Out with the old, in with the. . .old?
The blogs have been buzzing with news about the new Gospel Principles manual we’ll be using for Relief Society and Elders Quorum/High Priest Group. Apparently, the manual deletes all references to the problematic Mormon Doctrine book written by Bruce R. McConkie. You remember Mormon Doctrine - it has the old chestnuts about how the Curse of Cain justifies racial segregation, and, my all time favorite: Virgin Until Marriage, or Die Trying.
While I have my issues with revisionism, I can’t help but applaud the step towards the removal of Mormon Doctrine from the list of approved teaching resources. Go, Church Curriculum Committee! I know I’m pushing my luck, but next up should be extracting Mormon Doctrine from our bookshelves and donating all copies to Deseret Industries.
Heartened by this progress, I was surprised and bewildered at the inclusion of a 1978 Conference talk given by Elder Boyd K. Packer in January’s Ensign called “Solving Emotional Problems in the Lord’s Own Way”.
It’s a short article, so please read it for yourself. I’m hoping someone can translate for me how Elder Packer’s abruptness is, in actuality, demonstrating compassion and concern for struggling Church members.
I’m also hoping someone can translate for me what in the world Elder Packer means in his last paragraph:
… Fathers are responsible to preside over their families.
Sometimes, with all good intentions, we require so much of both the children and the father that he is not able to do so.
If my boy needs counseling, bishop, it should be my responsibility first, and yours second.
If my boy needs recreation, bishop, I should provide it first, and you second.
If my boy needs correction, that should be my responsibility first, and yours second.
If I am failing as a father, help me first, and my children second.
Do not be too quick to take over from me the job of raising my children.
Do not be too quick to counsel them and solve all of the problems. Get me involved. It is my ministry.
ECS, donating mormon doctrine to DI keeps it alive, just passes it on to the next unsuspecting person. I say trash or burn.
I think E. Packer is saying the church is here to support you raising your family, not to raise it for you. I’ve never met anyone that thinks that personally but who knows.
Comment by venus — January 6, 2010 @ 11:05 am
I can remember when this talk was given. I think it was relevant then and now. In my opinion, it goes along the lines of people wanting too much advice and counseling over every little thing. I am not sure if it was in this same talk but Packer also mentioned the same line of reasoning regarding prayer. My interpretation of it was that he saw people avoding personal responsibility by seeking advice and counsel.
You might be surprised at the minor things that people bother the bishop with. Unless you have lived with a bishop you can’t appreciate how many phone calls they get.
I don’t think Elder Packer is referring to legitmate emotional problems.
Comment by cyclingred — January 6, 2010 @ 11:12 am
Yeah, I guess that’s the gist of it, venus. This article is one of those where I shrug my shoulders and wonder if the Ensign publishers think people are actually paying attention. The Ensign is starting to become like a bad soap opera. Recycling old story lines, long-dead doctrines popping up for a cameo appearance.
That said, if as BKP says, fathers are “raising” their “children” - what in the heck are the mothers doing?
Comment by ECS — January 6, 2010 @ 11:14 am
I have been surprised, and I think you may be right. The problem, however, is that people who are avoiding personal responsibility are probably not going to learn their lesson of self reliance reading a truncated Conference talk from 1978. It seems a bit harsh, if not mean spirited, to tell people to stop bugging their bishops with silly problems, but BKP is not known for his tact in these sort of things!
I hope you’re right about that, but how is a reader to know this? I can imagine people with legitimate emotional problems feeling discouraged and alone after reading Elder Packer’s talk.
Comment by ECS — January 6, 2010 @ 11:18 am
I cheer any references deleted from Mormon Doctrine. I also second that the book shouldn’t be donated, put it in recycling or something.
I’m not sure about the quote, I guess it just means leave the poor bishops alone with little problems and solve them as a family, hopefully w/ mom/dad as equal partners, I hope he meant that parents preside over the family as equal partners.
Comment by no name — January 6, 2010 @ 11:23 am
My dad has several versions of mormon doctrine on his shelves, he likes to compare them and see how the editions change. Later versions come with the disclaimer that the book is a product of the time and culture in which it was written. That’s one of my favorite lines now.
I think much about life is a product of the time and culture.
Comment by Alliegator — January 6, 2010 @ 11:24 am
That is the problem with just small bits of a talk. I think if one read the entire talk they would get a better understanding. As I said, I can remember reading when it was first given and thinking it was a very good talk. Yes the reference to the fathers would be better replaced with a reference to parents. But I wouldn’t throw it out based on a dated reference.
The other problem might be that what might be a minor problem for one person could be major for another.
Comment by cyclingred — January 6, 2010 @ 11:26 am
I’m not sure I understand what “order forms for emotional relief” are, are they similar to psychiatric self-help pamphlets on understanding depression, bi-polar etc?
The golden nugget here is the common “Eat it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.” saying.
As for church welfare, isn’t it supposed to be a little karma-ic? If you put your ten percent in to help the church and others, when you need help the church will help you out. It’s not so much a
“quick handout” as it is an investment/safe idea. ( though I do understand that the system can be and is abused, so maybe I should re-think my belief. None the less, there are intangible blessings to tithing that usually suffice for most people. so yeah, still and investment and the long time joke of fire insurance, but I’ll stop rambling now)
Comment by Kiersten — January 6, 2010 @ 11:37 am
ECS, Just because fathers are “raising” their “children” doesn’t mean mothers aren’t also doing the same thing. Sort of like how my wife’s nurturing our children doesn’t (and if I understand the gospel correctly, shouldn’t) preclude me from nurturing them as well.
