I guess my perspective is that we should have one goal in mind – teaching the whole truth and nothing but the truth, invite people to come to Christ and let the chips fall where they may. To me (and I say this gingerly) it’s evidence of an institutional lack of faith in the Lord’s work when we feel we have to “be careful” not to teach too much of certain things….

Y – I wasn’t quite sure what to make of your second post….I couldn’t tell and I don’t know you well enough to ascertain whether you were being sarcastic.

Look people! “Faith-promoting history” never was/ never will be the same as academic history, period – end of story! (And while the Gospel and its religious Truths always has been/ is/ always will be faith promoting … [the never-endingly recursive delineations by us humans of] a philosophically advanced history of historical realities isn’t/ never have been … and maybe never will be except in the afterlife when someone comes to comprehend more of the understandings of God?)

Y, I understand the group sacrificing for the individual and your example of Juvenile Diabetes. My second son was diagnosed with Type I Diabetes just over two years ago – at the age of 15. No one has any idea why, although there was some speculation that when his appendix burst 6 years ago and he almost died his pancreas was damaged by the poison in his system. He has taught me SO much about accepting trials without complaint and with humor. (For example, his friends have a money-less pool guessing which organ he will lose next and when.) His siblings and friends call him Diabeticus, and he shrugs off the fact that our insurance won’t pay for the pump – that he has to keep “stabbing himself” and eating around his injections. He is a legend at Children’s Hospital, where they use him as an example for others when they teach those who are newly diagnosed. It’s amazing to watch.

End of proud Papa monologue. Back to our regularly scheduled program . . .

It is interesting to watch how my son explains his condition and its effects to others. He talks very differently with different people, depending on their prior understanding of the medical foundation of Diabetes. He often omits certain details to those who have just been diagnosed, since they need encouragement rather than additional fear. I don’t see that as “concealment” – but rather as understanding their needs and addressing them.

adcama, if someone goes through Primary, SS, Seminary and Institute without 1) being exposed to the things you list or 2) gaining a foundation testimony that will allow him to handle that exposure when it happens, then the Church and/or family has failed her. What I am saying is that #2 is more foundational than #1. I want a perfect balance, but if any error is made spending too much time on one over the other, I would prefer that error to be slanted toward #2 – on the principles of the Gospel over the history of the Church. (BTW, that is the product of the internal battle within a history teacher who would have chosen to be a preacher if that option were available. The teacher won the practical battle; the preacher wins the overall war.)

“we are not all at the same place and grounded in the same way.” Let me see if I can be more plain, not an easy task. It is kind of like the military. All the inductees or volunteers, as the case may be, go to the same basic training regardless of their background or experience. The 12 weeks or so are designed to be the same experience for every person. But, because some are college graduates and some are high school drop outs they have to use a language that all of them will understand and respond to because even though they might all have a different MOS when the chips are really down their lives depend on it. So the language that they choose is the language which the least educated man in the group will understand.

One of my children was diagnosed with Juvenile Diabetes at an early age. This changed the lives of the whole family not just the one who was stricken. The whole household had to abide by the new regimen of meal times and changes in diet because the life of this child and the well being of the family depended on it.

The Church is made up of people from all walks of life with different strengths and weaknesses. Some have little testimonies that haven’t been tried and tested and some have testimonies that might seem to be rock solid. The church needs to find a mode for reaching every person on the level where they are and that all of them will understand, one that will nourish them spiritually. Like the drill sergeant they speak to the weakest in an effort to build their strength, because their spiritual lives depend on it.

Personally I would prefer to not be surprised by things being left out. But, if the left out thing is something that causes me to have to work something through and leaves me with ugly feelings, I have to say I would rather be fed. I don’t like feeling that way. I have already been there. I have already worked through some things that I found more troubling than Joseph Smith,s polygamy or the other two issues you mentioned. Still, it is a thorny problem because we are all different and some of us are less bothered than others by hearing things that might run contrary what they thought might be true. Some are more surprised than others. And of course, because of the Missionary effort there are always beginners in our congregations. 48 Gospel Principals lessons just doesn’t prepare one adequately for being in a Gospel Doctrine class geared to the level of say a lot of the people who post here.

I’m glad the things I mentioned aren’t a problem for you – but if they aren’t a problem, why do you object to them being taught?

Also, I was/am a little confused by your statement that “….we do not teach them in church because we are not all at the same place and grounded in the same way.” That is basically what my friend said last weekend (see my comment #4). Can you (or anyone else) explain what in the world this means? To me, when I hear this justification/explanation it is translated in my brain as “some people just aren’t ready or grounded enough for the whole truth.” What am I missing?

BTW, I respect your position – obviously many in the church feel the way you do. I just have a problem when things are left out because they’re not convenient, useful, etc. I think it’s wrong – people get hurt, etc., etc…..

I am mystified that anyone might think that following the materials made available by the Church Curriculum department might in any way lead to concealment. In my experience it is teaching too far beyond what is given that causes problems. I have heard almost all of those issues discussed in one class or another.

I also have it from a reliable source that some 10 to 15 years ago a decision was made to write Church materials at about the same reading level as the Reader’s Digest. The object in doing this is to make these materials more accessible and understandable to a growing body of church membership that doesn’t read on the level of a Hugh Nibly. Since the Gospel Doctrine lesson manual is used in both youth and adult classes the materials there must be appropriate for the youth. Adapting these lessons is one of the great frustrations of those who teach adults.

I don’t want to talk more about controversial topics, there are just too many of them, and they are laden with minefields of information that is neither edifying nor appropriate for classes where there is a broad range of spiritual preparedness to hear them. Some of them might even be destructive one’s faith. That is why they are not going to become part of the curriculum any time soon if ever. D. & C. 19: 29-31 articulates the guiding principle of church curriculum writing. Verse 31 reads “And of tenets though shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and the remission of sins by baptism and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.” The classroom materials are designed to awaken in class members an interest in and a desire to read the scriptures. A person is encouraged to learn as much as they want on any of these topics as long as they read the scriptures. But we do not teach them in church because we are not all at the same place and grounded in the same way.

The things you mention are not a problem for me. I don’t see Joseph Smith’s polygamy as a chastity issue. I believe the Book of Mormon to be true because I read it and became converted. I don’t want to deal with things in church that might undermine my faith or the faith of others. I want to talk about the wealth of doctrine that is to be found in the standard works.

As for the proper forum for teaching Joseph’s polygamy….I agree. As I said in #54, I don’t think primary is the right place. But perhaps some inspired leaders and trained educators know how to treat this topic in a more frank way while not getting completely sidetracked.

Frankly, while I have been advocating here a more thorough treatment of LDS doctrinal history in educational contexts, I sometimes wish that gospel instruction focused exclusively on Christ and His atonement…..and that we didn’t have to say a word about “church history” thus making my position here a big so-what. But that doesn’t make any sense doctrinally or practically.

Anyway, thanks again…..