Chasm Between Lds Scholarship And Church Curriculum

[Hamilton Porter]

Most people who leave the Church do not join another faith. But that it happens at all, in more than trivial numbers, should be surprising. Discoveries of the Enuma Elish and the Ugaritic Tablets have contextualized the Bible massively in our favor. To see someone leave the Church, then turn around and say that Mormonism isn't Biblical, just isn't real.

I tried explaining Canaanite parallels to my baby sister (Berkeley grad, smarter than me), and all I did was weird her out, LOL.

The problem is that Church curriculum is at odds with Church scholarship. The former takes a very conservative view of the Bible. In Gospel essentials, we teach that Moses wrote the Torah, In GD all we ever learn is Yahweh only, Baal sucks.

I once encountered online a lady about to be baptized. She came from a Catholic family with LDS extended family, had previously dabbled in Judaism for a while, and knew some Hebrew. Vangies fired the usual at her (Jesus =Lucifer's brother, etc.) and none of that stuck (e.g. she knew hasatan was among the sons of God). I could have sworn she was Dan Peterson incarnate, but she told me the only religious discussions she was having were with missionaries.

I think it's about time we move the curriculum a little more closely aligned with modern scholarship. The problems I see with this move:

1. Showing the Bible to be henotheistic may engender friction with our current aims of mainstreaming the Church.

2. Following the dominant scholarly majority may at times be two-edged sword (e.g. Deutero-Isaiah).

A few modest steps I suggest.

1. In seminary, replace Jer. 16:16 as scripture mastery (we all know it's not about missionary work), with Deut. 32:8-9. Use Deut. 32:8-9 to teach that God the Father = Elohim, and Jesus = Jehovah, instead of having them learn it first at the temple. Tell them what the NRSV says, "gods" instead of "sons of Israel," and why it's a better reading. Drop the notion that the KJV is most accurate.

2. At BYU, make one semester of OT required in addition or in place of the NT, and give every student instruction in the divine council.

3. At Require at least 1 of the 2-semester BOM classes be taught from an ANE or classical expert. Have BYU hire Matt Bowen and David Bokovoy (no, I'm not related to either ) and other ANE specialists to supply the need.

[The Nehor]

Once we bring Church scriptural teaching into conformity with modern scholarship modern scholarship will change again as it always has.

[BCSpace]

I think it's about time we move the curriculum a little more closely aligned with modern scholarship.

The examples you give aren't catastrophic to the existing official doctrine taught in the cirriculum and there is, for example, nothing wrong with one of more scholarly bent bringing up Deut. 32:8-9 at any time for that purpose. I've done it myself on occaision using the KJV which illustrates the same thing. The Most High divided it all up and the Lord (Jehovah) got a portion, thus there are two Gods mentioned here. I do agree that it should be treated in a manual (it's not in the Institute manual). I would like to see more emphasis on the JST excerpt canon, one of my favs being Exodus 34:1–2.

Feel sorry for evangelicals who actually are behind the curve as scholarship tends support the LDS interpretation of the BIble more often than not.

[Freedom]

The bretheren are very well informed and the curriculum department is staffed by experts. I have my own opinion on what should be taught but the bretheren are governed ultimately by revelation. I have do doubt that the research department and the curriculum department present recommendation that the bretheren consider prayerfully but make their decisions based on what God wants.

[thesometimesaint]

We have our hands full just teaching the basics. While interesting to old timers in the Gospel the new timers would be lost. IMNTBHO it is best to let those who want to know more study it to their hearts content on the own.

Edited April 13, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[zerinus]

The purpose of the curriculum is to build faith, not increase scholarly understanding.

[Hamilton Porter]

The purpose of the curriculum is to build faith, not increase scholarly understanding.

Faith can be strengthened with a small does of scholarship.

[Senator]

The purpose of the curriculum is to build faith, not increase scholarly understanding.

Shouldn't any "schooling" be in the business of increasing knowledge and understanding? Faith is another department.

[Hamilton Porter]

We have our hands full just teaching the basics. While interesting to old timers in the Gospel the new timers would be lost. IMNTBHO it is best to let those who want to know more study it to their hearts content on the own.

This is for Seminary and BYU religion, not for Gospel Essentials.