Comment by Nick — January 6, 2010 @ 11:39 am
I thought the abridged article was odd because the title did not seem to match at all.
With regards to the specific quote, I interpreted it as telling bishops to stop trying to be fathers to the needy boys in the ward, and instead deal directly with the boys’ fathers. My husband is in the YM presidency, so I thought that insight was really interesting. I read it as saying the church has less responsibility for the boys and needs to back off.
Comment by kew — January 6, 2010 @ 11:43 am
If the my grandma could attend a homemaking meeting on finding handy and artistic uses for dryer lint, we can devote a meetingformerlyknownasenrichment meeting to finding uses for Mormon Doctrine. I’d show up for that one!
Comment by Moniker Challenged — January 6, 2010 @ 11:51 am
Mormon Doctrine has a good place in providing an opinion on matters of doctrine. Unfortunately, too many people confused “opinion” with “authority.” The book is a good reference, but it never should be used in place of actually reading, studying, and pondering the scriptures for oneself.
I’m pleased to see the former references to Mormon Doctrine removed simply because it weans the general membership off relying on the book as the authority in doctrinal issues.
I also appreciate that most of the references were updated to be resources more accessible to the general membership - old manuals and more recent Ensign talks. I still think the old references have value, but hopefully the change will encourage members to study a topic further on their own.
Comment by Janell the Great — January 6, 2010 @ 11:53 am
Nick - while that may be true, this article has been reproduced in the Ensign for the entire Church membership. Elder Packer’s talk states that fathers preside, and says nothing about the equal partnership between fathers and mothers. Indeed, Elder Packer’s talk says absolutely nothing about a mothers’ involvement with their children and families. Mothers are invisible in this talk about families, even though mothers are purportedly fulfilling their divine roles as primary nurturers of children. Elder Packer’s talk seems to be addressing single fathers, not families with both a father and mother.
Elder Packer gave his talk in 1978, which was almost 15 years before the Family Proclamation. I’m confused why the Ensign publishers included this article - surely there are more appropriate talks given since 1978.
Comment by ECS — January 6, 2010 @ 11:56 am
Read the full text of the talk here.
I just had to laugh at this line:
You know, I think Elder Packer is right! Too bad every emotional problem can’t be avoided by abstaining from sticking beans up your nose. . .
Comment by ECS — January 6, 2010 @ 12:01 pm
I really like the reference in the OP. The parent should be the one primarily responsible for the raising of their children. I remember being called into the Bishop’s office once because my child was playing outside barefoot. I politely stated that I also play outside barefoot and that if he felt some abuse was involved, he was free to call social services, but otherwise I did not seek his input in how my son chose to play outside.
Comment by StillConfused — January 6, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
If you read the whole talk, I think you’d come across with a completely different understanding. I think the Ensign is heading for trouble with the new “short article” format.
Part of what that talk was addressing was (quoting from the conf address)
.
Elder Packer was going through a period where he was very concerned the members weren’t thinking enough for themselves, and addressed that issue on numerous occasions. That’s what happens when there’s too much “when our leaders speak, the thinking has been done” attitude — the believers quit thinking.
If you read the full talk, the sexism will still bother you, but other than that, it’s excellent, imo.
Comment by Martin — January 6, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
Should have refreshed before I commented…
Comment by Martin — January 6, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
I have a vintage copy of Mormon Doctrine passed to me from my dad who got it from his father. I wouldn’t part with it for anything. I also wouldn’t use it to explain anything about the church. It’s there for the sake of sentiment and to remind me that my dad thinks I’m churchy.
As for the “new” Gospel Principles manual: I love the idea of going back to the basics. Mr. Eris teaches the GP class to new members and I love sitting in to chat about what we really are all about.
BUT! Is anyone else bugged that the first two lessons are on “Heavenly Father” and “Our Heavenly Family” yet no mention is made of Heavenly Mother? I find that to be a shocking absence.
Comment by Eris — January 6, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
Martin, I’m ahead of you. I did read the talk, and I think a good message of how to foster self reliance gets lost in Elder Packer’s editorializing about beans and fathers presiding.
Instead of Elder Packer’s talk on self-reliance, I wish the Ensign publishers had reproduced this one.
Now that’s a talk where the sexism doesn’t bother me. Thanks, Ralph.
Comment by ECS — January 6, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
At first, I thought this post was going to be about the changes in the “Family Responsibilities” chapter of the new manual. I pulled out our very old copy of Gospel Principles and was fascinated to compare the two.
Comment by Fairchild — January 6, 2010 @ 12:22 pm
Thank goodness for the removal of that book from Gospel Principles! People always say it’s not an official church document/doctrine, but it was always referenced and used, and some parts of it are extremely disturbing (besides the OP examples, see his opinions on children born out of wedlock — I think it’s under “Bastards”..). I always get skeeved out when I see that book proudly displayed in the open - hopefully this is a first step towards removing its influence..
Comment by Diana — January 6, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
I have discontinued my Ensign subscription because I was so tired of the sicky-sweet pictures, terrible lay-out, and articles like this one. I did read this article online, and was not impressed….
I am all for a Mormon Doctrine book burning party!
Comment by TaterTot — January 6, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
This is the second article in the Ensign I’ve seen reference these past few days. Sounds like I need to start reading!
I really like the idea of going back to Gospel Principles. I’ve never really taken a Gospel Principles class, so I am looking forward to it.
I second Fairchild in #20 - I’d like to see a post on that!
Comment by Stephanie — January 6, 2010 @ 12:42 pm
Mormon Doctrine has a good place in providing an opinion on matters of doctrine. Unfortunately, too many people confused “opinion” with “authority.”
