27 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Friday, July 30, 2010 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blognitive Dissonance
- Book of Mormon Blog
- By Common Consent
- Ethesis
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Juvenile Instructor
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Segullah
- Sunstone Blog
- Times & Seasons
- Zelophehad's Daughters
I recently taught this in GD. I put the revelation on par with Acts 10 and other really important parts of the D&C. This is how it should be handled. Its the most important revelation of the last several generations. |
I think at least part (I repeat, part) of the answer might be how the matters were presented in the manual itself. As I understand it, the manual treated two main topics — correlation and the priesthood revelation — under one overriding theme of “continuing revelation guides the Church.” In that sense, your substitute teacher may have just been responding to the layout of the lesson. In our Gospel Doctrine class, each topic (correlation, and priesthood ban) each took about half of the classtime. |
That’s interesting, ESO. Going along with what Hunter said, I would suspect that she was just doing the best she could with what she had. I would lean toward “just can’t talk about it” as in many just don’t know how to talk about it, or don’t know enough about it to talk about it and don’t know where to go for information about it. This is why I sent out the Ed Kimball article from BYU Studies to the entire ward before the class, so that even if they didn’t get to it before class, they now have a source that they can turn to that will give them a good idea of the issues involved. See here for how I approached it this past Sunday. |
I really sympathize with that teacher. The way the lesson is presented in the manual is very strange. Race is hardly mentioned, if at all. It’s like trying to talk about the Emancipation Proclamation without discussing slavery. |
Good comments, folks. I do recognize, of course, that the topic is not without complication. Thanks for the link too. I do feel like I could talk about this comfortably and at length, but I admit that a) race is one of those topics I am more comfortable discussing than the average American Mormon (sex, too–I’m happy to take the chastity lesson) and b) I think it is very important. I understand a certain trepidation if you think you might be breaking the ban news to someone, which I think is a distinct and sad possibility. I wonder if some might feel that addressing the topic in a mixed race audience, that is, discussing it with people who had experienced being banned (besides women :) might make it more complicated. |
My exp is that the black members came up to me afterword weeping with joy after they had heard strong condemnations from multiple members of LDS people who still held on to previous beliefs form the pre 1978 days. |
I wouldn’t want to teach it because, even though I probably know more about it than the average member, I don’t know enough to adequately dispel misconceptions that inevitably arise. That’s true of many lessons I teach, of course, but those usually involve less sensitive/weighty subjects. |
I think you have done an excellent job with this. Every time I have sat in the lesson on this Declaration we look at the revelation being received rather than the process involved in receiving it and the history behind it. I wish more teachers like you were around! One important and interesting aspect of this was the absence of Elders Peterson and Stapley from the twelve that received the revelation. One was on asignment in South America the other ill in hospital. these two brethren had been very vocal in the previous months / years about the need for the ban and heavily supported earlier “classic” remarks from Pres. Joseph Fielding SMith and BY. Boyd K. Packer later commented that complete unanimity was essential otherwise President Kimball would have rethought his actions. To me this is an example of councils and presidencies making a decision as a unit with great effect and showing the importance of complete consensus in receiving revelation. Needless to say Elders Peterson / Stapley agreed with the council and supported the revelation completely. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, these experiences aren’t used at all for examples of the revelatory process. |
Interesting question, ESO. I think that presenting OD2 as mere policy change fundamentally distorts the nature of the priesthood ban. Joseph Smith expressly embraced Masonry and endorsed certain aspects of it as part of the higher priesthood, though it excluded blacks. John Taylor had said that Satan placed blacks on the earth to scourge whites. Mark Peterson said that blacks could make it to the celestial kingdom as servants. Furthermore, the priesthood ban allowed for an unspoken, lazy, paternalistic sort of racism to pervade among Mormons — though everybody vehemently denies being racist both then and now, I know that this was a problem because it’s part of the impact that it had on my home when I was a child and I saw it happen in many others (much the same thing happens with sexism due to our male-only priesthood). Mormons deserve a serious discussion of the astonishing transformation from the sort of an organization that institutionalized such views as though they were inspired utterances to one in which Gordon Hinckley would say that no worthy priesthood holder can make racially derisive comments. That said, I can’t fault the teacher for her presentation, because she’s doing the best that she can within the framework of Mormon culture. The topic is inherently difficult. This makes Mormons reluctant to talk about it, which in turn makes it more difficult to talk about. But we need to talk about these things. Contrary the naive assumptions of most white parents, children are born differentiating themselves from others and disparaging that which is different. Children must be taught that many differences should be ignored. Teaching children how an unwillingness to ignore such differences has resulted in suffering is a key part of de-programming the hate instinct out of a maturing child, and it can have a profound impact on adults as well. Insofar as spiritual edification encompasses healing and reconciliation, such discussions are absolutely appropriate for church, and it’s a shame that they make so many Mormons so uncomfortable. |
“But we need to talk about these things” I’d actually disagree. I don’t think we -need- to talk about past racism and non-racism in the church and we don’t -need- to talk about past teachings of the church that are no longer doctrine. Just like polygamy. Just like how we don’t need to talk about the specifics of the United Order, etc. The church moves on and the only things we -need- to talk about are those which are fundamental to our salvation in the here and now. |
