should incorrect teachings be corrected?

[kevieb]

It is 5:30 am---I have been up since about 1:am because i have had something going around and around in my mind. I had a visit with the take president yesterday. The last time we had talked we had discussed children and what the church handbook says they are allowed to do in church.

I have struggled ever since moving into this stake because it felt like the children were ostracized at church. They were not allowed to sing for mother's day, father's day, easter, christmas.......nothing except the primary program. they also did not allow any child under 12 to bear their testimony. I didn't know if it was our bishop or our stake---and then someone told me this came from the first presidency.

I have worked in primary since i was in high school, and before the block program. I used to play the piano for primary after school when I was still in high school. I have spent much of my adult life working in music---more often than not, I have worked with the primary children.

I was so bothered by how different the church seemed in my new ward and stake, that I looked up the church handbook to see what it actually said---and it said that children's choir's and family choirs could sing for church meetings.

As far as I could tell, it was only our stake that was treating the children this way---i heard a few theories about how this came about--and i wondered why no one ever questioned them. We eventually had a primary president and a new bishop that somehow managed to allow our children to sing for mother's day.

To make a long story short, we are 3 years with a new stake president and the new handbook specified that children could bear their testimonies as long as they could do it by themselves. I was discussing this with the stake president, and I told him that the handbook had always said the same thing about children and music. He said I had given him a challenge, and that he was going to look it up, because he had to teach the stake about the handbook. he said something about the handbook saying children under 12 were not to participate in sacrament meeting except for the primary program. (My own assumption is that i must have meant giving talks) I think I asked him if he had looked up music specifically.

I asked him yesterday what he had learned when he researched about children and sacrament meeting participation. He told me that I had been right and that he had apologized to the people he was teaching on the stake level because they had been teaching them wrong---but he said they weren't going to advertise it.

He did tell me that his son had lived in my ward and had said it was weird that the primary children did not sing for mother's or father's day----seems that apparently our ward was far more strict about what they misunderstood---the stake president even suggested that it might just be our ward.

I am wondering why our local leaders would not want to correct something they had been teaching people, once they discovered that they had been teaching them incorrectly.

I realize that a lot of people would see this as no big deal----but it has really bothered me, probably because I have had so many children of my own, and I have worked in primary music so much---both leading and playing the piano. I realize that this is not a Major doctrinal issue---but we are supposed to learn line upon line, precept on precept.

The huge differences I saw in the church after moving to a different stake have really shaken my testimony up and it is still rattling around a bit. I feel like I am back to line upon line, precept on precept and I am struggling with knowing that what i believed was right all along, but had been mis-understood for whatever reason by our stake leaders---and now that they realize their mistake, they don't feel the need to get the word out to people so that they understand correctly what the church actually teaches.

I always kind of felt that if Christ were to show up at church---the first group he would want to visit would be the primary children.

[Eowyn]

I think you spend a lot of time thinking of everything your leaders are doing wrong in your eyes. Maybe you ought to think about why that might be.

[Loudmouth_Mormon]

Originally Posted by kevieb

He told me that I had been right and that he had apologized to the people he was teaching on the stake level because they had been teaching them wrong---but he said they weren't going to advertise it.
...
I am wondering why our local leaders would not want to correct something they had been teaching people, once they discovered that they had been teaching them incorrectly.

Wait - didn't you just say he had apologized to the people he was teaching? Did he not say why he was apologizing?

I assume you're asking for something like a statement from the podium in sacrament meeting or something?

"Dear brothers and sisters, the stake presidency needs to come clean about something. We've been handling children's musical numbers wrong for years, and it wasn't until a good stalwart member showed us the error of our ways that we realized. Sister kevieb, thank you for pointing this out."

Something like that?

The huge differences I saw in the church after moving to a different stake have really shaken my testimony up and it is still rattling around a bit.

Wait - I'm confused. How a stake handles a children's choir has damaged your testimony of the reality and divinity of Jesus Christ?

What am I missing here?

[kevieb]

I am seeking to know the truth and am battling with within myself to keep the negative at bay. I feel like I am a bit behind in the fight, but I hope to come out ahead in the end.

I have had some good discussions with my stake president, and he was the one who saw my question as a challenge for him. He wanted to look it up---especially since he was going to be teaching on the very thing I was wondering about.

