|
|
 Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign! |
Website © 2005-2011 Compiled With: Caligra 2.0.2  |
Containing 4,469 Articles Spanning 328 Topics Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery Online Since January 1, 2005 |
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
|
|
 | Monday, Feb 11, 2008, at 07:40 AM New 2008 Joseph Smith Teaching Manual - Why Can't They Just Tell The Truth? Original Author(s): Anonymous CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS -Guid- | ↑ |
| Since my wife is still TBM, I had a chance to browse the new Joseph Smith Sunday school manual. Why can't they just be even partially truthful once in awhile?
The best fiction of this manual is on page 529 which talks about the martyrdom of JS. It says the Nauvoo Expositor was an anti-Mormon news paper printed by enemies of the church that slandered JS and the Church. The truth: The Nauvoo Expositor was a news paper printed by disaffected members of the church who had no bad blood against the church per say, but against JS and his lies about polygamy. The so-called slander was that the Nauvoo Expositor was going to blow the lid off of Joe and his Cronie's practice of marrying other men's wives and daughters and lying about it. The lesson manual goes on to say that the Nauvoo City Council ordered the press destroyed because they feared the slanderous paper would incite mobs to come and destroy them. The truth: Joseph Smith (the man who wielded all authority in Nauvoo) ordered the destruction of the press. The reason being he did not want the juicy stories of his philandering to be made public. The book then says Joseph and his Brother Hyrum were arrested and awaiting trial when a mob stormed the jail and killed them sealing their testimony in their own blood. The truth: The Gov of IL. dropped the ball on ensuring JS' protection. The mob stormed the building and JS and company did all they could to stave them off. JS fired a pepperbox pistol through the door into the mob hitting 2 men. JS ran to the window to shout the Mansonic distress call in hopes of being saved. JS was then shot and fell out a window. Why does the church never mention JS's gun and his cry for help? Isn't natural for anyone in such a situation to try and save their life? What about JS's epistle to his Legion Commander demanding that he bring an army down to break JS out of jail? Can't they just even be a bit truthful once in awhile? It really is an insult to the members in my opinion. |
| | Tuesday, Feb 3, 2009, at 08:31 AM Gospel Doctrine 2009, Lesson Six Part One Original Author(s): Measure CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS -Guid- | ↑ |
| Another week, another lesson that focuses on Personal Revelation. Oddly, this lesson is also filled with backtracking statments about how revelation is recieved, and warnings about what revelations are correct and which are wrong.
You see, only the church can tell you what revelations are valid. Your personal relationship with God is secondary to the church's relationsip with you. As always on these posts, all quote boxes are pulled directly from the Gospel Doctrine manual, unless otherwise indicated. Let's get started: This lesson is intended to help class members learn how to recognize personal revelation from the Holy Ghost.Well, we see what we are dealing with here. I'm sure the church will put together a nice, logical pathway to recognize personal revelation. Explain that revelation can come in many ways. Some of these include appearances by the Lord or His messengers, voices from the Lord or His messengers, visions, and dreams. Usually, however, revelation comes as the Holy Ghost communicates thoughts to our minds and feelings in our hearts. The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead. He is a revelator who teaches, comforts, warns, strengthens, and guides us.Interesting. I'm not seeing any effort by the church here to clearly lay out the difference between the spirit and your own thoughts and feelings. Suggestion for class disruption: Ask the teacher at this point how to tell the difference between intuition and the spirit. With the right follow up questions, and the right classmates, true believers or not, you might be able to get this debate to fill up the whole hour, and not get any further in the lesson. That would really cheese off your teacher, who prepared for the rest of the lesson getting taught. Moving on: A. Doctrine and Covenants 8:2-3; 85:6. (He uses a still, small voice to communicate to our minds and hearts.) See also 1 Kings 19:12; 1 Nephi 17:45; Helaman 5:30.Ok, so the church is establishing that one way to recieve inspiration is from a still, small voice. Backed up with five scriptures from four different books. Sounds pretty solid, eh? Finally, some clarity! Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve taught: "Visions do happen. Voices are heard from beyond the veil. I know this. But these experiences are exceptional. … Most of the revelation that comes to leaders and members of the Church comes by the still, small voice or by a feeling rather than by a vision or a voice that speaks specific words we can hear. I testify to the reality of that kind of revelation, which I have come to know as a familiar, even daily, experience to guide me in the work of the Lord" ("Teaching and Learning by the Spirit," Ensign, Mar. 1997, 14).Well… maybe it's not a still, small voice that you can hear… but it's still a voice, right? or kind of like a voice? Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve taught: "These delicate, refined spiritual communications are not seen with our eyes nor heard with our ears. And even though it is described as a voice, it is a voice that one feels more than one hears" (That All May Be Edified [1982], 335).Oh crap. Not a voice at all then? What was the purpose of this section of the lesson? Seriously, you have scriptures saying, "The spirit will speak to you with a still small voice" and two prophets saying, most charitably "not always" and most critically "Oh no it doesn't!" Basically, the church refuses to take a hard stand on how the spirit talks to you. One would think this would cause some reason for concern to members of the church. Anyway, maybe the next section will make things more clear. B. Doctrine and Covenants 6:15; 11:13-14. (He enlightens our minds.)Well, no apostolic backtracking here, but I fail to see how the process described is any different than intuition. Here's another good place to get in that class disruption. The church makes no attempt to define the difference between inspiration and intuition. It in fact, would appear to be attempting to hijack the definition of intuition and make you think that any time you use your intuition, it is actually inspiration from the Holy Ghost. In short, the church is saying, Intuition equals Inspiration. If the church was correct in this theory, then it would follow that fallen members like me, or anyone who rejects God, would not have access to the Holy Ghost and Inspiration/Intuition. No fallen member, and no atheist, would ever have intuition. I can testify that as a fallen member and an atheist, that I still have intuition. Moving on… C. Doctrine and Covenants 6:22-23. (He brings peace to our minds.)Ok, the spirit brings peace to answer prayers? Let's look at the scripture mentioned here to see exactly what the lesson means by this. D&C 6:23 - 23 Did I not speak apeace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God?Wait… who's talking here? Purportedly the revelation is from God speaking through Joseph, but if it was from God, wouldn't that last word read "Me" instead of "God"? I think what we have here is another evidence that Joe was making everything up. As for the "peace", I personally find peace through meditation, no prayer or Gods necessary. D. Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-8. (He may cause a burning in the bosom.) See also Luke 24:32.Ok, looking at these two scriptures, It is pretty clear that a burning in the bosom is to be felt in answer to prayer. Or if you hear the words of God. Wait… did I say "Clear"? Why do I get the feeling that the church is about to muck things up? Ok, I confess, I read ahead already: Point out that although the context of D&C 9 has to do with Oliver Cowdery's attempt to translate the Book of Mormon, the principles also apply to personal revelation. Emphasize that a burning in the bosom is only one way the Holy Ghost can communicate with us. You may want to use the following quotations to help class members understand this way in which the Spirit communicates.Oh. Well, so the spirit may produce a burning in the bosom. And let's forget the D&C quote the lesson just gave… that only works for Oliver. Maybe a modern apostle can clear things up. President Boyd K. Packer explained: "This burning in the bosom is not purely a physical sensation. It is more like a warm light shining within your being" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1994, 77; or Ensign, Nov. 1994, 60).Oh. Not a physical sensation, even though the scriptures describe it as one? Let's get a second opinion: Elder Dallin H. Oaks said: "I have met persons who told me they have never had a witness from the Holy Ghost because they have never felt their bosom 'burn within' them. What does a 'burning in the bosom' mean? Does it need to be a feeling of caloric heat, like the burning produced by combustion? If that is the meaning, I have never had a burning in the bosom. Surely, the word 'burning' in this scripture signifies a feeling of comfort and serenity" (Ensign,Mar. 1997, 13).Uhm… so there's no burning at all. Nevermind this whole section of the lesson. It is odd that in the two sections that point out specific ways to communicate with the spirit, all the quotes from modern apostles are contrary to the principle being taught. It's almost as if there is someone in the lesson department is secretly non-believing and is choosing quotes purposely to show how ridiculous the church is. E. Doctrine and Covenants 98:12. (He often reveals things "line upon line, precept upon precept" rather than all at once.)Ok, so God will reveal things to you one piece at a time, until you have your full answer? "When we seek inspiration to help make decisions, the Lord gives gentle promptings. These require us to think, to exercise faith, to work, to struggle at times, and to act. Seldom does the whole answer to a decisively important matter or complex problem come all at once. More often, it comes a piece at a time, without the end in sight" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1989, 40; or Ensign, Nov. 1989, 32).Ah, but God may choose to never end the revealing, in effect, never answer your question. Good thing we have modern prophets! Ok, This is getting out of hand. I'm now past 1600 words, and I'm only about halfway throguh the lesson. I will cut things off here for now, and come back with another post this week on the second half of the lesson, where the church goes to all lengths to warn you against taking your personal revelation seriously. Where have we come so far? We've established how you recieve revlation!
