Ok I will ask this question because last summer when I - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Mormon Red Death · 01-06-2006, 03:08 AM

brought this question up to a brother (who is regular here and is a feminazi canadian commie) I was lambasted. So here goes. Last summer I was the gospel doctrine teacher for my ward and since we were doing the D&C one of the lessons was on eternal marriage Sections 131 134 etc... I did the lesson fine except something really bugged me. Why didn't the lesson even mention polygamy?

Since, the class was a study of the D&C with a church history mixed in wouldn't this be the opportune time to at least talk about it? Especially since those sections are primarily about polygamy. Is it because for missionary purposes the church tries to avoid any tie to polygamy? So in all what do you think?

Personally, I don't have any problems with our history. I try to see the early and present day leaders as humans trying to do the best they can. Did they make mistakes? Sure and that is what we can learn from them.

Well anyway I would love to hear what people think.

All-American · 01-06-2006, 04:31 AM

Answering a question with a question:

Of the following five topics, which is the least important to one's happiness and salvation and as such deserves the least amount of attention in Sunday School?

a.) The eternal nature of marriage
b.) Preparing for a temple marriage
c.) Maintaining a successful, happy relationship with your spouse
d.) Raising a family
e.) The role of Polygamy in church history

Any surprise that e doesn't get as much attention?

UtahDan · 01-06-2006, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

Answering a question with a question:

Of the following five topics, which is the least important to one's happiness and salvation and as such deserves the least amount of attention in Sunday School?

a.) The eternal nature of marriage
b.) Preparing for a temple marriage
c.) Maintaining a successful, happy relationship with your spouse
d.) Raising a family
e.) The role of Polygamy in church history

Any surprise that e doesn't get as much attention?

While I agree with what you are saying, I think that is a little bit of an intellectual dodge.

Polygamy was a defining feature of our church throughout its infancy. Brigham Young was a defining character during the same period. We could just as easily stop talking about Brigham Young because some of the things he said or purportedly did and lose nothing in terms of our salvation but it would certainly be odd just to start leaving him out because he makes us a little uncomfortable.

I actually agree with the sentiment that not all of our history needs to be shouted from the roof tops and that we ought to accentuate those things which are best. On the other hand, it is possible to so sanitize the history that what you are presenting is no longer the truth. I'm not saying that is what we are doing, but dropping all mention of polygamy when discussing the D&C is a step in that direction. It is a misstep IMO.

All-American · 01-06-2006, 06:48 AM

Were we discussing the D&C, I'd agree.

What WE do, on the other hand, is briefly acknowledge that the lesson format somewhat follows the Doctrine and Covenants, read the caption of the lesson manual, and ask Sister Sorenson how her three year old daughter taught her what this principle really means.

Clearly, the direction coming from the top is to focus less on the history and more on the principles. Look at the priesthood/relief society manuals, for example. Each year is like a Bond movie-- the plot is pretty much the same with a different actor is playing the main role. For what it's worth, the brethren have decided that the three hour block needs to be focused on the important principles of the gospel first, second, and third. History comes in maybe fourth or fifth.

An intellectual dodge, perhaps, but frankly, that's hard to argue with.

MikeWaters · 01-06-2006, 06:52 AM

I have never heard a meaningful discussion of Blacks and the Priesthood when the 1978 revelation is discussed. Always couched in "now everyone can have the priesthood." It isn't even discussed who it was that couldn't have the priesthood.

I wrote an article for Student Review about Blacks and the Priesthood when I was at BYU. It was lated posted on their (now defunct) website. The webmaster told me it was the most accessed article on the website.

There is a hunger for more knowledge than is provided in Sunday meetings.

What we can take solace in is that, in general, Mormon historians are not hounded like they used to be. The Brethren are senstive to keeping the ship from hitting the ground. It's up to us to actually find our own personal ways in the context of that slow-moving ship.

myboynoah · 01-06-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I have never heard a meaningful discussion of Blacks and the Priesthood when the 1978 revelation is discussed.

