Curriculum for 2012 Sunday School, Primary, and Priesthood/RS

[Jenamarie]

Looks like we're back to studying the modern Prophets. George Albert Smith is up this time.

http://lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/content/english/pdf/manual/09330_000_InstCurr2012sm.pdf?lang=eng

[Guest mysticmorini]

We all knew they would come back sooner or later

[Snow]

Such a pity... gone are the days when you could actually learn something new in Church:

1953 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual

[Vort]

Such a pity... gone are the days when you could actually learn something new in Church:

1953 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual

Yet I learn new things in Church almost every single week. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps I'm just not as bright as you?

[Snow]

Yet I learn new things in Church almost every single week. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps I'm just not as bright as you?

Give me an example... what new knowledge did you gain last Sunday that you didn't know before. I'm looking for actual knowledge not the warm fuzzy stuff, important though it may be. What did you learn?

Edited September 2, 2011 by Snow

[ldseastcoast]

Now, now..we shalt bringeth the spirit of contention not. Let us learn what the Brethren have instructed that we learn, without question, comment or argument.

[NeuroTypical]

Let us learn what the Brethren have instructed that we learn, without question, comment or argument.

That's a rather blatant bit of crappy false doctrine there, east. Are you being sarcastic, or do you honestly believe that trash?

[ldseastcoast]

You have such hatred in your heart and you bring the spirit of contention.

I wasn't aware that sustaining our leaders was "false doctrine." Yea, I say unto thee that questioning the material in the manuals is akin to questioning our leaders.

And no, I am not being sarcastic, facetious or insincere. Sustain your leaders and question not. Doest thou have the authority to question our General Authorities? Surely I thinketh not! Then question not, and sustain the Brethren.

[NeuroTypical]

You have such hatred in your heart and you bring the spirit of contention.

Nice unrighteous judgement there, east. I have no hatred in my heart. And earnestly condending with your horrible false notion is just following Jude's exhortation in 1:3.

.

I wasn't aware that sustaining our leaders was "false doctrine."

It isn't. Your statement that we should "learn, without question, comment or argument" - that's the false doctrine.

.

Doest thou have the authority to question our General Authorities? Surely I thinketh not! Then question not, and sustain the Brethren.

If you are truely not a troll, then read some of the words of our church leaders and get some of that edimifucation pointed back in your direction:

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually

-Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150

.

Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the commandments of God. We are the sons and daughters of God, willing followers, disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, and "under this head are [we] made free." (Mosiah 5: 8 )

Those who talk of blind obedience may appear to know many things, but they do not understand the doctrines of the gospel. There is an obedience that comes from a knowledge of the truth that transcends any external form of control. We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see.

-Boyd K. Packer, "Agency and Control," Ensign, May 1983, 66

.

Concerning the question of blind obedience. Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do.

If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know[ing] that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil

- Josehp F. Smith, Collected Discourses, ed. Brian H. Stuy, Vol. 3 (Burbank, B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992)

.

It is a mistaken idea, prevalent in the world, that the perpetuity of this work depends upon the authorities keeping the masses of the people in ignorance. The truth is the direct reverse, else why have we all these auxiliary organizations and quorums of priesthood in the church, for the education of the rising generation. Their being established in the faith depends upon their knowledge of the Gospel. Our greatest fear concerning our children in Zion is the possibility of their growing up in ignorance of the everlasting Gospel...As a matter of intelligent obedience--not blind obedience--we should observe to keep the word of wisdom. For the same reason we should observe to keep holy the Sabbath day, and the name of our Father in Heaven, and His Son Jesus Christ, and intelligently yield obedience to every requirement that is made at our hands

- George F. Richards, Conference Report, April 1907, Afternoon Session, 15-17 Edited September 2, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[FunkyTown]

LDS? It is okay to question. It's healthy even.

As long as you are questioning with honest intent.

If you are questioning with the intention of attacking something, then you are questioning with dishonest intent and it ceases to be 'questioning' as the answer is irrelevant.

[MarginOfError]

You have such hatred in your heart and you bring the spirit of contention.

I wasn't aware that sustaining our leaders was "false doctrine." Yea, I say unto thee that questioning the material in the manuals is akin to questioning our leaders.