That might be because the title is Mormon Doctrine. It’s not Mormon Opinion or Mormon Interpretation or Bizarre Mormon Randomness Founded in Unrighteous Assumption, Oh and All That Racism and Misogyny, Too, But That Was the Times.
The definition of doctrine is a body of teachings accepted as authoritative. Doctrine is codified belief, instruction, principles and official position as directed by a primary authority, such as a Prophet or Apostle. I have no doubt this was the intended purpose of the book.
Comment by Chandelle — January 6, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
Ha Ha! Love this Chandelle!
Bizarre Mormon Randomness Founded in Unrighteous Assumption, Oh and All That Racism and Misogyny, Too, But That Was the Times.
Comment by TaterTot — January 6, 2010 @ 12:51 pm
I like the idea that bishops (or other leaders) shouldn’t be parenting children behind the father’s (or mother’s) backs. If a child has a problem it is usually appropriate to involve the parents. If it is a little problem it is not the bishop’s problem at all and should be passed on to the parents. If it is a big problem then support is needed from the parents not just the bishop.
Are there a lot of bishops who are trying to be a father to the young men? I do not know. There shouldn’t be. I guess if you are a bishop and there is a neglected boy it might be hard to try to get the father to step up, but this article suggests that the bishop try to do it.
Comment by jks — January 6, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
ECS, #19 I got nothing against Emerson, but every time somebody goes off on a GA’s conference talk, I wonder if they’ve adequately tried to understand where the talk came from and what and who it’s trying to address. Sure, GAs have been sexist, racist, etc., but they’re also generally pretty bright and have counselled with a lot of people. With few exceptions, I’ve found their talks to be golden in essence — the essence distilled from real-life problems. Also, not everything is meant for everybody, because everybody’s different. Just because it doesn’t apply to you at the given moment doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable.
While I find the Ensign’s “short article” format dubious, no matter how many pages are used to place the topic in context, the haters will find something to hate.
Comment by Martin — January 6, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
This just seems to be a problem to me on so many fronts. I agree with Kew, the title doesn’t match the substance in the slightest, and sets up misunderstandings.
Imagine that you struggled with depression or anxiety (I know, a stretch for so many of us, right?) and you opened your Ensign to see an article called “Solving Emotional Problems in the Lord’s Own Way.” So you think, “How providential! Here a prophet of the Lord is going to tell me how to get myself together.” and then you read about how you shouldn’t be going to the bishop and that bishops refer too many people to counseling.
How is that helpful? How is that anything but damaging?
I agree with President Packer that people rely too much on their leaders for the most basic of decisions, but what does that have to do with emotional problems?
I also find this counsel - use your own mind, make your own decisions - a little…interesting… after all the Prop 8 brouhaha, when I lost count how many times I was told, by members and leaders on every level, to stop using my mind and get in line already.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 6, 2010 @ 1:07 pm
I think the Packer article has some very important points, however I feel like the language (only addressing the fathers) and the discounting of emotional difficulties can be huge barriers to anyone actually receiving the message which is–I think– is that the church should not be solving individual or family problems. The original article may be one of the very foundations of the reluctance of members of the church to seek needed professional (not ecclesiatical) counseling, and it trivializes the serious reality of mental illness (including depression which cannot be solved by telling someone to appreciate the challenge this life of testing provides).
Further, I think the “father only” language is more than just sexism of a previous era. It justifies (or even outright teaches) the common LDS belief that men are in charge of their families; wives and children are under their control. It is not just sexist language, but instead a doctrinal position.
Comment by semo — January 6, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
Yeah, other than the sexism, I thought it was a good talk. I hate it when I’m immersed in a sunday school lesson where people want to be commanded in all things. And I mean all. The message of self-sufficiency was a good one. Furthermore, BISHOPS ARE NOT QUALIFIED COUNSELORS! I heartily support the idea of leaving the over-taxed bishop alone for your emotional problems unless they’re specifically tied to something in his jurisdiction, like sin. Even then, there’s no substitute for professional help and reliance on your family, friends, or other networks.
Comment by Motion de Smiths — January 6, 2010 @ 1:25 pm
re the OP
..unless you’re gay, having sex outside of marriage or having an affair. in those cases, we want ALL of the details.
Comment by mfranti — January 6, 2010 @ 1:33 pm
to me “emotional problems” doesn’t equate to “mental illness” …. mental illness needs to be handled with GREAT care, counceling, and more…. “emotional problems” need to first be thought out fully by the individual and family using creative problem solving etc.
I think this is about the church not telling you step by step what to do all the time. I fully advocate keeping parents involved in parenting and problem solving as much as possible. Though I know that sometimes that is not possible (aka deadbeat dad/mom, or abusive situations).
Comment by April — January 6, 2010 @ 1:36 pm
I too couldn’t stand the cheesiness of the Ensign. I am used to reading magazines like Forbes. But at the same time, I would feel guilty when I threw the Ensign away. So I just did not renew my subscription - problem solved.
Comment by StillConfused — January 6, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
It makes me a little said to read so many comments about getting rid of Mormon Doctrine. Sure, we need to teach people that it’s not current, but what good does it do us to pretend the mistakes of the past never happened.
It’s better for people to learn that church leaders do the best with what they have, but a lot of their words are based on their personal experiences. Just like the rest of us.
Comment by Alliegator — January 6, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
hmmmm my VTers just brough my manual…. guess i need to go read up and make sure I make a couple of appropriate “Heavenly Mother” comments during the lesson. hehe
Comment by April — January 6, 2010 @ 1:52 pm
I was a little sad that there was nothing about Heavenly Mother also- there was even a quote that could have included her, where it talks (something) about God being plural, and it said that meant HF and JESUS.