|
 | Tuesday, Feb 17, 2009, at 11:53 AM We Had A Good Lesson On The Bitter Fruits Of Apostasy Yesterday Original Author(s): Anonymous CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS -Guid- | ↑ |
| For those of you who don't keep up on the new lesson manuals, they are very deceptive indoctrination. They are out right deceptive. This particular lesson makes it look like the bank failure in Kirtland was just a bank "started by members of the church", rather than by JS.
It also places the blame on a banking problem that swept the whole U.S. rather than say that it was fraudulent right from the start. Then it states that most of the members kept faithful to the church, ignoring that witnesses to the BoM left and so did the first counselor to JS. The person giving the lesson included all of those points in the lesson. I was so pleased to hear it included, as I had read the lesson and was pissed that it was so overtly deceptive. The guy giving the lesson fixed all the deception and added truth to the discussion. If you know church history, the lessons are unbearable because it is so deceptive every week. I mean, making it sound as if JS had nothing to do with the bank? It was a good lesson, but the Elders Q Pres took him aside after the meeting all formal like into an empty room. We'll see what becomes of that. I'm still going to please my wife, so I'm still keeping up with all of this craziness. He also gave examples of people leaving the church that went on to have good happy lives, and that it wasn't all necessarily doom and gloom. |
| | Thursday, Feb 19, 2009, at 08:11 AM Mormon Lesson Manuals Do Not Miss The Point - They Hit The Mind-Control Nail Right On The Head Original Author(s): mootman CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS -Guid- | ↑ |
| Michael Langone, "Mind-Manipulating Groups: Are you or a Family member a Victim? in CULTS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE: A RESOURCE GUIDE" (American Family Foundation, May 1998). Dr. Langone suggests: “If you check many of these items, and particularly if you check most of them, you might consider examining the group more closely. Keep in mind that this checklist is meant to stimulate thought, not ‘diagnose’ groups.” • The group is focused on a living charismatic leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment. • The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. • The group is preoccupied with making money. • Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. • Mind-numbing techniques (for example: meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group or its leader(s). • The group’s leadership dictates - sometimes in great detail - how members should think, act and feel. • The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity). • The group has a polarized, “we-they” mentality that causes conflict with the wider society. • The group’s leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, clergy with mainstream denominations). • The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means (for example: collecting money for bogus charities) that members would have considered unethical before joining. • The group’s leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them. • Members’ subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family, friends, and personal pre-group goals and interests. • Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group. • Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members. |
| | Thursday, Feb 19, 2009, at 08:09 AM Be Not Deceived, But Continue In Steadfastness Original Author(s): hasitaname? CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS -Guid- | ↑ |
Earlier threads about LDS church lessons made me curious about what these manuals actually said, so I looked them up (having not been for about a decade) Lesson 24 from the D&C Gospel Doctrine Manual talked about the deceptions of Satan that could lead us into apostasy. Ohhhh scary. What are the ways Satan tries to deceive us and lead us to apostasy? According to the manual they are:
