church. A quote from one of the speakers (picture teary-eyed voice): "I have faith that the church will catch up on these issues. We just have to wait in faith." We then all dismissed to SS, and then to Priesthood, at which point 5 or 6 sisters remained sitting through all of the priesthood meetings. (Keep in mind that this was 1992.) We were constantly getting off on the interet-du-jour of the very bright and educated GD teacher, occasionally interesting, occasionally just too obscure for me to know what he was talking about. I can't imagine what this poor volunteer Bishop had to deal with each week.

Sure, these women needed a forum to vent--but is Sacrament Meeting the proper venue? The beauty of the internet is that it allows voluntary participation, and doesn't force everyone in the room to indulge your particular interest.

Correlation isn't all that bad. Be careful what you wish for.

[Sullyute]

Indeed. If one of this historically educated on her cares to refute the point I'm all ears, but my own reading makes it hard for me to come to any conclusion other than the temple in it's inception was all about polygamy and specifically the concealment thereof by JS.

I would definitely not consider myself historically educated compared to most on this board, but I assume that you are talking specifically about the endowment in the Nauvoo Temple. The Kirtland temple did not have the endowmnet (there were washings and annoiting type ordinances performed).

I am not sure what revelations came first, the commandment to build the Temple (in Kirtland) or the hints at polygamy. I would have to search the D&C to know for sure. Interesting stuff...

[creekster]

You're just begging for those four eye rolls, aren't you?

I can't imagine a more uninteresting point of discussion, but I'm bored, so what the heck? The doctor analogy isn't very good for obvious reasons--there is no other solution than to stop sticking your finger in your eyeball. How's this one? Your friend comes to you and complains that his boss always wears a watch that doesn't match his belt. It's not that big of a deal, he's not going to quit his job, he just can't imagine why a guy who can obviously afford to upgrade his wardrobe doesn't do it. However, his boss is very sensitive about things like this, so it probably isn't very wise to say something to him. What's your response? "Either say something to him or stop complaining? I don't want to hear it."

We're completely belaboring this point, since you obviously haven't stopped EJ from discussing things here. The larger point is that it often isn't productive to try to fix everything. Some things don't necessarily need fixing, and the lack of deep discussion over peripheral doctrinal issues in sunday school may be one of those things, particularly when outlets like this exist, where participation is completely voluntary.

Sorry, my analogy is better. EJ's original complaint was fully within his control. He is saddened because no one speaks up. So speak up! Take your finger out of your eye.

Thanks for acknowledging that I have neither attempted to nor succeeded in stopping EJ from discussing it. That was never my intent.

[creekster]

I'm not sure you need to feel obligated to offer you $.02 on controversial subjects. There are all kinds of people in Gospel Doctrine, from pelagius to UD to Solon to Tex to your average CBer. The only thing all of these people have in common is hopefully that they all want to leave a little better than when they come. Discussing the history of ordinance changes may be really interesting to you, but it very well may not be to the rest of the class, and may even distract from their original point of attending. So really, out of respect for everyone in the room, it may be best just to bite your tongue, as long as something completely outlandish isn't said.

I spent a year in a really progressive student ward. I remember one week in which all of the talks in sacrament meeting were on women's issues in the church. A quote from one of the speakers (picture teary-eyed voice): "I have faith that the church will catch up on these issues. We just have to wait in faith." We then all dismissed to SS, and then to Priesthood, at which point 5 or 6 sisters remained sitting through all of the priesthood meetings. (Keep in mind that this was 1992.) We were constantly getting off on the interet-du-jour of the very bright and educated GD teacher, occasionally interesting, occasionally just too obscure for me to know what he was talking about. I can't imagine what this poor volunteer Bishop had to deal with each week.

Sure, these women needed a forum to vent--but is Sacrament Meeting the proper venue? The beauty of the internet is that it allows voluntary participation, and doesn't force everyone in the room to indulge your particular interest.

Correlation isn't all that bad. Be careful what you wish for.

I think there is wisdom here. But there is a line to walk and it can be walked carefully and successfully.

[Pheidippides]

Interesting theory. Please elaborate.

Caveat: I'm not sure affirmatively do believe this to be clear, but its a possibility that has some persuasion It's more complicated than I can easily type out on my phone, but here are some things that I am referring to:

1. JS had ideas about polygamy by 1831. The church was organized a year earlier.

2. The first polyg union by JS was around 1832.

3. Significant missionary efforts were made during the early years to covert members of a polyg-practicing group in NE - I am forgetting the name.

4. The temple ceremony was originally administered to men only and only to those that had been initiated into JS' doctrine of polyg. The number that receives it were very few and eventually became the council of 50. This was a secret (from other members) group that was influential in counsel to JS - even moreso than the 12 by some accounts.

5. JS actively preached against polyg for the time he was practicing it.

6. The garment was considered to be a reminder of the covenant not to disclose. On the night JS was martyred he had removed his. Some commentators - not sure if they are trustworthy or not - believe this to be a sign of regret about the polyg doctrine.

7. Section 132 was not included in the D&C until the 1850s. BY claimed that Emma burned the original copy.

There's a lot more than that (I've ignored the early versions of the ceremony and such, as well as a hundred other things). I realize the above is very disjointed and probably doesn't logically connect the dots. Best I can do on my phone without source material. And I want to be clear that I am not saying the theory is definitively the case. I am saying that it's something that has struck me. I have to do much more reading, some of which is to refute/support sources I consider to be dubious.

What is clear is that the early days of the church and the history thereof is much more entwined in polygamy than I was ever taught or led to believe as a kid/college student. I am a bit angry that my seminary and BYU religion classes were whitewashed, as I feel our history is now. And that is why I am considering writing the letter.