I suppose it can mean that, but it was a little sad.
Comment by Alliegator — January 6, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
Brought* ugh spelling is my trial right now!
Comment by April — January 6, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
Best change to the Ensign: getting rid of the anthropomorphic food storage items… Ughhghgh
Comment by Motion de Smiths — January 6, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
Re: Gospel Principles
I’m curious how this will work in our classes. It’s been years since I’ve read the GP manual, but I seem to recall it teaching a pretty narrow definition of our doctrines. But a re-examination of the foundational principles may be a good thing in our wards.
(Ever since the announcement about the GP manual came out, I can’t help wondering if this will establish a tier system among the prophets: The “A-list” all received their own manuals, while the “B-list” prophets were left out of the rotation…)
Re: Mormon Doctrine
When I was young and more naive, I took the title of Mormon Doctrine literally. One of the most embarrassing moments of my life (in retrospect) is when an investigator asked a question about Mormons and the blacks, and I earnestly, if awkwardly, taught that blacks had been premortal fencesitters. I felt very uncomfortable, but I was determined to be honest and teach “the truth”–after all, it was in a book titled Mormon Doctrine! It must be right! While I’m still bitter that the Church allowed the book to be released with that title, I’m glad that the membership of the Church has come to recognize the book for what it is.
Comment by Derek — January 6, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
Derek: It’s too bad that all of us don’t have our opinions and writings saved so that what we thought or said 20 years ago can be discussed and berated on FmH.
Comment by cyclingred — January 6, 2010 @ 2:06 pm
I’m in charge of the teachers for sunday RS, and I’ve talked to them a little about the new manual. The lessons are VERY short. With the prophet manuals, there was lots of material to choose from. With the new manuals, the teachers will have to figure out how to best expand the material to fill the lesson time. I think that allows for a lot of individuality. We’ll see how it works out in our ward.
The GP manual is supposed to be for two years, after which we’ll go back to prophets.
Comment by Alliegator — January 6, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
Re 41 - Hopefully it will allow for a lot of class discussion time. That’s the best part! If I have to listen to another teacher read half of the JS lessons right from the book, I will just scream!
Comment by Stephanie — January 6, 2010 @ 2:15 pm
re: 40
It’s one thing to have an opinion, another to publish it as authoritative…
re: 42
Oh, I hate that! When I taught Elders, I would select out at most a dozen specific quotes from the relevant Prophets manual for discussion. To just read through it all is, IMO such a waste of time!
Comment by Derek — January 6, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
ya, my RS didn’t even have a Christmas lesson
and instead had the teacher reading from the manual. I was a little grumpy about that… I was FINALLY in the holiday mood dangit… and now I have to hear a bunch of “men” (allbeit prophets… but not ONE quote from Emma or any other lady) testify about JS. grrrr
Comment by April — January 6, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
When I took the missionary discussions in 1998-1999, they gave me a copy of Mormon Doctrine to study to help me learn about the church.
I wish I were kidding.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — January 6, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
I did a bit of comparing of the old version of the GP manual to the new one. The old version uses the term of Mother in Heaven, and Heavenly parents, and the new one has taken them out. This really bothers me.
And about Packer’s talk, coming from a home with an abusive father, the main message that I take away is that if my father happens to be a jerk, too bad because nobody is going to step in and give a shit.
I think rather than a general message to all church members that says, don’t take your problems to your bishop, the bishops should be taught that when one individual is taking up too much of their time, that specific person needs to be told to get into counseling or needs special home and visiting teachers assigned or something to help them cope with the problems they are bringing to the bishop.
Comment by alas — January 6, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
#39 Derek I too read it that way. I went inactive for 12 years. When I was 16. It was not until I went to a Sunstone that I learned a few insightful things about the book. I now am very active temple going person ect. I think what is in that book can reassure what some may believe and destroy what others believe. I think I was taught to think in black and white from church and in a way it destroyed my testimony. Luckily I found it again.
Comment by cz — January 6, 2010 @ 3:28 pm
Hmm. That is disappointing. I wonder why. Now I feel compelled to see if we have one around and compare the two.
Comment by Stephanie — January 6, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
Derek–wow, what a story about black people being premortal fencesitters. That makes me wonder if Mormon Doctrine might be where my mom got the idea that people who never get the chance to hear the gospel in this life were less faithful in the preexistence. My parents had (and I think still have) a copy of that book in their home library.
I have been in the Neverland of Primary for the last 7 years, barring a few months in RS presidency, so I was not aware of the new manual. I think I’d prefer to hear lessons on basic principles rather than carefully selected details of Joseph Smith’s life that make all the women in RS bear their testimonies about what a wonderful romance he and Emma had. Which reminds me, our RS is having an activity to watch a new movie about Emma Smith this week. Does anyone know if it’s worth seeing? I’m not sure if it’s actually new, but maybe it just came out in Spanish. Our Spanish ward is really excited to watch it.
Regarding Elder Packer’s talk, I understand the message and generally agree with it, but the format makes it seem very abrupt. And the whole thing about fathers is odd. In our ward, a lot of the people who have problems are single moms. Are they allowed to go to the bishop for counseling because they don’t have husbands to take care of the problems within the family? It strikes me as odd to say the church isn’t responsible for recreation, when I see young men and women literally spending nearly all of their free time on expected church activities: 1 hour of early-morning seminary every day, one night of mutual each week, one night of church sports each week, three hours of church on Sunday, a fireside most Sunday nights, BYC/class presidency meetings one or two Sundays a month, a week-long Scout trip several times a year (for the boys), a week-long girls camp once a year (for the girls), a ward activity once a month, and a Stake activity once a month. Plus personal scripture study. Really, beyond church and homework, they don’t have much recreation.