Anyway, we start with the unproven and, and many would argue, false premise that "Satan" is a real person. Things go down hill from there, by also assuming Satan, if he is real, wants us to apostatize from the Mormon church. Maybe Satan supports the mormons and wants us to become Southern Baptists. Number 1, "not recognizing the prophet as a source of revelation for the church" i.e. false prophets. Again, this assumes there is such a thing as a prophet who speaks for god and that there is a god. It assumes Smith was not a false prophet. The fun continues with Number 2, Pride. The example suggests only silly people who fight over cream would leave the church. The example given in the next one, being critical of leaders' imperfections, is a spelling error. Really? That is the best example of a leaders' imperfection you could come up with? The most imperfect thing about Smith is that he misspelled a member's name? What about the fact that he did teenage girls and married other guys' wives? What about his numerous stories involving the first vision? What about the numerous criminal convictions and lawsuits? What about his ordering the destruction of the Nauvoo press? What about the Kirtland Bank? Are these imperfections or are they fraud? Mmmmm. Same thing with the "being offended" example, the implication being that only a totally shallow idiot would apostatize. The last two reasons for apostasy are rationalizing disobedience and accepting the "false teachings" of the world. Again, only evil sinners who want to drink beer apostatize. The "false teachings" example again assumes what they are trying to prove. It assumes the world's teachings (as if all the knowledge of the humankind through history could be summarized and dismissed as the "world's teachings") are false when they contradict mormonism. Overall, I really have a hard time believing that any even semi-thinking person could swallow this nonsense without a great deal of conditioning and mental gymnastics. I know that is not a very politically correct attitude and I honesty love and respect many mormons, but COME ON! Really? People only leave because they get into a fight about cream and want to drink beer? I can respect individual mormons, and even some of the good things mormonism may do and promote (of course that is all subject to debate), but I will never accept stupid ideas, bad logic, infantile explanations, and let's face it, prejudice against those who no longer believe. This lesson misses the entire point. It doesn't mention the crucial issue because it is something Mormonism just can't accept or deal with in a healthy way. It is the simple truth that people leave because they no longer believe. This is, of course, the most valid reason people leave, the most popular, and the most difficult. Mormonism: why don't you put that in your manual? |
| | Tuesday, Jul 28, 2009, at 08:21 AM The Witness Of The Spirit And The Changed Handbook Original Author(s): confused CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS -Guid- | ↑ |
| This new set of changes makes me wonder; will the witness be the same for new converts as it was with new converts of 10 years ago? When I was reactivated into the collective, I got a 1992 version of the book and poured through it. I memorized most of it and had a very strong testimony of those words. That book is nearly worn out, but I keep it for its sentimental value.
As my faith became challenged by the real story of the church, my bishop called me on my testimony. Much of it was based upon the teachings that were reflected in that book. As I mentioned in the other thread, just this spring he condemned my lack of faith and loss of blessings-those same topics and promised blessings are now unavailable to the new convert of 2010. I recently obtained JSFs 1954 Doctrines of Salvation 3 vol set. Those teachings were the basis for gospel indoctrination in my youth and in FHE at home. My parents' testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel was based on those books. Many of those teachings are no longer available as they've been tossed in favor of new and acceptable revelation. The new convert will be shielded from many of the 1992 teachings in the Gospel Principles handbook, and their witness of the [new] truthfulness will be profound. Yet those who are aware of the changes, as they go though their class will be subconsciously troubled by the subtle differences. Their witness from the Holy Ghost will be different. Just like the different spirit you feel when reading an 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. It makes me wonder how to tell if the spirit is witnessing of the truth. You feel bad reading the truth from years ago. Yet in our youth we felt good about those same teachings. Tomorrows convert will feel threatened if they get ahold of todays manual, and will be told that it is the adversary trying to harm their testimonies. Yet our faith and conviction was based on that same book. |
| | Friday, Nov 5, 2010, at 09:49 AM I've Got To Admit, It Worked On Me For A Long Time Original Author(s): DNA CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS -Guid- | ↑ |
| I've got to admit, it worked on me for a long time.
