Comments on: Gospel Doctrine Lesson 31: How We Taught This Topic in the Past Where our past is never very long ago Fri, 03 Jul 2015 16:51:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: Ardis E. Parshall Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:41:05 +0000 Wait’ll you hit 30, Michelle … and 40 … The pool shrinks to a puddle, then a damp stain on the pavement. Then comes 50 — represented in my imagination by those pictures of parched lake beds, dry as a bone and covered in deep cracks …

By: Michelle Glauser Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:20:35 +0000 Though it seems so silly about the expanded choice of mates when young, it is true. I have definitely noticed a . . . “different” shall we say quality and quantity of dates. I guess that would also have to do with the fact that I’m in a country where Mormons are so spread out.

By: Hunter Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:22:02 +0000 Yes, your disclaimer is assumed and understood.

The main reason I commented is because, in these regards, I don’t necessarily believe “we’ve changed over time,” to use your phrase. I still hear people claiming a doctrinal justification for marrying young, and I still hear people confuse a preference for marriage as a societal institution with a person’s eternal self-worth. To me, part of the value of reading these older lessons, then, is to help tease out which aspects taught are truly “the Gospel,” and which are a more a mingling of societal values with “the Gospel.”

These lessons are so timely given the contemporaneous discussion happening about the (new) Gospel Principles manual.

By: Ardis E. Parshall Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:50:31 +0000 Hunter, that’s the chief reason for my disclaimer at the beginning — that I’m not endorsing all these views, and that “older” doesn’t necessarily mean “better,” even to a fan of history. As with everything else, I think it’s interesting to see how we’ve changed over time, or even when something is an anomaly to understand that it was taught.

By: Hunter Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:43:52 +0000 Am I the only one who thought the questions from that 1939 lesson (Lesson 12) were a bit odd?

Personal Questions.

1. Do you accept the Latter-day Saint view of marriage?
2. Do you favor an early marriage (i.e., early or middle twenties) for yourself?
3. To what extent should your parents’ wishes govern the manner of your marriage?
4. Do you desire a temple marriage?
5. Is your marriage your own private affair?

Note: The manner in which we meet this crisis in life, marriage, will depend upon our answers to the above questions.

And what a strange way to describe marriage (i.e., as a crisis).

Even more troubling, though was the idea presented in that lesson that folks who are not married are “abnormal.” It’s one thing to promote the institution of marriage as an important component of a healthy society; it’s another thing to call those that are not married “abnormal.” Also, I thought it was inconsistent that the lesson’s author would promote careful deliberation before getting married, but then also promote getting married at a young age. I note that both arguments are unsupported by scripture.

Not to be a total downer, then, I will mention something that I enjoyed seeing. I liked the bit in the 1941 lesson about plural marriage. I think it was right on – a short, concise explanation and a prohibition, but not avoiding it entirely, either. I think this could be a model for current lessons.