discussing polyandry with the missionaries

[TripletDaddy]

I tried typing this sentiment a couple of times to answer niku's thought above, but didn't post it. You nailed it.

I enjoyed marsupial's comment. It is one with which I strongly agree.....however, in doing so, I am thinking only as an individual member.

If I were making the decision as a high-level Church leader, I would have to do so with the majority of the membership in mind....the lowest common denominator, if you will. By "lowest," i am not implying importance or stature, but referring to the majority of the membership that is content to seek after a testimony of the basic gospel principles, but isn't necessarily driven to pursue every avenue of Gospel scholarship.

CES formulates Church curricula with one main goal in mind: does this material bring the individual closer to the Savior?

Dredging up very embarrassing aspects of our history will, in most cases, NOT bring people closer to the Savior. It is informative, to be sure, but it isn't determinative (nor should it be). As some have already pointed out, that Joseph Smith made some big mistakes shouldn't topple your testimony, unless you subscribe to infallibility, which, as a Church, we do not teach.

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.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Do you even know what "coercive" means?



.

I prefer spiritual blackmail to coercion

[Pheidippides]

I tried typing this sentiment a couple of times to answer niku's thought above, but didn't post it. You nailed it.

And I agree with it, but think it should be part of the mission curriculum in specific missions as well, preparing for, for example, people who have somehow missed the boat, converted later in life, etc.

Teaching it en masse in the MTC would be disastrous in my view.

[Rosebud]

I'm a citizen of the US.

I'm a employee of my company.

I have been a member of a neighborhood association

I have attended private schools

I am married

I have children

I am a member of the LDS church

I went on a mission


I voluntarily associated myself with all of these items. However, with that voluntary association comes an explicit/implicit agreement to abide by certain guidelines and bear certain obligations. Some of these are more demanding, more intrusive, more important than others. The choices I make in life are made with an innate sense of right and wrong balanced or sometimes counterbalanced by giving consideration to the various guidelines/obligations I voluntarily submitted myself to. No person and no organization coerces me. I am free to modify any and all of these assocations, but not free of consequences. I don't live in a consequence-free world.

As a woman, the gun discussion in Tim's Ellis Island thread was pretty interesting because it demonstrated how threatening guns are to some men. Of course guns are threatening to women, too, but I couldn't help but think that 50% of the people women meet every day have the potential to overpower them no matter what country they are living in or whether or not guns are prevalent. Men don't face this power difference on a daily basis and therefore sometimes have hard time understanding why women are more likely to feel threatened or coerced.

Women, however, only represent one group of people more susceptible to coercion. Others could include: children, minorities, people in poverty, etc. Of course anyone with less power has the potential of being coerced by someone with more power. It happens all the time. IMO, therefore, we need to be excessively careful about what methods of indoctrination we use to teach children in religious settings.


I am really glad that you don't feel coerced in any of your decision-making, Indy, but I also think it would be wise for you to remember that not everyone is as powerful or successful as you are.

[ERCougar]

And I agree with it, but think it should be part of the mission curriculum in specific missions as well, preparing for, for example, people who have somehow missed the boat, converted later in life, etc.

Teaching it en masse in the MTC would be disastrous in my view.

In responding to you, I didn't want to imply that I disagreed with you. I was just saying that I think it needs to happen in some way to some degree before the MTC OR the missionfield. I like DDD's suggestions. Don't let it dominate discussion but it has to be touched on.

[ERCougar]

I enjoyed marsupial's comment. It is one with which I strongly agree.....however, in doing so, I am thinking only as an individual member.

If I were making the decision as a high-level Church leader, I would have to do so with the majority of the membership in mind....the lowest common denominator, if you will. By "lowest," i am not implying importance or stature, but referring to the majority of the membership that is content to seek after a testimony of the basic gospel principles, but isn't necessarily driven to pursue every avenue of Gospel scholarship.

CES formulates Church curricula with one main goal in mind: does this material bring the individual closer to the Savior?

Dredging up very embarrassing aspects of our history will, in most cases, NOT bring people closer to the Savior. It is informative, to be sure, but it isn't determinative (nor should it be). As some have already pointed out, that Joseph Smith made some big mistakes shouldn't topple your testimony, unless you subscribe to infallibility, which, as a Church, we do not teach.

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.

Agreed. Good suggestions.

[smokymountainrain]

I enjoyed marsupial's comment. It is one with which I strongly agree.....however, in doing so, I am thinking only as an individual member.

If I were making the decision as a high-level Church leader, I would have to do so with the majority of the membership in mind....the lowest common denominator, if you will. By "lowest," i am not implying importance or stature, but referring to the majority of the membership that is content to seek after a testimony of the basic gospel principles, but isn't necessarily driven to pursue every avenue of Gospel scholarship.

CES formulates Church curricula with one main goal in mind: does this material bring the individual closer to the Savior?