I’d actually disagree. I don’t think we -need- to talk about past racism and non-racism in the church and we don’t -need- to talk about past teachings of the church that are no longer doctrine. Just like polygamy. Just like how we don’t need to talk about the specifics of the United Order, etc. The church moves on and the only things we -need- to talk about are those which are fundamental to our salvation in the here and now. The Church doesn’t *need* to spend 1/4 of Gospel Doctrine class teaching about Church history, but it does. It’s an interesting approach to combine the spirit of “moving on” with the teaching of past history. And yet, it seems in some ways to be the approach the Church has chosen. |
I think these past teachings should be discussed. We are forever picking out parts of church history and the teachings of the past in our lessons. If the only things we “need” to talk about are fundamental to our salvation then why are constantly given materials from Church HQ that aren’t pertaining to our salvation. Examples of which are overwhelming? For me there is the essential elements of those things that should be discussed and are essential for discussion. However there is also a plethora of other areas we should also talk about other than “saving doctrines”. |
Perhaps a bit of an overstatement. I suppose I’m referring more to doctrines which are still taught, and lessons which are still learned. The pioneers tell us a lot of lessons about life and our journey in it. The ODs are also wonderful as a part of church history. But I guess I really disagree that we need to talk more about it. We don’t “need” to talk about it. And we certainly don’t need to talk more about it. But I’m not disagreeing with the fact that we have a lesson on this part of church history, although as the history of the church lengthens it will make sense that various parts of the church’s history will left out and new room made for more “timely” subjects. |
The words “it’s not pertinent to your salvation” are used constantly to shut down discusions on things that make people uncomfortable, but those words are usually false and always misguided. Knowledge of our past, present and future, both doctrinally and otherwise is, I believe, pertinent to our salvation and exaltation. We need to discuss and understand it. Shutting down discussion and closing our eyes to greater knowledge is the opposite of the intelligence, light and truth that is the glory of God. No one is saved in ignorance, and we shouldn’t seek to shut down reasonable inquiry and discussion that may lead to greater knowledge and understanding. |
MCQ- Bravo! Brilliant comment! Have you had the opportunity to use it in a real life situation? |
Chris and BTD Greg, you’re both wrong. We need to talk about these things. The church suffers when we don’t talk about them, because it allows our enemies to frame the debate. Members suffer when we do not talk about them, because mistakes not discussed become victims of elaborated imagination and create feelings of isolation among the offended. Furthermore, the absence of discussion allows for old prejudices to persist unchecked. The lie is that by talking about them, we’ll simply fan past grievances — as though there’s no way to acknowledge mistakes without preserving identity. For my part, I don’t give a flying f*** whether members think this is “pertinent” to their salvation. Live in the now. MCQ, great comment. |
DKL: Let me try that again because I apparently wasn’t clear enough: I agree with you. The first two paragraphs of my comment were supposed to be a blockquote of the comment preceding it, but I think the tags got screwed up. My bad. |
Fair enough. I have no problem being wrong on this one. I’d just add that I think the same argument could be made about a dozen things which are not focused on more often in the church. And I’m quite certain we could all learn a lot more to improve our lives by dissecting the United Order than some of the ODs, which we don’t. The same could be said of polygamy as well… there are a lot of lessons that were learned by those involved, but the lessons learned would not outweigh the hurt and anguish and mistatments that would inevitably apply. The salvation bit was not so much to shut anything down, but to point out that what I really feel we -need- to talk about are ways we can be better and improve ourselves and serve others. This says nothing about whether something is a good topic or helpful to discuss, etc. |
Regression. We still can’t talk about it. I brought it up the other day to my visiting teacher as I told her about Margaret Young’s work and she honestly looked at me like I was an apostate for saying it was racism. That Brigham Young’s ban was simple practicality based on the racism of the land. We just can never say a prophet did something wrong. I’m sure the resentment I feel about not being able to discuss honestly these topics is keeping me from full activity. I go, but I’m super angry. I liked how you approached it, Jared. I agree with Mcq. But I’d probably go further and say, “those of you who previously spouted all that crap need to crawl on your hands and knees and beg my forgiveness and admit publicly, on the Today show, what morons you are.” But that’s how my mind works. I mean it, too, beg my own personal forgiveness. I’m not proud of it, but that’s the way I roll. |
JAB: I remember several real life discussions where people used that line to shut me up and I basically told them where to stick it (a couple times as a missionary). I’m fine if people don’t want to know about a subject or don’t want to discuss it themselves, but to tell other people that they shouldn’t discuss it for that reason strikes me as impertinent at best. Chris, I’m glad you weren’t trying to shut anything down. I agree we should talk about ways to improve ourselves and serve others. I just think that knowing more about subjects like the priesthood ban is one of the ways we improve ourselves and serve others. |
I had stepped away from this thread. Thanks Annegb and #8, I think. We definitely need to create discursive space for this and topics like it. |
Talking about this for one hour every four years is not nearly enough. |
ARJ, though I agree, one hour every four years would be pretty groundbreaking and a good start. My ward has had its hour (and I was so sorry that there were so few in class–a new Family relations class and the Family History class were going on, and of course a number of couples in Primary). Has yours? |
Well this is off the subject but I’m certain when we go to a 2 hour meeting, I’ll be much more active. |
#22 Whoa, nelly! We didn’t even get that. Our whole lesson was on correlation. |
BTD Greg, thanks for the clarification. Now that I’ve reread your comment, I see that I was confused. Sorry about the mistake. a random john, agreed. |
MCQ (14) – I missed your words the first time around, but I read them today. This type of behavior is something that keeps most of my siblings from having a full relationship with another family member. There is no topic that can’t be swept under the rug — and thus resolved — in her eyes. It doesn’t matter if it’s the priesthood ban or even an analysis of why someone lost their job — it’s just better not to talk about it. When you can’t talk about something, misinformation reigns. |