I thought the new manuals were just fine. Not thought provoking or anything, but just fine. I had no idea how deceptive it all was till I had to give a lesson out of it that mentioned the Kirtland Bank failure. I knew by then from reading No Man Knows My History that the lesson was so deceptive. It pissed me off to be expected to teach such deception, and I put too much truth into the lesson and got fired for it. At that point I knew the manual was deceptive, I just didn't know there was a much larger systematic manner of trying to deceive us with all of those manuals. Systematic to the point of polling people from many different wards to see if the desired effect took hold in their responses. Feeling the pressure to lie while teaching a lesson was the end for me. |
| | Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010, at 07:50 AM Worldwide Leadership Training Summary Original Author(s): The Still Deluding Voice CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS -Guid- | ↑ |
| The following is my summary of the worldwide leadership training:
1. New Handbooks, Red and Blue. Only Bishops and above have the blue one. 2. New rules on who can do priesthood ordinances. Other than baby blessings, Baptism, Confirmation, Aaronic Priesthood ordinances, everyone must have a temple recommend to use the priesthood (can you say MONEY!. Even these aforementioned ordinances require consultation with the Bishop. If you don't have a recommend you may stand in the circle to give your son the Melk Priesthood, but can't be the voice. You can't do any other ordinances without a temple recommend. 3. Less power in Bishop, more in auxiliary leaders. Ward counsel now the preeminent meeting. Priesthood Executive Meeting now sidelined, and said it could be handled before ward counsel in a few minutes. According to the meeting, there is revelatory power in counsels. We can receive inspiration in our counsels for others, even outside our zone or responsibility. This is because we are acting under our Bishop. Responsibility should shift from the Bishop. We need to act without him to reduce the Burden. Men need to realize women are an integral part of this. Women can have input on home teaching assignments. 4. We need to teach people to be less dependent upon the church for financial support. Leaders, members and home teachers need to take care of these needs, and not have every need go to the Bishop. (In other words, too many people are seeking assistance from the church for money, and individual members need to address the need). 5. No activities committee. Ward activities need to have a purpose, and be controlled by the ward counsel. 6. Members and especially ward counsel have responsibility for member retention and activation. (Trying to stop the bleeding from the church). 7. Elders Quorum Presidents will have increasing responsibility (I am a EQP... so this sucks). This requires us to be delegators, not workers. May have to stop moving people to get it done. (In other words, EQP is accountable for the losses of ward members). |
| | Thursday, Nov 18, 2010, at 10:18 AM Mormon "Martin Luther" Causes Stir By Uploading LDS Church Handbook Of Instructions To Internet Original Author(s): Joanna Brooks CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS -Guid- | ↑ |
From Religion Dispatches:
Last week, I reported here at RD that copies of the new LDS Church Handbook of Instructions, a two-volume, 400-page tome detailing Church doctrines, policies, and procedures (call it a Mormon Talmud) previously reserved only for local and regional Church leaders had been leaked on the Internet days before its official release at a special Saturday meeting satellite-broadcast from Church headquarters in Salt Lake City.http://www.religiondispatches.org/dis... |
| | Tuesday, Dec 14, 2010, at 08:36 AM When Is A Manual Speaking As A Man? Original Author(s): Runtu CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS -Guid- | ↑ |
| Manuolatry: A Reality Check
Recently I've been reminded that some people hold LDS Church manuals in the same esteem as the pronouncements of living prophets and the scriptures themselves. One person asserted, for example, that "doctrine is more important tha[n] scripture ... because we are not qualified to interpet scripture whereas the prophets are." Doctrine, he tells us, is "enshrined" in "official publication[s]" of the LDS Church. By this logic, then, Church manuals are more authoritative than the scriptures themselves because manuals have been vetted and approved as official doctrinal statements by the apostles and prophets. This rather strange elevation of Church manuals stems from a misinterpretation of a 2007 Church statement intended (http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/...), ironically, to clarify what constitutes doctrine. The key passage in this statement and the one that seems to cause the most confusion is this one: "With divine inspiration, the First Presidency ... and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles ... counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith." Let's summarize:
I don't think we need to discuss the doctrinal authority of "the four 'standard works' of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith." Rather, I wanted to focus on the Church's publication process and how it tries to guarantee doctrinal consistency. A short history lesson might help. Before 1971, Church priesthood and auxiliary organizations published their own manuals, magazines, and other materials without central oversight from Church authorities: "As the programs and activities of Church organizations expanded in number and complexity, they came to have their own general and local officers, curricula, reporting systems, meetings, magazines, funding, and lines of communications" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "Correlation"). Without central oversight, these various organizations published what they wanted, which often resulted in consternation and dismay from the leadership. It's not surprising that many of the strange statements alleged by critics to be "doctrine" have been quote-mined from these un-Correlated publications; thus one reads in these volumes about Quakers with tall hats living on the moon and