And no, I am not being sarcastic, facetious or insincere. Sustain your leaders and question not. Doest thou have the authority to question our General Authorities? Surely I thinketh not! Then question not, and sustain the Brethren.

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background ...” (Spencer W. Kimball, quoted in Aaronic Priesthood 3).

I question the value of this material, found in a church manual. Why are my religious leaders instructing me on how race figures into my selection of a spouse?

[beefche]

You have such hatred in your heart and you bring the spirit of contention.

I wasn't aware that sustaining our leaders was "false doctrine." Yea, I say unto thee that questioning the material in the manuals is akin to questioning our leaders.

And no, I am not being sarcastic, facetious or insincere. Sustain your leaders and question not. Doest thou have the authority to question our General Authorities? Surely I thinketh not! Then question not, and sustain the Brethren.

MODERATOR WARNING HERE:

Site Rule that everyone agreed upon when signing up:

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

[ldseastcoast]

Here moral agency comes into play. I believe it to be disrespectful, arrogant and prideful to in any way question the counsel of those in authority over us, past or present. When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done, as the saying goes.

I personally believe it to be akin to the ungrateful child crying and refusing to eat the dinner that was prepared for him when it comes to questioning the teachings of our leaders, or the decisions of the same, i.e. what lessons make it into the manuals.

Cite all the scripture and talks you wish. Those references pertain to studying and praying on one's own, not loudly in in a public manner questioning leaders' decisions. That, however, is my position on the matter. If you're okay with questioning your leaders, then question away.

As pertains to my own beliefs, I find it absolutely unhealthy to question in any way our leaders. To do so is, in my opinion, dangerousy close to apostasy and is at the very least a display of the utmost disrespect.

However, it is my moral agency to take that position, just as it's your agency to question, though I have to wonder how much respect you have for the leaders when you question. But hey..whatever...to each his or her own.

Edited September 2, 2011 by ldseastcoast

[ldseastcoast]

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background ...” (Spencer W. Kimball, quoted in Aaronic Priesthood 3).

I question the value of this material, found in a church manual. Why are my religious leaders instructing me on how race figures into my selection of a spouse?

Again, it's your moral agency to question, but I, for one, sustain the Brethren and if they say marry within my race, then I shall do so (and did). And I would point out that numerous General Authorities have echoed this advice, and I speak as pertains to race factoring into one's decision surrounding the selection of an EC. Food for thought.

Edited September 2, 2011 by ldseastcoast

[ldseastcoast]

MODERATOR WARNING HERE:

Site Rule that everyone agreed upon when signing up:

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

Interesting how you single me out but rebuketh the one who accused me of false doctrine not. But I sustain your decision and warning hereby heeded.

[NeuroTypical]

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done, as the saying goes.

Right - that saying does not represent the church's take on things. Have you ever seen the original context of that phrase? Here you go:

Ward Teaching

CONDUCTED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOPRIC. EDITED BY LEE A. PALMER.

WARD TEACHERS

The teacher's duty is to watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them;

And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking;

And see that the church meet together often, and also see that all the members do their duty. (D. & C. 20:53-55.)

Ward Teachers' Message for June, 1945

"SUSTAINING THE GENERAL AUTHORITIES OF THE CHURCH"

NO Latter-day Saint is compelled to sustain the General Authorities of the Church. When given the opportunity to vote on the proposition in any of the several conferences held throughout the Church, he may indicate his willingness to sustain them by raising his right hand; he may manifest his opposition in like manner; or he may ignore the opportunity entirely. There is no element of coercion or force in this or any other Church procedure.

However, there is the principle of honor involved in the member's choice. When a person raises his hand to sustain Church leaders as "prophets, seers, and revelators," it is the same as a promise and a covenant to follow their leadership and to abide by their counsel as the living oracles of God. Consequently, any subsequent act or word of mouth which is at variance with the will of the Lord as taught by the leaders of the Church places the sincerity of such person in serious doubt. One could scarcely have claim upon complete integrity, if he raises his hand to sustain the Authorities of the Church and then proceeds in opposition to their counsel.

Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot speak evil of the Lord's anointed and retain the Holy Spirit in his heart.

