Seminary Help: Fundamental Literalistic Dogmatisms

[SeattleGrunge]

I'm a seminary teacher and I'm beating my head against the wall here. The manuals are so full of literal understandings (Mainly from Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie) stating things such as

• the flood literally baptized the earth by immersion
  
• Pangea existed until right before the Tower of Babel when it split in the days of Peleg
  
• Until the tower of babel there was only one language
  
• Evolution is against church doctrine
  

Thank goodness for great people like Mike Ash who help me know that disagreeing with overly fundamentalist interpretations of the scriptures is ok, but still. I feel like I'm fighting the entire CES system here and fearing what all the parents are going to say along with the pushback I'm already getting from the non-stake (institute) chain of command.

Are there resources out there that show these are not set in stone doctrines (ie - apostles stating their position against it for balancing quotes)?

This is driving me nuts. I thought D&C was bad last year dealing with church history that I wanted to inoculate the students against, but the OT literalism is killing me.

Any help?

[SeattleGrunge]

After posting, I noticed a similarly themed thread started by cinepro, interesting coincidence. I still would like some help though.

[volgadon]

I would open the lesson up to discussion, stating that as long as they don't reject the core doctrines of the church, then other view points are welcome. I'd explain why, for instance, it is possible to believe that the baptism of the earth is figurative and still remain a member in good standing. I wouldn't impose that view but let them see why it is reasonable. A great way to teach the OT is to present a history of their interpretation. Amazon has some cheap copies of Kugel's "The Bible as it Was" which is a very accessible book on just that topic.

[jskains]

Why did you accept this calling, if you don't believe in the Church? Are your intentions to turn the LDS kids against their parents? Are your intentions to enforce YOUR interpretation?

I see from your comments against Church History alone, you don't feel God runs the Church, or if you do, that the Lord knows what to teach His kids, so I am really at a loss what your motivations are?

[wenglund]

I'm a seminary teacher and I'm beating my head against the wall here. The manuals are so full of literal understandings (Mainly from Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie) stating things such as

• the flood literally baptized the earth by immersion
  
• Pangea existed until right before the Tower of Babel when it split in the days of Peleg
  
• Until the tower of babel there was only one language
  
• Evolution is against church doctrine
  

Thank goodness for great people like Mike Ash who help me know that disagreeing with overly fundamentalist interpretations of the scriptures is ok, but still. I feel like I'm fighting the entire CES system here and fearing what all the parents are going to say along with the pushback I'm already getting from the non-stake (institute) chain of command.

Are there resources out there that show these are not set in stone doctrines (ie - apostles stating their position against it for balancing quotes)?

This is driving me nuts. I thought D&C was bad last year dealing with church history that I wanted to inoculate the students against, but the OT literalism is killing me.

Any help?

I wouldn't worry in the least about teaching the so-called OT literalism to seminary-aged students. Generation after generations have been raised that way without significant problems. Besides, from a developmental standpoint, seminary-aged minds can still benefit from a certain degree of fundamentalism/literalism prior to transitioning into adulthood. Often, their frontal lobes aren't developed enough to properly handle the nuances and divergence of views. And, it may be enough that our teens are under significant societal pressure as it is to grow up faster than is needed or may be healthy. So, feel free and comfortable to let them grow up slowly in this area. Just a thought.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

I wouldn't worry in the least about teaching the so-called OT literalism to seminary-aged students. Generation after generations have been raised that way without significant problems. Besides, from a developmental standpoint, seminary-aged minds can still benefit from a certain degree of fundamentalism/literalism prior to transitioning into adulthood. Often, their frontal lobes aren't developed enough to properly handle the nuances and divergence of views. And, it may be enough that our teens are under significant societal pressure as it is to grow up faster than is needed or may be healthy. So, feel free and comfortable to let them grow up slowly in this area. Just a thought.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am in agreement with this approach. Teach approved church curiculum and let them develop. There is plenty of time for the rest as they go to college and beyond.