[Hamilton Porter]

The purpose of the curriculum is to build faith, not increase scholarly understanding.

The examples you give aren't catastrophic to the existing official doctrine taught in the cirriculum and there is, for example, nothing wrong with one of more scholarly bent bringing up Deut. 32:8-9 at any time for that purpose. I've done it myself on occaision using the KJV which illustrates the same thing. The Most High divided it all up and the Lord (Jehovah) got a portion, thus there are two Gods mentioned here. I do agree that it should be treated in a manual (it's not in the Institute manual). I would like to see more emphasis on the JST excerpt canon, one of my favs being Exodus 34:1–2.

Feel sorry for evangelicals who actually are behind the curve as scholarship tends support the LDS interpretation of the BIble more often than not.

We need a way to funnel some of that supportive scholarship into the lay membership. Members need to know just how Biblical our position is.

[thesometimesaint]

Hamilton Porter:

When I went to BYU, back when dinosaurs ruled the earth , they were talked about. Gospel doctrine usually devolves into Gospel Rumor when it gets away from the teacher.

Edited April 13, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Brant Gardner]

Simply reviewing the range of adamant opinions on this thread (let alone elsewhere on the board) ought to give us pause when we try to figure out how and what about the scriptures should be taught. I'm pretty sure I know how the curriculum committee could make me happy, but I'm also pretty sure that it would make someone else less than happy. It just isn't a simple task.

[Kenngo1969]

Simply reviewing the range of adamant opinions on this thread (let alone elsewhere on the board) ought to give us pause when we try to figure out how and what about the scriptures should be taught. I'm pretty sure I know how the curriculum committee could make me happy, but I'm also pretty sure that it would make someone else less than happy. It just isn't a simple task.

Hey, Brant, if you ain't happy, ain't nobody happy! To heck with anyone else ... that's what I say!

[Freedom]

I'm pretty sure I know how the curriculum committee could make me happy, but I'm also pretty sure that it would make someone else less than happy. It just isn't a simple task.

And of course, as you up the chain and, through careful consideration and prayer, the final decision is made. We are trying to convey the rightness of eternity with limited mortal methods of communication. It is like trying to convey they power and beauty of an Austin Martin with bicycle parts. I recognize that Hamilton is not suggesting radical changes, my point is that the brethren are likely very aware of these issues but are constrained from taking any action. They are very well informed. There is an entire department dedicated to research after all .

[wenglund]

In my opinion, bringing the curriculum in line with scholarship would suggest that scholarship is the final arbiter of spiritual faith.

To me, this would be a step backwards: going from a spirit-centric faith, to an academic-centric faith; from primary dependency on God, to primary dependency on man. It would be a step in defiance of the methods for growth in spiritual faith instituted by God.

Indeed, as I see it, it is just such a shift in people's personal priorities that has lead to their loss of faith in the restored gospel.

In short, I find the suggestion in the OP to be well-intended, but quite ill-advised. And, as helpful as it may seem for the author of the OP to want to be of assistance the Church, you can have confidence that Christ is at the head, and he knows what he is doing, and he has chosen very capable men to take his direction and guide his earthly kingdom, and as tempting as it may be at times to offer unsolicited advice, particularly in this sort of venue (where it is unlikely to be heard by the decision-makers), be of good cheer that you don't need to stead this ark. The gospel has functioned reasonably well for nearly two centuries without it.

And, if we have any hope of addressing the disconcerting trend of members loosing faith, it would not be unwise to implement the very thing that has caused the problem to begin with, but instead, do as the leaders have been doing, and point people back to Christ and the methods he has set forth for faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Hamilton Porter]

The purpose of the curriculum is to build faith, not increase scholarly understanding.

That's it, I previously put your book on my Amazon wish list but now I know there's probably no scholarship in it. Unless you provide insights from your Near Eastern background, I'm not buying it.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

Simply reviewing the range of adamant opinions on this thread (let alone elsewhere on the board) ought to give us pause when we try to figure out how and what about the scriptures should be taught. I'm pretty sure I know how the curriculum committee could make me happy, but I'm also pretty sure that it would make someone else less than happy. It just isn't a simple task.

Brant, shouldn't savings souls be what we should aim at maximizing?

If our position is strong, shouldn't we package it in a way that can build testimonies?