It should be remembered that Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting souls that the General Authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. This sort of game is Satan's favorite pastime, and he has practiced it on believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to "do their own thinking." He specializes in suggesting that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding rays of apostasy in the eyes of those whom he thus beguiles. What cunning! And to think that some of our members are deceived by this trickery.

The following words of the Prophet Joseph Smith should be memorized by every Latter-day Saint and repeated often enough to insure their never being forgotten:

I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 156-157.)

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.

The appearance of this message caused much concern among many inside and outside of the Church. Dr. J. Raymond Cope, the leader of the First Unitarian Society in Salt Lake City, was one of those concerned. He decided to express his concerns about the impact of this message in a letter to President George Albert Smith in November of the same year. The letter was cordial, and expressed the feeling that such a message was "doing inestimable harm to many who have no other reason to question the integrity of the Church leaders... this cannot be the position of the true leaders."

President Smith responded to Dr. Cope with a letter of his own, designed to clarify the point, at the first of December. The letter, reproduced in full below, should lay to rest any misconception about whether the Church or its leaders expect blind obedience in any degree.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Office of the First Presidency

Salt Lake City, Utah

December 7, 1945

Dr. J. Raymond Cope

First Unitarian Society

13th East at 6th South Street

Salt Lake City, Utah

My dear Dr. Cope:

I have read with interest and deep concern your letter of November 16, 1945, in which you make special comment on "a short religious editorial prepared by one of your (our) leaders entitled "Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church'". You say that you read the message with amazement, and that you have since been disturbed because of its effect upon members of the Church.

I am gratified with the spirit of friendliness that pervades your letter, and thank you for having taken the time to write to me.

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.

The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please." This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof.

On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

Again, as recorded in the History of the Church (Volume 5, page 498 [499] Joseph Smith said further: "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way."

I cite these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to confirm your good and true opinion that the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.

In the advocacy of this principle leaders of the Church not only join congregations in singing but quote frequently the following:

"Know this, that every soul is free

To choose his life and what he'll be,

For this eternal truth is given

That God will force no man to heaven."

Again I thank you for your manifest friendliness and for your expressed willingness to cooperate in every way to establish good will and harmony among the people with whom we are jointly laboring to bring brotherhood and tolerance.

Faithfully yours,

Geo. Albert Smith [signed]

[ldseastcoast]

Right - that saying does not represent the church's take on things. Have you ever seen the original context of that phrase? Here you go:

The appearance of this message caused much concern among many inside and outside of the Church. Dr. J. Raymond Cope, the leader of the First Unitarian Society in Salt Lake City, was one of those concerned. He decided to express his concerns about the impact of this message in a letter to President George Albert Smith in November of the same year. The letter was cordial, and expressed the feeling that such a message was "doing inestimable harm to many who have no other reason to question the integrity of the Church leaders... this cannot be the position of the true leaders."

President Smith responded to Dr. Cope with a letter of his own, designed to clarify the point, at the first of December. The letter, reproduced in full below, should lay to rest any misconception about whether the Church or its leaders expect blind obedience in any degree.

Thank you for these quotes. They serve to prove my point. To wit:

Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot speak evil of the Lord's anointed and retain the Holy Spirit in his heart.

I read that to include backbiting about Sunday School doctrine, but as you so eloquently point out, we can decide for ourselves.

And I speak as to this quote:

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.

This, I feel, applies to all aspects of the Church. Enough said.

Edited September 2, 2011 by ldseastcoast

[Vort]

Give me an example... what new knowledge did you gain last Sunday that you didn't know before. I'm looking for actual knowledge not the warm fuzzy stuff, important though it may be. What did you learn?

Among many other things:

• I learned about how God had acted in a brother's life to help his family situation.
• I learned that my Priesthood group brethren accept and sustain me.
• I learned my own reactions to the above.
• I learned that Elder Perry's address in General Conference seven years ago that a Priesthood quorum was a fraternity, a class, and a service organization has not been explicitly remembered, but the teachings have been and are being incorporated into the larger Church consciousness.
• I also learned that Elder Perry is still giving this instruction on a local level and that Priesthood leaders are heeding his teachings.

All in all, it was a valuable experience for me, and quite typical of my experience at Church.

[MarginOfError]

Thank you for these quotes. They serve to prove my point. To wit:

I read that to include backbiting about Sunday School doctrine, but as you so eloquently point out, we can decide for ourselves.