Edited October 10, 2011 by ERayR

[David T]

Why did you accept this calling, if you don't believe in the Church? Are your intentions to turn the LDS kids against their parents? Are your intentions to enforce YOUR interpretation?

I see from your comments against Church History alone, you don't feel God runs the Church, or if you do, that the Lord knows what to teach His kids, so I am really at a loss what your motivations are?

Dude, he believes in the Church. He doesn't believe in some of the wacky and highly outdated non-Gospel-related interpretations of history that some high up members of the Church published, and were interpreted as The Mind of God, because someone holding the Apostolic office forcefully speculated on it.

Chill out your judge-o-meter.

[SeattleGrunge]

Why did you accept this calling, if you don't believe in the Church? Are your intentions to turn the LDS kids against their parents? Are your intentions to enforce YOUR interpretation?

I see from your comments against Church History alone, you don't feel God runs the Church, or if you do, that the Lord knows what to teach His kids, so I am really at a loss what your motivations are?

jskains, it is both hurtful and unchristlike to make the assumptions like you have with such rigidity. On each of these things I have stated I can quote to you positions from previous apostles (ie Talmage, BH Roberts, Widstoe) that have believed as I do. I am a very strong and faithful member of the church. Unfortunately members such as Joseph Feilding Smith and Bruce McConkie went against first presidency advice and published their opposing views to Talmage et al. If you judge me so harshly you must also judge Talmage et al the same way

[ksfisher]

The nice thing about the items you mentioned is that they really have nothing to do with the gospel. Teach about Christ, teach about faith, teach about repentance. The things you mentioned are events in history that may, or may not have happened, according to how you interpret the sciptures. But they are not the gospel. I find that by focusing on Christ and the plan of salvation when I teach I can avoid points in the scriptures that I may have difficulty with.

[CV75]

I'm a seminary teacher and I'm beating my head against the wall here. The manuals are so full of literal understandings (Mainly from Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie) stating things such as

• the flood literally baptized the earth by immersion
  
• Pangea existed until right before the Tower of Babel when it split in the days of Peleg
  
• Until the tower of babel there was only one language
  
• Evolution is against church doctrine
  

Thank goodness for great people like Mike Ash who help me know that disagreeing with overly fundamentalist interpretations of the scriptures is ok, but still. I feel like I'm fighting the entire CES system here and fearing what all the parents are going to say along with the pushback I'm already getting from the non-stake (institute) chain of command.

Are there resources out there that show these are not set in stone doctrines (ie - apostles stating their position against it for balancing quotes)?

This is driving me nuts. I thought D&C was bad last year dealing with church history that I wanted to inoculate the students against, but the OT literalism is killing me.

Any help?

I think for Seminary students, learning from the Seminary manual is a good place for 9th graders to start, as simplistic as it might be. If their interest is piqued, they can explore the Institute manual. If they want to learn more, they can branch out. Milk before meat, line upon line, etc. A good teacher can inspire them to learn more and more by the Spirit and be able to refer them (and their parents of course) to any good mentors and resources that might be developed through networking in that regard.

I would think that avoiding contention/confrontation with the system and the parents (why the push-back?) by teaching out of the manual would provide a solid foundation to encourage those students that express a readiness to explore further and to bring their parents and leaders into the process.

[SeattleGrunge]

I am in agreement with this approach. Teach approved church curiculum and let them develop. There is plenty of time for the rest as they go to college and beyond.

Erayr, the problem I have is that I don't feel there is plenty of time. I went through some hard testimony years in college (BTW, I teach seniors) because I was taught only the CES side of these issues and not the side of the other apostles. My heart wants the students to skip those potentially dark years by learning a balanced view of church doctrine in a faith promoting environment.

[mercyngrace]

SG,

Having taught seminary myself, I think it's a real challenge to teach this age group as they are approaching adulthood and beginning to ask hard questions. I applaud your desire to "protect" them from the internal conflicts that may arise as their beliefs are challenged. Remember though, that if you provide opportunities for the Spirit to communicate with these kids, He'll do the heavy lifting and you won't need to innoculate them.