Comment by Sofia — January 6, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
Oops, sorry about the italics!
Comment by Sofia — January 6, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
Returning to your last(BKP’s)paragraph.Haven’t yet read the article,but having been on the wrong end of a Bishop’s interventions in our family’s process,we would really have appreciated a heads up from him before he counseled with our child,or even an effort to inform himself of our situation before rushing to judgement(which included a negative assessment of our temple worthiness).We were informed that this was because we had not sought his judgement on what we considered to be our own stewardship-a judgement supported by our Stake President.A sorry episode for all concerned,and if BKP’s comments were to stop the heartache and damage that ensued,then I’m seeing his point.
Comment by wayfarer — January 6, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
Well BKPacker has always been more of a no-nonsense kind of guy. Buck up, grow up, and stop whining so much. Use the tools you have been given to bless your life and that of your family! People will go to the bishop for all kinds of whiny stuff. “Emotional” isn’t meant to mean mental illness or abusive situations ( which a Bishop is not the place to go for truly mental health issues, but definitely get reeled in on that routinely, too! It is a given. Happens all the time. )
By emotional…I believe he was referring more to the mad, sad, frustrated, lonely, unhappy, nose-out-of-joint someone-is-not-being-nice-to-me DRAMA. Honestly, that is how I read it. Some people wear the Bishop out with their little bits of stuff, because usually Bishops are so nice they just say “Come on in, what can I do for YOU?” BKP figuratively means that people come in for a quick fix of their emotional status for the day…go in to get a bandaid on their boo-boo, a stroke of their self-esteem- when they truly need to get their emotional savings account in order and become emotionally self-reliant and learn to really work things out with the help of their Savior. Which means follow the usual counsel of prayer, getting into the scriptures, and coming to class trying to squeeze the GEMS out of them that will help their own families. I am not saying no one should ever go to the Bishop, but there are those who make it their standard practice to be in that office regularly…for anything and everything. For many, the Bishop becomes their symbolic sounding board, and source of Happy Pills. And this is not just office time, it is middle of the night phone calls.
Can you imagine if all the folks here came to the Bishop with their little bits that they get wound up about all the time? He would never get home and his phone would never stop ringing!
The Bishop really does have so many things to attend to already that he doesn’t get time for, because he is doing a lot of hand-holding. There are many many people that are a real drain on his time who truly could handle things themselves if they used the tools the gospel gives them. We have so many legitimate needs, desperate situations, for which the Bishop must give his time.
Alas, #46- said, “And about Packer’s talk, coming from a home with an abusive father, the main message that I take away is that if my father happens to be a jerk, too bad because nobody is going to step in and give a shit.”
Really?? That is the main message you honestly take away? I am sorry you feel that way. The church and Elder Packer have spoken plainly and often about abuse, especially to the Priesthood. They care about that situation. That is a reason to talk to the Bishop and he can and does even help get other authorities involved if necessary. There are definitions to legal abuse. Some people do want to have their own situational definitions, though. I am sorry if you didn’t get the care you needed. That must be hard. Did you ever get the help you needed? From other sources?
That being said, it is also a real drain on the Bishop to get involved in legal issues in families. But if he has to , he will. Keep remembering- this is a volunteer program, and, really, it works amazingly well. ( Yes, I know there are times that it doesn’t. I really do. ) I have a relative that is a preacher in another religion, and basically his wife feels the same way Bishop’s wives do, even if they ARE getting paid!
Millions have come into the church in the last decades. We who have been in longer can be a help to get them settled in with the basics of the gospel by helping teach, and fellowship.
I was at first puzzled that we were going to have the Gospel Principles manual in RS/PH, and we will see how it goes. We do know that every lesson is different because the make up and experience of the class is always different, and we are all learning and applying principles differently in different phases of our lives and according to our need and understanding. It does say teachers can use the Ensign as an extra resource.
I am thinking we might really have time for our practice hymn!
I do agree Alas, that the talk was to instruct both Bishops and the members prone to take poor advantage of his position.
Comment by Melissa P. — January 6, 2010 @ 5:05 pm
And I am sorry again for my general tendency to be overly wordy.
Skip me.
Comment by Melissa P. — January 6, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
I thumbed through the Gospel Principles manual the other day and did not see a single citation from a female leader or writer—and it didn’t look like all of the citations from male authors were from church leaders, either, so there’s really no excuse for that. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
You know what? I think I’m just going to stop bitching about things like that and assume that ignoring women’s voices is the LDS church’s default position. Someone wake me up when that changes.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — January 6, 2010 @ 5:19 pm
Melissa, I have to politely disagree with you that Mental Illness shouldn’t involve the bishop. I know this is an opinion, but just like normal illness this can completely incapacitate someone. PTSD is a major one that SHOULD involve the bishop so they know when to be lenient on a called etc (one of my assistant Librarians. My sister was hospitalize for depression. Her family and she needed all the assistance they could get (Meals etc for when she was gone)… this included the bishop of her ward, our family did all they could for hers, but it wasn’t enough, her ward help was GREATLY appreciated.
Comment by April — January 6, 2010 @ 5:33 pm
We live in a milquetoast society where too many people want others to fix their problems for them. Elder Packer gives sound advice that fathers need to step up and do their job. Its really simple and (should be) uncontroversial.
Mormon Doctrine, while not “doctrine,” is a nice gospel reference. People simply need to learn to distinguish between the varying authoritativeness of their sources. The majority of the book’s content is uncontroversial, so disposing of it would be unfortunate.