[Hamilton Porter]

In my opinion, bringing the curriculum in line with scholarship would suggest that scholarship is the final arbiter of spiritual faith.

To me, this would be a step backwards: going from a spirit-centric faith, to an academic-centric faith; from primary dependency on God, to primary dependency on man. It would be a step in defiance of the methods for growth in spiritual faith instituted by God.

Times have changed, and people leave the Church due to what they believe is evidence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

This just isn't accurate. During the Talmage/Widstoe/Roberts/Eyring era, scholarship was seen as faith's friend. Then Joseph Fielding Smith started

reading a lot of Fundamentalist Protestant literature, and he a McConkie took a different turn. That was the inspired thing to do, and it worked for those times.

[Buzzard]

The group that patronizes this and other internet discussion boards is probably not representative of most people, or even most active members. But that's OK. My lovely spouse could care less how many Isaiah's there are, or the the Semetic origins of Book of Mormon names, or even how many wives Joseph Smith had. But her testimony is probably at least as profound as mine.

Now adding some more detailed, more academic courses at BYU and the institiutes would probably do no harm, those who have an interest could delve into that if they wish. It would probably delight the BYU religion faculty, as well.

[Areabird]

The group that patronizes this and other internet discussion boards is probably not representative of most people, or even most active members. But that's OK. My lovely spouse could care less how many Isaiah's there are, or the the Semetic origins of Book of Mormon names, or even how many wives Joseph Smith had. But her testimony is probably at least as profound as mine.

Now adding some more detailed, more academic courses at BYU and the institiutes would probably do no harm, those who have an interest could delve into that if they wish. It would probably delight the BYU religion faculty, as well.

Would you say your faith is stronger than hers because you know many of the conflicts that arise from knowing about the church, its history, and its early beliefs, whereas she believes because she believes? I'm not being disparaging, I'm just curious.

[Brant Gardner]

My personal experience is that there is more that can be done to integrate faithful scholarship into Sunday School classes. I do believe that the venue requires that we work with both information and intent differently that we do in an academic conference setting. A friend and I have played with having a Book of Mormon conference day in our Stake. I can see that as an opportunity to present a little more of the results of scholarship that we might do in a Sunday School class, but still less than the cutting edge stuff that might come with a different type of conference.

We really are primarily interested in enlarging the faith of those in the Sunday School classes, so scholarship becomes the accent color in the class, not the backbone (to mix a couple of incompatible metaphors). I don't know that I see any OT classes that deal with multiple authorship, but I do see teaching that the OT is a collection of records and stories that come from lots of different sources, some designed to teach through story rather than record history. There is a lesson that was intended when the bears attack the children even though I can't imagine a prophet calling the bear. I really don't believe that Balaam's *** spoke to him, though there an important lesson in the story.

On the other hand, much depends upon the class. I remember talking to someone in the curriculum department a very long time ago and we were discussing the one-size fits all missionary lessons of the 70's. He had taught them in Mexico or South America and lamented that they were way over the heads of the people he was teaching. I served in Spain, and typically felt that they insulted the intelligence of many of the people I taught. That wide range of readiness to learn will only become greater in the church. I am not sure how to handle it and still have the consistent gospel message.

Of course, I would really like the idea that the manual was the sum total of teachable material to fade away. Teaching with shackles on is challenging.

[KevinG]

My personal experience is that I can't even integrate the compelete curricula into my curricula in the time I'm given for my classes. But I've also seen my classes (from Aaronic Priesthood to High Preists) do not lack people who are well informed and aware of the historical issues surrounding the basic curricula.

I sometimes wonder if I live in a parallel world to those who keep claiming the true history of the church was "hidden" from them by family and priesthood leaders?!

[KevinG]

I really don't believe that Balaam's *** spoke to him, though there an important lesson in the story.

I used to think it was a colorful illustration. Then I started blogging and realized not only can a donkey speak they can type as well.

[Hamilton Porter]

The OP was born out of concern with apostasy, which I believe are partially due to the fluffy testimonies we are building.

[KevinG]

The OP was born out of concern with apostasy, which I believe are partially due to the fluffy testimonies we are building.

Who is "we" and why on earth aren't you teaching them Faith in Christ, Repentance, Baptism for the remission of sins and the Gift of the Holy Ghost?