My advice would simply be to put a lot of time and energy into seeking the Lord's guidance. Teach the students, not the material - in other words, seek inspiration to tailor what you teach so that it meets the class members' needs, maturity level, and understanding. Ask open ended questions and allow for non-literal interpretations should the kids be inclined in that direction.

I tell my own children that it matters less whether an event really happened than that a prophet felt the account was compelling and instructive enough to include in scripture. I may never be able to find archaelogical evidence of a golden calf, but I can choose not to worship idols right here, right now, and that's what ultimately matters when I have to give an accounting of my life.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

As President Hugh B. Brown said:

"We should be scientific - that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in ... Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the Church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration."

[Edit: This first part was responding mainly to jskains, if that wasn't clear.] It is perfectly possible to believe in the Church while disbelieving that the flood literally baptized the earth by immersion, or that Pangea existed until right before the Tower of Babel when it split in the days of Peleg, or that until the tower of babel there was only one language, or that evolution is against church doctrine.

These issues are entirely tangential to the Plan of Salvation. Rejecting them has nothing to do with disbelief in the Church, or turning kids against their parents, or enforcing one's own interpretation, or not believing that God helps to govern the Church. We learn line upon line - we know that there are great things yet to be revealed, and consequently we should not be surprised if we've learned something in the thousands of years that have passed since the scriptures were written.

The danger with teaching children a fundamentalist interpretation and then waiting until they "go to college" to expose them to other interpretations is deep. Their reaction is not likely to be a process of "development" but rather rejection, because they will think that they have been lied to. And make no mistake, children are perfectly capable of understanding figurative language at a young age, but only if they are educated early - don't underestimate them.

I second Volgadon's suggestion. Additionally, some resources I've liked (which you've probably already encountered) are: The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution by Mike Ash, and Evolution and Latter-Day Saint Theology: The Tree of Life and DNA by Trent Stephens.

As Apostle James Talmage wrote wayyy back in 1884:

In the course of my studies I have naturally been brought face to face with the alleged atheistic tendency of scientific thought and the conflict usually said to exist between Science and Religion.

[...] I have been unable to see the point of conflict myself - my belief in a loving God perfectly accords with my reverence for science, and I can see no reason why the evolution of animal bodies cannot be true - as indeed the facts of observation make it difficult to deny - and still the soul of man is of divine origin.

The dilemma which has troubled me is this - being unable to perceive the great difficulty of which Scientists, and Theologians, and Scientific-theologians refer - I have feared that my investigation of the subject was highly superficial, for when such great men as most of the writers upon this subject are - find a puzzle, it would be high egotism for me to say I find no puzzle.

[...] the fancied exit which I see has appeared from my reading some of John Stuart Mill’s writings and I feel [...] that if I had none other idea of a Deity that those men have, viz., that of an unknown being, whose acts as Mill says [are] “contrary to the highest human morality” - I too would hail atheism with delight.

I could never believe in such a God as theirs, not though one should rise from the grave to declare Him to me. And just as certainly do I perceive that there can be no antagonism between the true science as revealed and made easy by the Priesthood, and the God whose attributes and passions of love and mercy are also declared by that same Priesthood […]

May 4, 1884 - Have just returned tonight from service at the Westminster Presbyterian Church. The minister spoke against belief in Darwinism and like most ministers whose remarks I have heard or read upon this subject - showed his ignorance.

He spoke much as an ordinary person would - ”Darwin. Oh yes - says we come from monkeys” - then condemns. I certainly think ’tis the ministers themselves who have bred the disgust with which most scientific people regard them - because they will dabble with matters from which their ignorance should keep them at a safe distance.

The speaker tonight brought out many noble principles, but in spite of his eminence as a preacher - self contradiction and inconsistency were apparent.