Comment by WJ — January 6, 2010 @ 5:43 pm
sorry that was supposed to say “One of my assistant librarians had this and it was good that I knew so I could be understanding when I had to fill in last minute”.
Comment by April — January 6, 2010 @ 5:56 pm
While I see the cultural relativism in Mormon Doctrine, I don’t think it should be burned. I think there are some good insights to be had. After all, I believe Bruce R. had a witness of Christ before his death and certainly he seems to not have had a problem with it.
As for the paragraph, I think it is saying to let fathers handle the problems of their homes. I see this sometimes where leaders in the church sometimes take over things that should be a private family matter. Maybe he is referring to that.
Comment by Katie — January 6, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
April 55, I didn’t say people with mental health issues should not be involved with the Bishop. On the contrary, they always are, for many good reasons. What I was saying is that the Bishop is not a mental health practitioner or counselor .
I was saying I did not think MENTAL ILLNESS was what BKP was referring to in his talk. And I stand by my opinion that a Bishop is not the place to go to deal with most issues, but I think you misunderstood what I meant by that.
The bishop certainly should be and most often IS often helping with all kinds of practical and spiritual and emotional needs of the mentally ill and their families. As I said, we have mental illness in our family . I am well aware of Bishops involvement in many ways and in different areas. They also can help refer people to other appropriate services, and certainly be mindful, prayerful, supportive, and so much more. We have the gambit of mental illness in our ward, and family.
Comment by Melissa P. — January 6, 2010 @ 6:51 pm
Jack, wake up Jack…Jack? The only thing I can say is that I don’t feel like my voice is ignored in the LDS church. Anecdotal I know but I don’t. I don’t think I’m stupid or hoodwinked. Yes, the only references in the manual that I saw were to scriptures and male church leaders. Including quotes from female leaders would’ve been pertinent and helpful, imo. But, it doesn’t invalidate the good which the manual contains.
I LOVE Gospel Principles. I always have. It’s far and away my preferred way to spend Sunday School, unless I’m teaching (what’s not to love about teaching?) The class usually has new members or interested observers and I frequently have felt the spirit strongly there, unlike oh, I don’t know, 99.7% of my recent SS experiences.
As for the Ensign, it’s so fascinating to hear others’ perspectives. I don’t find it irrelevant at all. Specifically, this month’s articles on a man sharing what he’s learned while living with a rare cancer, a woman who lost her mother to cancer as a teenager and her advice to help others know how to comfort, and finally an article on those who’ve lost spouses all hit pretty close to home. And, Pres. Uchtdorf’s advice on holding on a little longer, even when things look bleak. And, hmmm, and the R.S. message on self reliance in matters social, emotional, spiritual, physical and economic…
Comment by Lupita — January 6, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
It’s interesting cause the OP’s quote of Elder Packers talk is similar to the first lesson in the new manual. Why is it that I get the distinct impression that we are talking about single fathers? Heavenly Father in the Manual and the father of a family in the talk. While I agree that smaller issues need to be handled within the family first, before going to religious leadership, I don’t see why the total exclusion of any mention of the “mother” or the household, or in the manual, our Heavenly Mother/Parents instead of exclusively focusing on the fathers/Father.
Comment by April — January 6, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
There are more problems than this with the new manual.
People really ought to read the work this blogger is doing analyzing the new manual:
http://thepierianspring.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/gospel-principles-lesson-01-our-heavenly-father/
Comment by Seth R. — January 6, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
62, Interesting. I have never seen a Church manual dissected in a similar vein. It made me feel lazy. I do think the Curriculum department has an almost impossible job. And, I do like that they specifically ask for comments and suggestions on the book, including their address and email. That’s the first time I’ve seen that printed in a manual (okay, it’s the first time I’ve actually looked also–see above lazy comment…)
Comment by Lupita — January 6, 2010 @ 7:29 pm
Since they started writing the Ensign down for all the people who don’t read on a 12th grade level, I usually read the stuff in the back and the Visiting Teaching message. I did read the BKP piece because my curiosity got the better of me. I too didn’t think the title said anything about what was in the article. After reading the entire text of the talk I understand better what he intended to be the heart of the message. Whoever edited it did not choose the things that would make it come across.
In 1978 emotional problems and mental illness were pretty much synonymous. None of the research on the brain of the past ten or eleven years had started. Most of the medicines we have now were not available. Emotional problems and mental illness were seen as moral failings that could be handled by repentance. Sensitivity groups were wides spread and the recovery movement was going full tilt. Although we don’t hear as much about the damage done by the recovery movement anymore it is still there.
On the other hand while some of what he says makes good sense for situations in the normal range 25% of families in the general population and probably the church have mentally ill members who do not fall in the normal range. Bishops generally are not qualified to help them. But, telling people to study it out for themselves in this day of self help literature of all types the same kinds of risks present themselves as those he expressed concern about i.e. giving up ones own ability to recognize the inspiration of the spirit without the aid of some book that will tell one just exactly what to say in what situation without regard to the consequences to anyone other than the reader.
It has been a constant surprise to me that Mormon Doctrine has continued to enjoy as much influence as it apparently has. I believe the statements from Bruce R. McConkie and his book have been removed because they are old and out of date. Since they were updating the book they wanted to use the words of more current leaders. There has been a disclaimer somewhere in the book since its second printing. It was never an official publication of the church and was controversial the first day it appeared in stores.
Comment by Claudia — January 6, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
Re 62. Thanks for the linky.
I found the author very intelligent.