the statement "when the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done," Efforts to exert central "correlation" control over the various organizations began in 1907, but the current Correlation program was not fully in place until 1971. So, the first thing to consider about "official" Church publications is the date. Anything published before 1971 has not been through the Correlation process and thus does not qualify as consistent with Church doctrine. Consequently, the Church's official web site does not contain any official publications with a copyright date earlier than 1971. Church magazines, for example, can be searched only as far back as January 1971. True, works both in and out of the Church from earlier dates are cited often, but the inclusion of excerpts from such publications indicates that the teachings cited have passed a Correlation review, not that the entire work being cited reflects doctrine. In short, the Church does not consider pre-1971 publications to consistently proclaim its doctrines. But what of current publications? Do they consistently proclaim Church doctrine? Yes, so far as the Correlation committee is concerned, as they have been delegated the responsibility to evaluate Church publications against the established doctrines of the Church. The process of Church publication is not all that complicated. Generally speaking, the organization involved (the Priesthood Department or the Curriculum Department, for example) proposes a new publication to the General Authority (a Seventy) who oversees that department. Depending on the publication, the proposal may have to be sent to the Twelve for approval, but I didn't see this happen very often. Upon approval, the department creates a writing committee, composed of COB staff and volunteers (David Bokovoy and Daniel Peterson have both served on such committees). The committee follows the general instructions (sometimes a topical outline) and writes the publication. When the department has approved the document, it goes to the Curriculum Department for editing. Curriculum editors have a great deal of freedom to revise and often rewrite the contents of publications, and sometimes this was necessary. When the department has approved the edits, the publication is sent to the Graphics Department for layout and illustration, and then it goes back to the department for final approval. The last step is the Correlation report. Staffers in Correlation review the publication and return a report suggesting changes (ranging from typographical errors to doctrinal issues). After the changes have been made and the originating department, the editor, and the Correlation committee sign off on the publication, it is sent to the press for printing. "For the Strength of Youth" is a good example of the process. Hoyt Brewster, then director of the Priesthood Department, proposed updating a pamphlet from the 1960s to meet the needs of the youth of the Church today. He submitted the proposal, which was approved, and then a committee worked with Brother Brewster's original draft and then sent a draft to Curriculum for editing. Two editors (one of whom was me) went through the draft, made changes, and then sent the document on for layout and formatting. This was only one of two times while I worked there that I knew of the Twelve being involved in any project (the other being a leadership handbook I worked on). The completed draft came back with changes initialed by the requesting apostle (most were marked "BKP"). We made the changes, got final approval, and sent it out to be published. Most of the time, however, publications were proposed and produced by the organizations and their professional staff. We all understood that what we had published was not infallible or beyond questioning. That is why Church publications usually include a request for comments and corrections. In short, Church publications are not scripture; they are subject to change, revision, and deletion; they reflect the understanding of those who produce and review them, but they do not enshrine established doctrine. One document I revised had at its original publication stated that the male sex drive was given to us because otherwise men would not want to stay with their families. That isn't doctrine, but it was published in a post-Correlation manual. Similarly, another publication defined "visual contact" as constituting sexual harassment. Is that doctrine, or not? It's strange that in a religion that allows for translation errors and doctrinal issues with scripture (at least the Bible), some cling to Church publications as some sort of doctrinal pillar of truth. We never thought of them that way, and I never heard any General Authorities refer to them that way; in fact, Elder Gene Cook lamented quite often that instructors had become "slaves" to the manuals, and he wished people would open up a little and do their homework. Thus, in 1989, the Church revised its Sunday School curriculum to focus on the scriptures, not the manuals, as stated by Joseph Wirthlin: "Rather than use so much of the material supplementary to this unique book of scripture, our teachers are being encouraged to concentrate on teaching directly from the text of the Doctrine and Covenants itself.... These questions are also designed to be answered from the scriptural text instead of from resource materials in a manual. We feel this direction will turn the teacher and the students more to the Spirit,to the scriptures, and to prayer for understanding" (Ensign, Jan. 1989, 12). If the manuals were considered "more important" than the scriptures, Elder Wirthlin's concern that the "supplementary" material from the manuals was distracting from the scriptures would have been nonsensical. The manuals were reduced in size and content precisely because they were and are considered less important than the scriptures. Perhaps the best indicator of the Church's attitude toward the manuals is how often they are cited by the Brethren in their writings and conference addresses. They aren't. They quote scriptures and prophets, and even bad poetry on occasion. But it is rare for any Church leader to refer to Church publications, except on those occasions when a new publication is being introduced. |