Really, I do not wonder that any scientific man refuses to belong to a church where he is told nothing but “Only believe & you’ll be saved” - ”The blood of the Lamb is all powerful” - ”take up the cross of Christ” etc. The preachers always talk in metaphors - you can’t bring them down to fact; and anything which will not bear scrutiny when stripped of fine language is to the scientific mind nonsense.

Again, Darwin wrote for those who can understand him: some of whom will agree with & others oppose him: but he did not write for ministers who never read beyond other’s opinions of the man.

Another link I've recommended before is Orson Scott Card's "Secular Humanist Revival Meeting" routine (listen to both parts) which deals with religious fundamentalism and evolution.

[Edit: Hey, lookit that, while I was typing other people popped in and added more useful stuff.]

Edited October 10, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Nevo]

Any help?

I like what Elder Bednar says:

"Brothers and sisters, we must be careful to remember in our service that we are conduits and channels; we are not the light. 'For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you' (Matthew 10:20). It is never about me and it is never about you. In fact, anything you or I do as an instructor that knowingly and intentionally draws attention to self—in the messages we present, in the methods we use, or in our personal demeanor—is a form of priestcraft that inhibits the teaching effectiveness of the Holy Ghost."

As teachers I think we should resist the temptation to teach our own philosophies mingled with scripture. I think we should teach what the scriptures actually say. If a student questions the literal interpretation, then it might be appropriate to suggest alternative viewpoints. But I don't think it's the teacher's place to introduce questions and doubts about literalness or historicity. Remember the words of J. Reuben Clark: "Great is the burden and the condemnation of any teacher who sows doubt in a trusting soul."

[SeattleGrunge]

I like what Elder Bednar says:

"Brothers and sisters, we must be careful to remember in our service that we are conduits and channels; we are not the light. 'For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you' (Matthew 10:20). It is never about me and it is never about you. In fact, anything you or I do as an instructor that knowingly and intentionally draws attention to self—in the messages we present, in the methods we use, or in our personal demeanor—is a form of priestcraft that inhibits the teaching effectiveness of the Holy Ghost."

As teachers I think we should resist the temptation to teach our own philosophies mingled with scripture. I think we should teach what the scriptures actually say. If a student questions the literal interpretation, then it might be appropriate to suggest alternative viewpoints. But I don't think it's the teacher's place to introduce questions and doubts about literalness or historicity. Remember the words of J. Reuben Clark: "Great is the burden and the condemnation of any teacher who sows doubt in a trusting soul."

The problem is that the manuals give a view that is only what some of the apostles think. Does that mean I shouldn't quote what BH Roberts, James E. Talmage, Hugh B Brown, John Widstoe, Henry Eyring have to say on the subject? Doesn't giving only the CES side of the argument actually do what E Bednar advises us against doing? This isn't about me or opposing the church. Its about helping testimonies.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

As teachers I think we should resist the temptation to teach our own philosophies mingled with scripture. I think we should teach what the scriptures actually say.

Cool. I agree. So let's un-mingle the philosophies of men (Fundamentalist Protestants, specifically) which leaked into the Church with JFS and BRM and look at the historical and archaeological context which helps to interpret what the scriptures "actually say".

[wenglund]

Erayr, the problem I have is that I don't feel there is plenty of time. I went through some hard testimony years in college (BTW, I teach seniors) because I was taught only the CES side of these issues and not the side of the other apostles. My heart wants the students to skip those potentially dark years by learning a balanced view of church doctrine in a faith promoting environment.

The thing is, the CES curriculum is created by people professionally trained in child development and effective instructional design, and their lesson material tends to be tuned to achieving certain over-all objectives that the instructors may not realize. The professional instructional designers tend to be in a better position than non-professional to determine what may be best for children to learn at a given age.

This isn't to say that non-professional instructors who are guided by the Spirit ought not in any instance depart from what is outlined in the instruction manuals. Certain departures may on occasion be warranted given the composition of the class. I am just suggesting that you may now have reason to feel more comfortable in deferring to the professional, and leave the potential for "dark days of testimony" on their trained shoulders. You don't need to take that responsibility on yourself.