Comment by April — January 6, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
ECS #19 — I devoted an entire MA paper to the ironic self-subversion of Emerson’s sexist rhetoric in his “self-reliance” and “nature” essays. Heh.
BKP’s talk is less troublesome in its entirety. The bean analogy makes me laugh–and BKP doesn’t often make me laugh, I admit. The talk’s current *Ensign* format is, I think, incredibly horrific and akin to smacking clinically depressed people upside the head with a General Authority without the latter’s intent–not good for anybody involved. Yuck. gag, and my most vehement protest.
Comment by Janet — January 6, 2010 @ 9:43 pm
Lupita, you may feel heard in church, but Jack’s point is still valid: no female voices are held up as leaders worth listening too in the manual that explains the basic tenets and foundations of the gospel. How can that possibly be? It goes back to my concern over completely leaving out Heavenly Mother in discussion of Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Family - why must women only be heard anecdotally (sp) and never officially? It stings.
Comment by Eris — January 6, 2010 @ 10:33 pm
Lupita — they’ve always had that comment there, I think. My husband took it literally on his mission and wrote in regarding a very unfortunate translation mistake in the Korean manual. For his trouble he received a rather nasty letter in return telling him to be about his own business. I’m sure it doesn’t always turn out so negatively, but it certainly didn’t leave him with a positive impression considering he’d done them a favor and all. Oh well.
Comment by Janet — January 6, 2010 @ 10:37 pm
67, I agree that Jack has a very valid point. I didn’t mean to sound dismissive; her insight is keen and unfettered with a lot of the cultural baggage that Mormon women unwittingly pick up along the way. I reread the first couple chapters and now the absence does seem glaring. I have no explanation for this, and may sound like a floundering apologist. However, I still feel like my voice is heard. It hasn’t always been like this (mission, ugh) and may not always be.
68, Unfortunately, I don’t find your husband’s experience shocking. There’s nothing quite like being shut down after you’ve gone out of your way to right a wrong (I’m curious what the translation error was–please let it be funny!). Hats off to all those who keep on keeping on despite all of the valid reasons not to.
Comment by Lupita — January 6, 2010 @ 11:19 pm
My MIL quoted from Mormon Doctrine when I started questioning the history of Polygamy in the church. She was dead set serious that this book was from God and that I should not argue with it. Good riddance to it.
Comment by Maureen — January 6, 2010 @ 11:26 pm
#60 Lupita ~ I understand your feelings. For the record I have never regarded LDS women who are okay with the system as stupid or hoodwinked. I’ve said this in other places, but again I’ll say that on a local level I think that the LDS church doesn’t do so bad. You’re much more likely to hear a woman speaking from the pulpit in an LDS church than in your standard Protestant church, where the sermons are given by clergy and most clergy are male. So I can see why you, personally, would not feel ignored.
I think that sometimes it takes an outsider’s perspective to point out things that insiders tend to overlook, which goes for me as well. It was LDS friends who pointed out to me that the gender situation at my old church wasn’t so great, prompting me to seek out a church with a female pastor when I moved.
I also don’t consider this strictly an LDS problem. I attend an evangelical seminary where 58 of the school’s 62 full-time teaching professors are male. In the four months since I’ve been here, I have yet to hear a female leader or speaker or theologian quoted when a teacher has gathered the class for a devotional message. The chapel speakers are almost always male. So, in a lot of ways, I’m in the same boat.
In any case, I’m sure people are probably tired of hearing from me how much things suck for women in Mormonism, so I’ll just back off now. Good luck with your first Gospel Principles lesson this upcoming Sunday.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — January 6, 2010 @ 11:34 pm
re: 54
Planning on going into hibernation?
Comment by Derek — January 6, 2010 @ 11:36 pm
jack, I like hearing from you. Someone who seems to put it into an intelligent perspective rather than just following like a sheeple
Comment by April — January 6, 2010 @ 11:43 pm
I wish it could have been re-edited to include fathers raising their daughters as well and taking a vested interested in their lives. I agree with Elder Packard’s sentiment that we need to be raising our own children, and like Martin said, not let our leaders do the thinking for us. I just don’t see who that quote goes with the title of emotional problems. Clearly bishops cannot handle all of the emotional problems in their wards, otherwise the church wouldn’t have established LDS Family Services who employ professional counselors. And I agree with ECS, especially as a professional in this field, that if someone with emotional/mental problems read this quote, they wouldn’t feel very supportive either.
Comment by Risa — January 7, 2010 @ 12:16 am
RE: Derek #39
According to the church website, the “Teachings of the Presidents” series will resume in 2012…this GP thing is just a little break from, not a close to, that series!
Comment by evelyn — January 7, 2010 @ 1:03 am
Science has learned much about emotional problems since 1978– What are they thinking publishing this again!!!!!!!
It’s ignorant.
I think a Mormon Doctrine bonfire or the recycle bin are where they should go.
Hi, FMH’ers. I lurk often and felt the need to come out this time.
I so enjoy the intellectual thought here.
Comment by joule — January 7, 2010 @ 3:03 am
okay, sorry— I didn’t read the comments first.
Comment by joule — January 7, 2010 @ 3:07 am
#45:
I wish you were, too, Jack. Not a good idea for the Missionaries to have done that.
#63
They used to do that in the 1980’s Priesthood manuals.
More to say about this later, but I spent 6 hours fixing the computer & windows after a power supply failure.
Comment by Mike H. — January 7, 2010 @ 5:38 am
I helped my family by selling my old first edition copy of Mormon Doctrine. It fetched over $300 on Ebay.