[Moliere]

ANd by labeling my POV a "CB" POV you are doing more to attempt to undermine it and de-legitimze it than anything I have said about your POV here. Do you not see the irony? Besides, sometimes the 'CB' POV is correct. Labeling my or anyone's POV in this way is as arrogant, dismissive and non-'intellectual' as anything that happens on CB. And I never said to leave anything. You must be looking for it if you saw it in my comment. I said speak up. You have to be present to do that.

I initially took it the wrong way. Sorry.

You are correct that it is not a new thought. My guess is I started having such thoughts before you were born. I have spoken up many times in GD class. There are many ways to raise such issues and to engage others in such discussions. Moreover, when I have been in a position to influence the choice of GD instructors or the topics to be addressed, I have decided to speak up in a culturally and socially appropriate way to increase the breadth and depth of discussions. In my experience you and others who see themselves as wise but silent martyrs to the cause of conformity are underestimating the members of your GD class. Many people share your thoughts and many people want to talk about them, and it can be done in an appropriate way.

I agree mostly with this. However, if the members of the GD class shared the same thoughts why don't they speak up? I never hear unorthodox thoughts in GD. Maybe it's just the wards I live in, but I never hear them. Looks like either they aren't like me or they are exactly like me (including the silence).

Oh yes, the persecuted intelligentsia. Please. go to class and make it what you would like. Sorry, but I have a hard time feeling badly for you on this aprticular count. You are briught, you are articualte and, you seem like someone who could easily address some of these topics without unduly offending or disturbing. So when you tell me it saddens you to be silent in GD class, I suggest you speak up. Is that a 'CB' response worthy of derision? If so, I can live with it.

I see this as good advice and I am going to take it. In fact, I think this year I'll try to speak up more with my thoughts.

How on earth could you possibly know that 'most' or even 'many' people arent having a spiritual experience when they say they are? Are they having 'consistent' spiritual experiences? that would vary widely, from class to class, but it certainly doesn't undermine LAUte's point, which is that his bishopric's goal, and it is a good one from my simpleton, CB-esque POV, is to promote an environment that allows for spiritual experiences. SHeesh, what facade builders.

I don't know it, it's just a guess. Well, not a guess but more of a personal theory. I think we mistake the spirit for a sense of familiarity all the time but some of those thoughts are in a different thread.

Why not? we have gotten that in our ward in the past.

I said I didn't expect it, but I would welcome it with open arms.

I'm not sure you need to feel obligated to offer you $.02 on controversial subjects. There are all kinds of people in Gospel Doctrine, from pelagius to UD to Solon to Tex to your average CBer. The only thing all of these people have in common is hopefully that they all want to leave a little better than when they come. Discussing the history of ordinance changes may be really interesting to you, but it very well may not be to the rest of the class, and may even distract from their original point of attending. So really, out of respect for everyone in the room, it may be best just to bite your tongue, as long as something completely outlandish isn't said.

I agree, but discussing changing temple ordinances is obviously not appropriate (although maybe it should be ). However there might be a time and place to discuss differences in modes of baptism. Maybe when discussing the baptism of Alma (I think it was Alma) who baptized himself at the same time as another person and he didn't even say the same baptismal prayer we use today (see Alma 18). Sounds interesting no? Okay, so maybe not so I'll concede to your point.

[LA Ute]

I think there is wisdom here. But there is a line to walk and it can be walked carefully and successfully.

Agreed. Good post, ER.

[scottie]

RE: the realization that what you were taught and raised on was bunk/whitewashed, there are the feelings of betrayal... but additionally, for those who served missions there's the realization that you spent two years preaching and spreading and defending that same information, which for me was (and still is, really) pretty difficult to process even though I was ignorant at age 19-21.

[Non Sequitur]

RE: the realization that what you were taught and raised on was bunk/whitewashed, there are the feelings of betrayal... but additionally, for those who served missions there's the realization that you spent two years preaching and spreading and defending that same information, which for me was (and still is, really) pretty difficult to process even though I was ignorant at age 19-21.

And I used to be a conservative republican. Moving on is part of life.

[DrumNFeather]

RE: the realization that what you were taught and raised on was bunk/whitewashed, there are the feelings of betrayal... but additionally, for those who served missions there's the realization that you spent two years preaching and spreading and defending that same information, which for me was (and still is, really) pretty difficult to process even though I was ignorant at age 19-21.

Honest question here, at what age do you think church members should be taught this history versus the "whitewashed" or "bunk" version of church history you refer to?

Or, should there not be an age limit at all, should it be woven into the fabric of what is taught/discussed on Sunday at all levels?

[scottie]

And I used to be a conservative republican. Moving on is part of life.

I get that, and I would say I'm mostly over it. This is an example of why the mission thing can be difficult:

A buddy of mine sent me this IM this morning (this friend, we grew up together and about a year ago he and his wife left the church, triggered by their learning about JS's polyandry):

i got a facebook invite from a lady i baptized in xxxxxx
before she got baptized she called me at Ricks (College) and said she had some concerns about history etc
i blew it off and told her to listen to her feelings
she pissed off her whole family getting baptized
she grew up baptist

[scottie]

Honest question here, at what age do you think church members should be taught this history versus the "whitewashed" or "bunk" version of church history you refer to?

Or, should there not be an age limit at all, should it be woven into the fabric of what is taught/discussed on Sunday at all levels?

I borrowed bunk and whitewashed from nikuman and eddie jones. The part I bolded would absolutely be my answer.