Besides, the "dark days of testimony" is inevitable, and part of the testing and strengthening process of growth in faith. Again, there is time enough for children to build a fundamental epistemic foundation and infrastracture before the Lord may see fit to test their mettle.

Thanks, -Wader Englund-

[Deborah]

I am curious as to when the CES manuals were published and if they've been updated recently. Not being familiar with the manuals I'm not sure how such fundamentalist teachings are approached and I'm wondering how much emphasis is actually put on those literalistic ideas and how much is just your paying special attention to them because you have different viewpoint. If you are uncomfortable with such a literalistic approach, aren't their other areas of the scriptures to emphasize instead and simply teach such ideas as Pres. Smith's or McConkie's interpretations. Having taught the youth in SS I can understand wanting to teach the whole story but sometimes we need to stick to the basics and then suggest other reading materials for additional ideas. And sometimes the youth themselves will ask questions that allow you to expand into other thoughts and ideas.

[Mortal Man]

I'm a seminary teacher and I'm beating my head against the wall here. The manuals are so full of literal understandings (Mainly from Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie) stating things such as

• the flood literally baptized the earth by immersion
  
• Pangea existed until right before the Tower of Babel when it split in the days of Peleg
  
• Until the tower of babel there was only one language
  
• Evolution is against church doctrine
  

Thank goodness for great people like Mike Ash who help me know that disagreeing with overly fundamentalist interpretations of the scriptures is ok, but still. I feel like I'm fighting the entire CES system here and fearing what all the parents are going to say along with the pushback I'm already getting from the non-stake (institute) chain of command.

Are there resources out there that show these are not set in stone doctrines (ie - apostles stating their position against it for balancing quotes)?

This is driving me nuts. I thought D&C was bad last year dealing with church history that I wanted to inoculate the students against, but the OT literalism is killing me.

Any help?

I wouldn't worry in the least about teaching the so-called OT literalism to seminary-aged students. Generation after generations have been raised that way without significant problems. Besides, from a developmental standpoint, seminary-aged minds can still benefit from a certain degree of fundamentalism/literalism prior to transitioning into adulthood. Often, their frontal lobes aren't developed enough to properly handle the nuances and divergence of views. And, it may be enough that our teens are under significant societal pressure as it is to grow up faster than is needed or may be healthy. So, feel free and comfortable to let them grow up slowly in this area. Just a thought.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade is right, you need to be careful not to damage their delicate frontal lobes with too much hard truth. You need to soften it up a bit. God will justify in committing a little prevarication; yea, lie a little, take advantage of them with your words, dig a pit to keep them safe; there is no harm in this.

[BCSpace]

I'm a seminary teacher and I'm beating my head against the wall here. The manuals are so full of literal understandings (Mainly from Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie) stating things such as

• the flood literally baptized the earth by immersion
  
• Pangea existed until right before the Tower of Babel when it split in the days of Peleg
  
• Until the tower of babel there was only one language
  
• Evolution is against church doctrine
  

Thank goodness for great people like Mike Ash who help me know that disagreeing with overly fundamentalist interpretations of the scriptures is ok, but still. I feel like I'm fighting the entire CES system here and fearing what all the parents are going to say along with the pushback I'm already getting from the non-stake (institute) chain of command.

Are there resources out there that show these are not set in stone doctrines (ie - apostles stating their position against it for balancing quotes)?

This is driving me nuts. I thought D&C was bad last year dealing with church history that I wanted to inoculate the students against, but the OT literalism is killing me.

Any help?

Looking at the OT seminary guide chapter on the creation it says, about Moses 2, how the earth was created is not taught. I did not see "evolution" mentioned in the first few chapters. The introductory part in this same chapter about bricks assembling themselves does nothing to preclude evolution. It merely reminds us that there is a creator. Evolution may be mentioned elsewhere.