And I speak as to this quote:

This, I feel, applies to all aspects of the Church. Enough said.

Wow. It's like you just completely ignored everything that didn't support what you want to believe.

No, check that...that's exactly what you just did.

[ldseastcoast]

Wow. It's like you just completely ignored everything that didn't support what you want to believe.

No, check that...that's exactly what you just did.

Well, I would gently admonish that you did the same:

"Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church..."

You are taking issue with my own thinking, while backbiting me for taking issue with your thinking.

I would also point out that the Church takes action against those who criticize Church leaders, witness the STM Committee, which has been acknowledged by a General Authority. I am not about to risk my standing in the Church by criticizing, questioning or commenting on the decisions or words of our leaders.

Obviously, I feel questioning ANY decision by ANY leader is wrong. In Church, I keep my mouth shut. When something is proposed, I offer neither criticism nor question, for to do so would be in my mind not sustaining my leaders. I do not consider it my place to offer any comments whatsoever, for to do so would be to bring the spirit of contention.

It seems we differ on this matter. We're going to have to agree to disagree and in the interest of not bringing the spirit of contention, I shall draw my comments in this thread to a close.

[NeuroTypical]

Thank you for these quotes. They serve to prove my point.

I think you missed the part where President George Albert Smith denounced the stuff you're holding on to, saying the "General Authorities have been embarrassed" by them.

I urge you to read President Smith's letter again.

[NeuroTypical]

I would also point out that the Church takes action against those who criticize Church leaders, witness the STM Committee, which has been acknowledged by a General Authority. I am not about to risk my standing in the Church by criticizing, questioning or commenting on the decisions or words of our leaders.

Could you point us to your sources? I'd like to know how you became aware of the "Strengthening the Members committee", and why you think they do what you think they do.

Also, aren't you in President Patternoster's stake? I think I may have seen you there a time or two...

[ldseastcoast]

I think you missed the part where President George Albert Smith denounced the stuff you're holding on to, saying the "General Authorities have been embarrassed" by them.

I urge you to read President Smith's letter again.

I am very much aware of that passage. I wrote a blog just now about all this, and I've cited this. However, my issue is with the way people express their dissent in public. What one believes themselves is their own business, but when they speak out against the Church, even if it's as small as speaking out against curriculum. As I've stated, this is my OPINION. Are you expecting me to not think for myself and reach my own beliefs? Is that not ironic?

Could you point us to your sources? I'd like to know how you became aware of the "Strengthening the Members committee", and why you think they do what you think they do.

Also, aren't you in President Patternoster's stake? I think I may have seen you there a time or two...

You can cite fictional stake presidents all you like, but I don't know what it has to do with the matter at hand.

As for the STM Committee, it's public knowledge, and I became aware of it during the September Six era, when members thought they could speak out critically without consequence. To be clear, it was something I was not in any way involved in. At the time, I was a mere youth. I cherish the STMC because I love anything that stymies critical speech. Again, my own opinion.

[NeuroTypical]

my issue is with the way people express their dissent in public. What one believes themselves is their own business, but when they speak out against the Church, even if it's as small as speaking out against curriculum.

Fair enough. Just keep in mind site rule #3, and you should be fine here. Although you probably will experience varying levels of disagreement.

As for the STM Committee, it's public knowledge, and I became aware of it during the September Six era, when members thought they could speak out critically without consequence.

Got it. From my experience, most of the 'public knowledge' out there about the 'september six' and the STMC, was produced by church critics. Most of it is slanted and uncharitable, and a bunch of it is unrighteously judgemental if not flat out untrue. It's been years since I interacted with the issue, but I'm thinking those six members weren't doing what you think they were, and the STMC is not what you think it is, and it does not do what you think it does. But yeah, moral agency and all that - you're free to your opinion.

I love anything that stymies critical speech.

Noted. Edited September 2, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Dravin]

Yea, I say unto thee...

Thus sayeth the random guy on the internet.

Edit: I'm not saying your point is or isn't valid, but using such phrasing in a serious manner comes across as pretentious. Nobody knows you from Adam here and you come across as trying to position yourself as a Prophet/the Lord.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Dravin