I remember teaching GD a few years back and we were studying the New Testament. The subject one week was Peter dreaming about eating the non-kosher food and then changing the policy of taking the gospel only to the Jews. The lesson drew parallels between that and the 1978 revelation.

At one point a member of the class, talking about the ancient Church's no-non-Jews policy, boldly averred, "So in essence, Jesus Christ was a racist."

That was kinda weird.

I'm with UD. Seems like an intellectual dodge.

Indy Coug · 01-06-2006, 03:45 PM

Here's a thought: they aren't discussed because they are hot button topics that inevitably lead to contention, hurt feelings and the loss of the Spirit in the classroom. Thus, whatever ancillary intellectual benefit of discussing them is usually outweighed by the drawbacks.

FMCoug · 01-06-2006, 03:58 PM

I have to agree with All-American on this one. IMO, intellectual pursuit of church history, deep doctrine, etc. is not the purpose of our Sunday meetings. It's a nice hobby and may be interesting to some of us. Hence this forum and other like it.

But the purpose of ALL our meetings on Sunday is to perfect the Saints. I don't see how an intellectual discussion of polygamy does that.

When I taught GD, I made a point to make it a SPIRITUAL discussion about the principles being taught, not a history lesson or discussion on esoteric points of doctrine. While that might be INTERESTING, it's hardly necessary for salvation.

MikeWaters · 01-06-2006, 04:29 PM

I think focus on polygamy is probably wrong.

I think assiduously avoiding any reference to it, esp. in context of what was going on near the time of the revelation, is wrong.

All-American · 01-06-2006, 05:02 PM

Here's another question. How do you think church members in general would handle a lesson that dealt with either lessons regarding polygamy or giving blacks the priesthood? Cast your mind back to the days of BYU singles wards, if you can, and try to imagine how the young women would handle such an assignment. The lesson would be atrocious.

I daresay that church membership in general is ill equipped to discuss the finer points of its history, be they the skeletons in the closet or anything else. The literature being sent out to the general membership is being more and more watered down. Once upon a time, Hugh Nibley was the author of the book being studied by priesthood and relief society quorums-- contrast that now with the "Presidents of the Church" manuals. During my mission, one of the apartments I was in had a drawer with every ensign since 1984 stored away in it. While reading some of the older issues, it was clear that they were doctrinally much more deep than the current Ensigns. Not too long ago, there was a segment in the Ensign that answered different doctrinal questions-- for example, "Who were the Maccabees?" I wonder what percentage of the average Relief Society has ever heard of them. Today's Ensign is double spaced, uses attractive fonts, fills the pages with artwork, and is generally more attractive and readable than it was ten years ago. It also has about a quarter of the doctrinal depth.

Why the watering down?

01-06-2006, 03:08 AM	#1
Mormon Red Death Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Clinton Township, MI Posts: 3,126	Ok I will ask this question because last summer when I brought this question up to a brother (who is regular here and is a feminazi canadian commie) I was lambasted. So here goes. Last summer I was the gospel doctrine teacher for my ward and since we were doing the D&C one of the lessons was on eternal marriage Sections 131 134 etc... I did the lesson fine except something really bugged me. Why didn't the lesson even mention polygamy? Since, the class was a study of the D&C with a church history mixed in wouldn't this be the opportune time to at least talk about it? Especially since those sections are primarily about polygamy. Is it because for missionary purposes the church tries to avoid any tie to polygamy? So in all what do you think? Personally, I don't have any problems with our history. I try to see the early and present day leaders as humans trying to do the best they can. Did they make mistakes? Sure and that is what we can learn from them. Well anyway I would love to hear what people think. __________________ Its all about the suit

01-06-2006, 04:31 AM	#2
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	Answering a question with a question: Of the following five topics, which is the least important to one's happiness and salvation and as such deserves the least amount of attention in Sunday School? a.) The eternal nature of marriage b.) Preparing for a temple marriage c.) Maintaining a successful, happy relationship with your spouse d.) Raising a family e.) The role of Polygamy in church history Any surprise that e doesn't get as much attention?