Comment by Kelton Baker — January 7, 2010 @ 8:40 am
Thanks for your comments, all. Many of the the Ensign articles (and much of the teaching manuals) are so poorly written and conceived as to be barely readable. I mean, the GA’s don’t have to be up to RWE’s standards, but illustrating the perils of psychotherapy by recounting a story of a child sticking beans up her nose - or illustrating spiritual progression by telling members that we’re all just a bunch of pickles brining in pickle juice (hat tip, Elder Bednar) - just don’t get the point across. To me, anyway.
Comment by ECS — January 7, 2010 @ 10:20 am
In my experience, most ( certainly not all) active women in Mormondom think life sucks a lot less now that they have found the gospel. Making a covenant with the Savior and feeling His love as we keep our covenants makes a big difference. And His tender mercy and grace and atonement make up for whatever we face.
Most ( yes, I know- not all! ) members like and benefit from the Ensign. That doesn’t mean it is perfect.
#64 said” Since they started writing the Ensign down for all the people who don’t read on a 12th grade level…..” I feel statements like that are judgmental and patronizing, especially when it is made by someone who is privileged to be educated. Higher education is wonderful, but wisdom and inspiration do not have to be equated to reading level. Many articles are translated into multiple languages and for so many people of various education and experience . I think they do a great job. I have learned so much and FELT so much of worth while reading the Ensign. It always feeds my spirit if I am the least bit available to it. ALWAYS. I think it is like anything else, if you approach it with an open heart , you will receive something good from it. If we are picking it apart to critique…well, that will always be a different outcome. And then I agree, “why bother?”
Here is a few sentences from an article from this month’s that I was reading by Elder Rasband -” It is obvious why Satan wants us to doubt that we are spiritually begotten children of God. Dissuading us that we have divine potential erodes the nobility to which we ought to aspire and invites us to embrace the sins of this world. In doing so we surrender to the adversary and forfeit our rightful divine inheritance. Moses provides us with a wonderful example of how to resist the blandishments of Satan……” I think I need to look up blandishments.
And April, I understand that clinical depression can be terminal. I just lost a friend to it just days ago. I can think of nothing more tragic really…and the service this family will need will be ongoing. The Bishop, quorums, and Relief Society and other auxiliaries will be involved and serving in ways we yet can only imagine. Two articles in the Ensign, “The Courage to Comfort”, and “Widows and Widowers: Moving forward with Faith”, have already been helpful to me.
And I am of the opinion that mental illness will touch all of us, as will disability, through family or friend or self. We are never too far from either, imho.
I am one of those who finds it hard to toss an Ensign. Every time I get ready to, I flip it open to something that teaches me or inspires me all over again. I owe much to the church magazines in my home. I am so thankful we can access them all on-line now. We really are lucky.
I do not think there is another church on the face of the earth that tries so hard to help their members, men and women alike. I am just grateful I can have it in my life.
Comment by Melissa P. — January 7, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
Thank you ECS. A couple of weeks ago our bishopric spoke and the talks were so full of little life quips and stories that I thought I was in a back country yarn spinning contest. I am sure they were supposed to bring home the gospel message but unfortunately they all missed the mark.
It is refreshing to hear someone like Richard G. Scott speak who doesn’t feel the need to mince words or tell little stories to explain the gospel message he needs us to hear. I sort of wish all the GA’s had this level of confidence and then conference could be half as long.
On the issue of counseling for emotional problems, Elder Packer did mean traditional counseling. He wasn’t the only church leader at that time who felt counseling and counselors were some kind of voodoo to be avoided at all costs. Luckily the times have changed. Now the church employs its own army of counselors and if you add to that all of those that are paid for this service by bishops the world over it would be mind boggling to see just how many members are getting treatment. Thank goodness for that and that people aren’t relying so much on bishops to get mental health care!!!
Comment by Desert Rat — January 7, 2010 @ 7:30 pm
I, too, love the Ensign. The new format is much more international. I appreciated the article by the Ensign staff about how they choose what goes into the Ensign. It sounds like they understand that they are speaking to a diverse audience, and that they expect that we will pick and choose what we read in. That surprised me - I guess I assumed we were expected to read all of it (which I would like to do, but truth be told, I usually read through the articles that sound interesting to me and then say I’ll read the rest later when I have time - ha ha ha ha). I like the shorter articles. Just for January alone, I find I am reading more of it because I can fit it in here and there.
Comment by Stephanie — January 7, 2010 @ 8:27 pm
I think that what Elder Packer was saying was, that the father should be active and involved in his family, not just in his hunting club or workplace.
Again, this may be my interpretation…
Comment by Velska — January 10, 2010 @ 12:04 pm
I hated to see BKP’s talk in this month’s ENSIGN. That talk was the basis for my X’s continued emotional and pgysical abuse of my for 29 years! In 1978 we had been married 5 short years and whem we divorced it was after a 29 year temple marraige. X took BKP to say that we should NEVER divulge our personal affairs to anyone. X took ENSIGN arricles as scripture. X felt that NO counselling was EVEN necessary. And THAT is the danger of articles like that. I for one, am so SICK AND TIRED of invisible women in our church lessons. SICK,SICK, SICK. I am a 4th generation Mormon and for the moment, quiet about feminism Mormon. But after the JS manual and the silence about polygamy and no references to Heavenly Mother in the GP manual, I’m about to have a huge rant somehwere!!!! WHEN will it EVER change???
Comment by Sherry — January 11, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
[…] after our last discussion of meetings, there was a new development that has sparked discussion throughout the Bloggernacle: The new manual for Priesthood and Relief Society (adult classes) is a […]
Pingback by More on Meetings! | Main Street Plaza — January 18, 2010 @ 10:10 pm