DiscussMormonism.com

Once again, my sincere thanks goes out to my "confidential informant," for providing me with the link to this incredibly rich and entertaining thread. Yes folks, on the same thread in which DCP proclaimed that Mike Quinn was ex'ed for his sexual orientation (as a means of smearing him, naturally), he also confesses that he was "rebuked" for teaching legit LDS history. Not only that, but it appears that he badmouthed Church manuals to a Seventy:

Daniel Peterson wrote:I've been off the Gospel Doctrine writing committee for quite a while now. But, back when I was on the committee, I was once rebuked by my stake Sunday school president for not sticking to the manual. (Truth is, I pay no real attention to Sunday school manuals except to find out what the assigned passages are. I follow that very closely.) "Don't you realize that the Brethren give these to us by revelation?" he asked. So I told him that I was on the committee that wrote them, and that I didn't like them much and found them impossible to teach from. (Which was pretty much what I told the member of the Seventy who interviewed me for the calling in the first place.) That was the end of that.

(emphasis added.)

Wow. What a superb thread! And it never ceases to amaze me just how interconnected and "deep under cover," so to speak, that Professor Peterson is with all the Brethren. I guess it was a natural choice to select him as an "agent" for the SCMC, given how well-connected he is.

I hear what Dr. Peterson is saying though. There must be many times where bright and creative members are stifled by a Pharisaical-like adherence to procedure, rules and regulations, that interfere with the spirit of the presentation. It is important in the Church, that people like Dr. Peterson's Stake Sunday School President, do not get to club spiritual expression over the head, just because it didn't jump through a set number of hoops or fill out all the forms in triplicate.

Daniel Peterson wrote:I've been off the Gospel Doctrine writing committee for quite a while now. But, back when I was on the committee, I was once rebuked by my stake Sunday school president for not sticking to the manual. (Truth is, I pay no real attention to Sunday school manuals except to find out what the assigned passages are. I follow that very closely.) "Don't you realize that the Brethren give these to us by revelation?" he asked. So I told him that I was on the committee that wrote them, and that I didn't like them much and found them impossible to teach from. (Which was pretty much what I told the member of the Seventy who interviewed me for the calling in the first place.) That was the end of that.

(emphasis added.)

So if I got this right, Dr. Peterson helps write a manual that he doesn't like and is impossible to teach from. Wow priceless. Could someone remind me what kind of Doctor Dan is?

Mister Scratch wrote:Once again, my sincere thanks goes out to my "confidential informant," for providing me with the link to this incredibly rich and entertaining thread. Yes folks, on the same thread in which DCP proclaimed that Mike Quinn was ex'ed for his sexual orientation (as a means of smearing him, naturally), he also confesses that he was "rebuked" for teaching legit LDS history. Not only that, but it appears that he badmouthed Church manuals to a Seventy:

Daniel Peterson wrote:I've been off the Gospel Doctrine writing committee for quite a while now. But, back when I was on the committee, I was once rebuked by my stake Sunday school president for not sticking to the manual. (Truth is, I pay no real attention to Sunday school manuals except to find out what the assigned passages are. I follow that very closely.) "Don't you realize that the Brethren give these to us by revelation?" he asked. So I told him that I was on the committee that wrote them, and that I didn't like them much and found them impossible to teach from. (Which was pretty much what I told the member of the Seventy who interviewed me for the calling in the first place.) That was the end of that.

(emphasis added.)

Wow. What a superb thread! And it never ceases to amaze me just how interconnected and "deep under cover," so to speak, that Professor Peterson is with all the Brethren. I guess it was a natural choice to select him as an "agent" for the SCMC, given how well-connected he is.

With a smidgen of self-reflection, DCP would realize that his position is little different from many of ours'; a main difference being that we have simply taken it a bit further to its logical ends.

I can imagine someone rebuking me for not following the Prophet saying that "Don't you realize that the Bretheren give us these [doctrines] by revelation." If I said in reply, "I didn't like the doctrines very much and I found them impossible to believe," would that be the end of that as far as DCP's concerned?

That was, by the way, a rhetorical question.

I find it disturbing that the title of the thread is... DCP "I was rebuked for teaching LDS history" and the actual DCP quote is...."I was once rebuked by my stake Sunday school president for not sticking to the manual." The connotations differ significantly.

bcspace wrote:I find it disturbing that the title of the thread is... DCP "I was rebuked for teaching LDS history" and the actual DCP quote is...."I was once rebuked by my stake Sunday school president for not sticking to the manual." The connotations differ significantly.

Tomato, tomahto.

GIMR wrote:

bcspace wrote:I find it disturbing that the title of the thread is... DCP "I was rebuked for teaching LDS history" and the actual DCP quote is...."I was once rebuked by my stake Sunday school president for not sticking to the manual." The connotations differ significantly.

Tomato, tomahto.

Potato. potatoe......Remember Quail??? Dan the man...

bcspace wrote:I find it disturbing that the title of the thread is... DCP "I was rebuked for teaching LDS history" and the actual DCP quote is...."I was once rebuked by my stake Sunday school president for not sticking to the manual." The connotations differ significantly.

Well... okay. But the quote was made within the context of a thread dealing with the suppression of Church history. In other words, DCP was leading readers (or at least *this* reader) to believe that his "not sticking to the manual" entailed him delving into history. If you read the thread, you will see what I mean. Elsewhere, he mentions that he was rather sorely and unpleasantly chastised by a woman who didn't like him teaching history in a class he was substituting for. So, there really ought not to be any reason to feel "disturbed." It seems quite clear, based on his posts, that his deviation from the manual was done so he could discuss history.

by the way: I realized that I failed to mention that I was quite surprised by the Professor's apparently flippant behavior towards a GA. He must be pretty confident to tell a Seventy that he thinks, in effect, that the Church's official teaching manual "stinks."

Mister Scratch wrote: by the way: I realized that I failed to mention that I was quite surprised by the Professor's apparently flippant behavior towards a GA. He must be pretty confident to tell a Seventy that he thinks, in effect, that the Church's official teaching manual "stinks."

Good for Dr. Peterson. The GAs need honest feedback to function properly. If everybody puts them on pedestals they will get a doctor complex.

Potato. potatoe......Remember Quail??? Dan the man...

Now you're talking, quail is good with potatos. They go great in a Dutch oven.