discussing polyandry with the missionaries

[Rosebud]

Maybe people just need to realize they have more control of their life than they are willing to admit.

Agreed... I am a BIG proponent of personal accountability. I don't believe people who are victims of coercion, however, have the freedom to be accountable for their own lives. Freedom first... control second... accountability third.

[pellegrino]

My ideal curricula would be simple.....for the most part, keep lessons and manuals as they are, with one small tweak. In every manual, in every lesson book, etc.....we include a few lessons about our history. It is a joke that we had several years of Teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc....and not one of those manuals has one single formal lesson on the Priesthood Ban. Or polygamy. Or Mountain Meadows. Or Spaulding Manuscript. Or Kinderhook Plates. Or whatever the case may be. If it were up to me, I would take ownership of these events so that the information would be under MY control. I disseminate it in the manner I find most effective, rather than letting antis get hold of it and spin it every which way. In the grand scheme of things, a few lessons a year exploring some of the more thorny aspects of our history would be ideal. Heck, make them 5th Sunday topics for the Bishopric to teach. That way, you have some semblance of quality control, as well.

If the Church were to formally do this, it would remove so many bullets from our collective guns. And it would also exempt the apologists from having to repeatedly give us lame explanations (this very thread is a good example of that sort of apologetic gymnastic exercise......."we don't know, so we can't be sure, therefore let's not talk about...instead, let's talk about other stuff that we DO know but that isn't well documented....like baptisms for the dead!")

As a Church, we should not hide from our history. We should learn from it.

I agree wholeheartedly with this concept, but I think it becomes problematic when the church gets too involved in writing its own history. The problem is you get the PR minded people involved and then it's a short path to a disingenuous portrayal of history which gives more ammunition to detractors. I would much rather see the reins relaxed rather than tightened. This could be accomplished by instructing teachers and priesthood leaders to discuss the topics you mention on fifth Sundays or as proscribed in the manuals but that as they prepare they should search for fair, reputable sources and remember that the purpose is to seek truth and knowledge for the purpose of building up and being open, not to detract from the importance of the message of the church, despite its many imperfections.

In fact, I think an open acknowledgment of those imperfections could be a positive and distinctive characteristic of the church, much like we are known for being well mannered and clean cut, we should/could be known for our openness and willingness to admit past errors, both on an individual and institutional level. That could be the ultimate PR tool.

[Indy Coug]

The trick about teaching about the more "problematic" aspects of church history is what exactly do and don't you include in that curriculum? What is reliable information and what isn't? How do you adequately caveat areas with such considerable gray area?

How do we balance that with an overarching goal of building testimonies?

Does discussing various aspects of LDS history at a high level suffice? If not, how granular does the level of detail need to be?

It's much easier said than done.

[falafel]

Maybe people just need to realize they have more control of their life than they are willing to admit.

You and Johnny Lingo have hammered that point enough. We got it.

[TripletDaddy]

It's much easier said than done.

Funny, I have the same thought re: the Plan of Salvation. Yet we seem to hammer on that every week at Church.

For the record, I give your mental gymnastics a 9.5. Marked down from 10 for being unoriginal.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

This thread has prompted me to print out a copy of Taq Man's avatar and teach my primary children about the truth regarding translation of the BoM when another lesson about Joseph Smith or the BoM comes up. I'm not going be responsible for spreading disinformation.

[Indy Coug]

Funny, I have the same thought re: the Plan of Salvation. Yet we seem to hammer on that every week at Church.

For the record, I give your mental gymnastics a 9.5. Marked down from 10 for being unoriginal.

The Plan of Salvation is a problematic aspect of LDS history?

[Surfah]

Most of these responses, suggestions about the value of greater indoctrination (I use the word loosely so please no narratives on what its true meaning is) are coming from highly educated men and women, many of whom currently work in professions that require debate, critical questioning, wasting time on message boards, etc. Perhaps my missionary experience was unique since I grew up in a part member home, had no pressure to serve a mission and served my 2 years stateside. However, at no point do I think me having more secular and/or historical church knowledge would have made me a better missionary. In my case it likely would have made me a worse one. I knew that many of the people I taught were more educated, more experienced and probably better debaters on me, thus I felt like the only way I would ever make a difference is if I could somehow bring the Spirit into the discussion to teach them what I couldn't.

I appreciated this post. I don't think spending time in the MTC to turn missionaries into apologists is a good thing.

[Indy Coug]

This thread has prompted me to print out a copy of Taq Man's avatar and teach my primary children about the truth when another lesson about Joseph Smith or the BoM comes up. I'm not going be responsible for spreading disinformation.

Do you have a second teacher in your primary class like you are supposed to? Maybe you could assign them with that half of the lesson.

[TripletDaddy]

The Plan of Salvation is a problematic aspect of LDS history?

It is easier said than done.

Your caveat is basically non-additive. Everyone already realizes that to teach these things would require a delicate hand. That is why they are called "problematic aspects."

Currently, the Church has eschewed the "easier said than done" mantra and moved right along to the "too hard to even attempt" school of thought.

[Indy Coug]

I agree. I was asking for those advocating a broadening of the church curriculum how they would go about doing so.

[TripletDaddy]

This thread has prompted me to print out a copy of Taq Man's avatar and teach my primary children about the truth regarding translation of the BoM when another lesson about Joseph Smith or the BoM comes up. I'm not going be responsible for spreading disinformation.

To the extend that you teach the primary kids about the U&T, then I would agree. I don't see much need to teach 4 year olds about the U&T, though.

I definitely think that this should be taught in seminary, though. The kids should know. What is the big deal about discussing it?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Do you have a second teacher in your primary class like you are supposed to? Maybe you could assign them with that half of the lesson.

No, my ward is cool with leaving a 32 year old man alone with around 8 4-5 year olds especially after I pointed my bishop to my comments made on here where I said one of the kid's behavior made me want to punt him out in the hallway.

[RobinFinderson]

To the extend that you teach the primary kids about the U&T, then I would agree. I don't see much need to teach 4 year olds about the U&T, though.

I definitely think that this should be taught in seminary, though. The kids should know. What is the big deal about discussing it?

Man, if I were four I bet the U&T would sound rad! I loved to imagine owning my own Liahona, and when other kids were playing 'pirates' with sticks in hand, I was secretly wielding the Sword of Laban, with a +2 attack rating against drunk bums passed out in the street.

[TripletDaddy]

I agree. I was asking for those advocating a broadening of the church curriculum how they would go about doing so.

I outlined a broad plan. 5th Sundays, taught by Bishopric is one approach. As to depth, that is case by case, as with any other topic on any other Sunday. Spirit dictates.

However, even a formal cursory review of the events of the Priesthood ban, Joseph giving the priesthood to Elijah Abel, etc would be way more than what we are doing today.

How would you propose? I am sincerely interested in your input on this one, Indy. You are clearly a bright dude and when you engage, you put a lot of good info on the table. Play along for a second. IF the Church decided to implement this as official curriculum, how would you see it beign implemented?