Dredging up very embarrassing aspects of our history will, in most cases, NOT bring people closer to the Savior. It is informative, to be sure, but it isn't determinative (nor should it be). As some have already pointed out, that Joseph Smith made some big mistakes shouldn't topple your testimony, unless you subscribe to infallibility, which, as a Church, we do not teach.

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.

Good post, DDD.

You should run for bishop next election!

[Pheidippides]

In responding to you, I didn't want to imply that I disagreed with you. I was just saying that I think it needs to happen in some way to some degree before the MTC OR the missionfield. I like DDD's suggestions. Don't let it dominate discussion but it has to be touched on.

I think I agree with your implicit agreement with my agreement. I also agree with DDD. In short, I am in an agreeable mood.

[pellegrino]

I never got any remotely interesting questions like that in Japan. Maybe things would be different, what with Google and all. I would think it should be (and could be) done on a mission-by-mission basis based on local needs and issues. Most stateside missions, for example, could probably use a primer. I don't think you need to go nuts with multiple books and sources (heck, I'm not even sure some of the Elders can read well enough) but I think a broad overview of the topics and responses would be a good idea. And the focus should be on responding to the sincere question - no reason to thump heads with numskulls looking for a fight. Many people have sincere questions and I think it's a mistake not to answer them as best you can, even if the answer is sometimes "I am not sure."

Here's an idea, why don't we just change sunday school curriculum a bit so that the idea of a complex (and I would add rich) history is pushed and that church history isn't as black and white as the watered down "Our Heritage" makes it to be. I think it could be very beneficial to have a more open curriculum that openly acknowledged the fallibility of divine messengers vis a vis the importance of the message they bear.

The only reason this is even an issue is because the body of the church is by and large completely ignorant of the historical record. If the church were more forthright in its curriculum then we wouldn't have to worry about young missionaries (or other devout, orthodox members) getting blindsided by these issues.

[Indy Coug]

I am really glad that you don't feel coerced in any of your decision-making, Indy, but I also think it would be wise for you to remember that not everyone is as powerful or successful as you are.

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

[TripletDaddy]

As a woman, the gun discussion in Tim's Ellis Island thread was pretty interesting because it demonstrated how threatening guns are to some men. Of course guns are threatening to women, too, but I couldn't help but think that 50% of the people women meet every day have the potential to overpower them no matter what country they are living in or whether or not guns are prevalent. Men don't face this power difference on a daily basis and therefore sometimes have hard time understanding why women are more likely to feel threatened or coerced.

Women, however, only represent one group of people more susceptible to coercion. Others could include: children, minorities, people in poverty, etc. Of course anyone with less power has the potential of being coerced by someone with more power. It happens all the time. IMO, therefore, we need to be excessively careful about what methods of indoctrination we use to teach children in religious settings.


I am really glad that you don't feel coerced in any of your decision-making, Indy, but I also think it would be wise for you to remember that not everyone is as powerful or successful as you are.

You are pissing off Helen Reddy with your constant helpless women schtick.

I suggest you go invest in a Joan Baez CD. Maybe even some Spice Girls, as well. Rent Annie Hall, start dressing like Diane Keaton, and go out and take whatever it is that seems to be eluding you in life.

Return and report.

[FMCoug]

I wouldn't go so far as an MTC course, but I do think a booklet or pamphlet of some sort as part of the missionary supplies would be in order. Here are some of the thornier issues that will come up. Here are the facts as we know them. Here is the appropriate way to handle it.

[KillerDog]

As a woman, the gun discussion in Tim's Ellis Island thread was pretty interesting because it demonstrated how threatening guns are to some men. Of course guns are threatening to women, too, but I couldn't help but think that 50% of the people women meet every day have the potential to overpower them no matter what country they are living in or whether or not guns are prevalent. Men don't face this power difference on a daily basis and therefore sometimes have hard time understanding why women are more likely to feel threatened or coerced.

Women, however, only represent one group of people more susceptible to coercion. Others could include: children, minorities, people in poverty, etc. Of course anyone with less power has the potential of being coerced by someone with more power. It happens all the time. IMO, therefore, we need to be excessively careful about what methods of indoctrination we use to teach children in religious settings.


I am really glad that you don't feel coerced in any of your decision-making, Indy, but I also think it would be wise for you to remember that not everyone is as powerful or successful as you are.

Wow. Women, children, minorites, and poor people are all more susceptible to being coerced into things. I might be missing what you are saying but it sounds like you are saying these groups all are being "coerced" by the group that is notably absent from your list. Your racist and sexist assumptions are unbecoming. I'm surprised you actually believe that women and minorities are mentally weaker then white men.

[smokymountainrain]

I love this thread.

That is all.

[UtahDan]

This is the original quote by UD:



This is what I said:



Now maybe you can help me understand how that makes me a hypocrite. How does the word "honesty" equate to "the fact they had no response"?

I knew that you mocking me would backfire on you Jeff, but I'm sorry this is the form it took.