This was not a matter of whether or not I thought something was wrong in MY eyes---the stake president himself told me they had been teaching it wrong----I appreciate the fact that he could be so honest with me and tell me that I had been right and that he had apologized to the stake people he was teaching.

What I see is that there is the potential for an entire stake to have an incorrect belief because we are taught to follow what our leaders teachings. I can't understand why they would not want to correct something they know has been taught wrong.

The title of my thread was, "should incorrect teachings be corrected?" And the answer to that question is what I am seeking---not a judgement of what someone "thinks" I may or may not be spending my time thinking about. Please don't assume something about me because I am trying to figure out what is right and what is wrong.

I only asked my stake president what he had learned when he had studied up on what we had talked about previously---he was the one who said they had been wrong.

[Jenamarie]

When I think of "incorrect teachings that need to be corrected" I think of things that are of more doctrinal importance than whether or not children get to sing to their parents in Sacrament meeting on Mother's and Father's Day. The CHI is a handbook, not Scripture. No great harm is done to teaching correct belief in Christ, IMO, by not having the children sing in Sacrament on those days. It's a tradition, not a Doctrine.

If the SP was teaching people that we ought to completely disregard the Bible in favor of the Book of Mormon, or that polygamy is something that is okay to still practice today, THEN I'd be all in favor of making a big deal out of it.

[Anddenex]

Yes, incorrect teachings should always be corrected.

In light of this, however, we also need to recognize the difference between incorrect teachings and personal application of doctrines, or handbook guidelines.

Although, we may not agree, if the Bishop or Stake President only want children to sing at the Primary program, then that is their choice.

There is nothing in the handbook that specifies children must sing at Mother's day, Father's day, etc... This is more the culture we have become used to. This is personal application versus following correct guidelines.

[estradling75]

It seems that you have a particular idea (or maybe demand) on how the Stake President should be correcting his mistake.

There are lots of teachings in the church not all of them are of eternal impact. The only eternal impact I am seeing in this one is on how you are responding to your Stake President.

Your Stake President thought he was following the handbook. You triggered an event that caused him to re-evalutate what he thought he knew. Which is good. Now he knows. However he is the local leader and he is given the power/responsibility to adapt the program to what he thinks will work best for his Stake. Which would include altering or ignoring the handbook if he feels it is truly necessary. So while citing the handbook as a reason for his policies was in error it doesn't mean he can't have such polices if he feels they are in the best interest of his Stake.

Even if he is convinced that he was wrong, and that he needs to take a 180 turn on this issue. Then chances are he is going to want to talk to his councilors, the high council, and his bishops and get them on board and explain the changes to them before rolling it out. And that kind of stuff takes time.

[anatess]

Originally Posted by kevieb

I am seeking to know the truth and am battling with within myself to keep the negative at bay. I feel like I am a bit behind in the fight, but I hope to come out ahead in the end.

I have had some good discussions with my stake president, and he was the one who saw my question as a challenge for him. He wanted to look it up---especially since he was going to be teaching on the very thing I was wondering about.

This was not a matter of whether or not I thought something was wrong in MY eyes---the stake president himself told me they had been teaching it wrong----I appreciate the fact that he could be so honest with me and tell me that I had been right and that he had apologized to the stake people he was teaching.

What I see is that there is the potential for an entire stake to have an incorrect belief because we are taught to follow what our leaders teachings. I can't understand why they would not want to correct something they know has been taught wrong.

The title of my thread was, "should incorrect teachings be corrected?" And the answer to that question is what I am seeking---not a judgement of what someone "thinks" I may or may not be spending my time thinking about. Please don't assume something about me because I am trying to figure out what is right and what is wrong.

I only asked my stake president what he had learned when he had studied up on what we had talked about previously---he was the one who said they had been wrong.

Keveib, these two statements are contradictory:

"I appreciate the fact that he could be so honest with me and tell me that I had been right and that he had apologized to the stake people he was teaching."

"I can't understand why they would not want to correct something they know has been taught wrong."

This is not a case where the Stake President did not want to correct something because clearly, he already did by apologizing to those he was teaching. This is a matter of expectations - you expected the Stake President to correct the situation according to YOUR method of correction which did not match the Stake President's method of correction.