01-06-2006, 06:48 AM	#4
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	Were we discussing the D&C, I'd agree. What WE do, on the other hand, is briefly acknowledge that the lesson format somewhat follows the Doctrine and Covenants, read the caption of the lesson manual, and ask Sister Sorenson how her three year old daughter taught her what this principle really means. Clearly, the direction coming from the top is to focus less on the history and more on the principles. Look at the priesthood/relief society manuals, for example. Each year is like a Bond movie-- the plot is pretty much the same with a different actor is playing the main role. For what it's worth, the brethren have decided that the three hour block needs to be focused on the important principles of the gospel first, second, and third. History comes in maybe fourth or fifth. An intellectual dodge, perhaps, but frankly, that's hard to argue with.

01-06-2006, 06:52 AM	#5
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I have never heard a meaningful discussion of Blacks and the Priesthood when the 1978 revelation is discussed. Always couched in "now everyone can have the priesthood." It isn't even discussed who it was that couldn't have the priesthood. I wrote an article for Student Review about Blacks and the Priesthood when I was at BYU. It was lated posted on their (now defunct) website. The webmaster told me it was the most accessed article on the website. There is a hunger for more knowledge than is provided in Sunday meetings. What we can take solace in is that, in general, Mormon historians are not hounded like they used to be. The Brethren are senstive to keeping the ship from hitting the ground. It's up to us to actually find our own personal ways in the context of that slow-moving ship.

01-06-2006, 03:45 PM	#7
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	Here's a thought: they aren't discussed because they are hot button topics that inevitably lead to contention, hurt feelings and the loss of the Spirit in the classroom. Thus, whatever ancillary intellectual benefit of discussing them is usually outweighed by the drawbacks.

01-06-2006, 03:58 PM	#8
FMCoug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kaysville, UT Posts: 3,151	I have to agree with All-American on this one. IMO, intellectual pursuit of church history, deep doctrine, etc. is not the purpose of our Sunday meetings. It's a nice hobby and may be interesting to some of us. Hence this forum and other like it. But the purpose of ALL our meetings on Sunday is to perfect the Saints. I don't see how an intellectual discussion of polygamy does that. When I taught GD, I made a point to make it a SPIRITUAL discussion about the principles being taught, not a history lesson or discussion on esoteric points of doctrine. While that might be INTERESTING, it's hardly necessary for salvation.

01-06-2006, 04:29 PM	#9
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I think focus on polygamy is probably wrong. I think assiduously avoiding any reference to it, esp. in context of what was going on near the time of the revelation, is wrong.

01-06-2006, 05:02 PM	#10
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	Here's another question. How do you think church members in general would handle a lesson that dealt with either lessons regarding polygamy or giving blacks the priesthood? Cast your mind back to the days of BYU singles wards, if you can, and try to imagine how the young women would handle such an assignment. The lesson would be atrocious. I daresay that church membership in general is ill equipped to discuss the finer points of its history, be they the skeletons in the closet or anything else. The literature being sent out to the general membership is being more and more watered down. Once upon a time, Hugh Nibley was the author of the book being studied by priesthood and relief society quorums-- contrast that now with the "Presidents of the Church" manuals. During my mission, one of the apartments I was in had a drawer with every ensign since 1984 stored away in it. While reading some of the older issues, it was clear that they were doctrinally much more deep than the current Ensigns. Not too long ago, there was a segment in the Ensign that answered different doctrinal questions-- for example, "Who were the Maccabees?" I wonder what percentage of the average Relief Society has ever heard of them. Today's Ensign is double spaced, uses attractive fonts, fills the pages with artwork, and is generally more attractive and readable than it was ten years ago. It also has about a quarter of the doctrinal depth. Why the watering down?