The global flood and the baptism of the earth happens to be LDS doctrine. I don't agree with it either, but I do agree with Nevo's Bednar quote above so you should teach it as is.

Nothing at all was mentioned about Pangea and the account of the land being divided.

For the The Tower of Babel, I did not see in the chapter on Genesis 11 saying anything about there only being one language on the earth prior.

I'm sure these things could be mentioned elsewhere, but I did not see them in the seminary OT guide at seminary.lds.org. Those were updated from 2002-2005. What do you use for a teacher's manual, the Institute ones at institute.lds.org/courses/? Anything published by the Church is official doctrine and you should teach it that way, but the anti evolution notion has too many cracks and I think it can be taught directly as not in conflict with LDS doctrine because there is much doctrine and even scripture that allows it to exist in an LDS context.

Edited October 10, 2011 by BCSpace

[SeattleGrunge]

Why is teaching that the earth didn't break up from Pangea at the time of Peleg, but this is an overly literalistic interpretation doing any frontal lobe damage? The manual specifically teaches that.

Teaching it as the manual says and then letting them go off to their HIGH SCHOOL (and probably grade school) science classes to learn otherwise seems a lot more likely to do testimony damage. The youth are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

[Nevo]

I am curious as to when the CES manuals were published and if they've been updated recently.

The current Old Testament Teacher Resource Manual for seminary received English approval in October 2002 and I assume the Brethren were involved in the approval process. In any case, I expect the manual is a pretty good guide to what the Brethren would like the youth to be taught.

I should add that I haven't noticed an inordinate preference for quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie over against quotes from scientist-apostles like James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, and Henry B. Eyring. In fact, in the section covering the Flood, the quote comparing the Flood to a baptism of the earth comes from Widtsoe's Evidences and Reconciliations.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Nevo

[wenglund]

Wade is right, you need to be careful not to damage their delicate frontal lobes with too much hard truth. You need to soften it up a bit. God will justify in committing a little prevarication; yea, lie a little, take advantage of them with your words, dig a pit to keep them safe; there is no harm in this.

One would have to seriously warp the mapping of their synapses (i.e. affect cognitive distortions) in order to misinterpret my comments as suggesting anything close to prevarication or lying or taking advantage.

However, such is to be expected of certain parties who desperately, but invariably fail in their attempts to be clever.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

Why is teaching that the earth didn't break up from Pangea at the time of Peleg, but this is an overly literalistic interpretation doing any frontal lobe damage? The manual specifically teaches that.

Teaching it as the manual says and then letting them go off to their HIGH SCHOOL (and probably grade school) science classes to learn otherwise seems a lot more likely to do testimony damage. The youth are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

What irrevocable proof do you have that it didn't. NOW note that nowhere do I say that the scientific explanations are wrong. What I am saying is that in my almost 3/4 of a century I have watched numerious revisions of scientific explanations. I also know that there are enough unexplained evidences that indicate that things may not have happened according to current scientific theory. You have accepted current theory and they will get that in school. Quit trying to steady the arc and teach the materials as you agreed when you signed your contract to teach seminary. You are getting paid to teach church materials. If you don't want to do that, resign.

I may sound harsh but I am getting tired of all the arc steadiers that think that just because they believe something then it should be in the church curiculum and taught to everybody. You are free to believe what you want but when you are teaching in church, teach church approved curiculum.

[Nevo]

Why is teaching that the earth didn't break up from Pangea at the time of Peleg, but this is an overly literalistic interpretation doing any frontal lobe damage? The manual specifically teaches that.

Teaching it as the manual says and then letting them go off to their HIGH SCHOOL (and probably grade school) science classes to learn otherwise seems a lot more likely to do testimony damage. The youth are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

Where does either the seminary teacher's manual or student manual specifically teach anything about the break up of Pangea at the time of Peleg? As far as I can tell, neither manual mentions either Pangea or Peleg.