Personal revelation is one of the most important doctrines in the Church. Church leadership are sustained by its membership through personal revelation. We are not supposed to just follow blindly. At the same time, there is stewardship - the boundaries of your personal revelation. Personal revelation only has authority over your sphere of influence - that is, you, your spouse, and your children. But, when it does not match the teachings of those with broader stewardship, like church leaders, then what you did - going to church leadership to discuss the matter - is the proper way to handle the situation.

Just because Church Leadership are given stewardship over a broad area does not mean they automatically become perfect. They are still subject to human failure just like anybody else. This includes the Prophet himself.

Whether Primary sings in sacrament or not, or whether children under 12 can bear their testimony on the podium or not, is just not that important in the Plan of Salvation. There are so many opportunities for children to bear their testimonies - at Primary, at home, with friends, etc. - that Fast Sunday can be given to the adults who do not have parents that can guide them with their testimonies. In our ward, Primary and Relief Society both have testimony time on Fast Sundays. This gives women and children the opportunity to bear their testimony if they did not get a chance at sacrament meeting. Primary children sing every single Sunday during Singing Time. Singing on Mother's and Father's Day is awesome (we do it in our ward) but this is hardly a faith-shaking event if they don't get to do it (like the past 2 years we didn't get to sing on Father's Day because I had to take a month off from my calling as Primary Music Leader in June to care for my dad).

My advice to you is to cling to what is really important in the Plan of Salvation. Don't let things that are not that big a deal in the whole scheme of things that the adversary can easily throw at you to shake your faith. Look at your church leadership with love and compassion as they are also in the same boat as you - finding their way back to Heavenly Father (trying to overcome pride, trying to overcome fear, trying to overcome hardship, etc.), with the burden of having to be responsible for the welfare of a whole bunch of people in addition to their own families.

[Traveler]

The question of correcting incorrect teachings is like asking if we should ever tell a lie. If a husband is asked by his wife if a new dress makes her look skinny – should he be honest and say it make her look fat – if that is what he is really thinking?

It seems to me that the role of children at church has more to do with “policy”, culture and tradition than it has to do with doctrine. One of the strange things I discovered raising my own children is that as parents it is more important to communicate that you love your children than it is to convince them that you are always right but there are times that you have to stand up and demonstrate “tuff” love.

I guess it is kind of like defensive driving – you can be dead right concerning your right of way in a particular circumstance – but being right is a small thing to cheer about if someone you love is killed in an accident that could have easily been avoided by letting the other person have the right of way that lawfully belonged to you.



The Traveler

[Loudmouth_Mormon]

Whether the primary children can sing in sacrament meeting or not isn't a 'teaching'. It's a policy, a practice, a preference. Put into place by humans doing their best - not breathed into scripture by the mouthpiece of God. This is an important distinction, because if you don't understand it, well, your testimony might be based on the words and actions of men instead of the reality and divinity of Jesus Christ.

And men are error-prone, fallen, agenda-driven, and sometimes goofy. Professor Daniel Peterson tells a story about how he was once asked to participate in revising the Gospel Principles manual, and decided to play a practical joke:

Peterson, "I was doing the passage in Acts where you have Uticus up in the rafters at Troas. Paul drones on and on so long that he falls asleep, and falls out of the rafters. He’s taken up dead it says and Paul has to restore him to life. So I thought, “Alright, have a class member read Acts–whatever the passage is. Now, have you ever killed anyone with a Sacrament Meeting speech? How did it make you feel? What steps could you take in the future to avoid this?” The funny thing is that it passed Correlation."

Wotherspoon, “That part did?” [chuckling]

Peterson, “It did, I can only assume that people chuckled at every point and it made it. When I saw the final draft, final gallies, it was still there!”

Wotherspoon, “No way! Wow.”

Peterson, “I went through a real crisis of conscience there. I thought, ‘I would love to see this go into the manual! But I finally called them and said, “I’m not sure that you’d want that particular bundle of questions there.’ [and they said] ‘Oh good grief! good grief! We’ll take it out! We’ll take it out!’ And I thought ‘it would have been great to see that in Tagalog, Chinese, German, and Spanish all around the world.”