Chasm Between Lds Scholarship And Church Curriculum

[Brant Gardner]

Then I started blogging and realized not only can a donkey speak they can type as well.

One of the best responses evah!

[KevinG]

One of the best responses evah!

Thank you - I'll be here all week.

[Freedom]

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

I understand your argument and I often often feel the same way. You would think that addressing controversial issues would stem the flow of apostasy but perhaps, God in his infinite wisdom, feels differently.

[aranyborju]

I would say that the majority of members go to church and remain active because of how the feel at church, not because of the scholarly merit of what they are learning, so integrating more modern scholarship into the lessons simply to retain members doesn't make sense to me. When you read the Book of Mormon or sit in a lesson, you either feel the spirit or you don't. The people who do stay in the church and the people who don't leave.

[Hamilton Porter]

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.

Only thing I learned from that story was that the Moabites were suckers.

[Hamilton Porter]

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.

Yes, we shouldn't turn Gospel doctrine into an academic conference, but we should funnel a small does of the scholarship that has strengthened our position so laity know how Biblical our position is.

[cinepro]

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

Can you be more specific? Which particular things are not being taught which, if they were, might reduce the incidence of apostacy?

Because I've never heard of anyone leaving the Church over Biblical scholarship. Especially the points you raise in the OP.

I also think you overestimate the ease with which little bits of scholarship could be integrated into the lessons. Even small things like the idea that Moses didn't actually write the first five books of the OT, or that Noah's flood might not have covered the entire planet, can have much more complex implications for LDS doctrine than we might see at first.

Edited April 13, 2012 by cinepro

[wenglund]

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.

You have it wrong. I didn't suggest that scholarship wasn't, to some extent, faith's friend. What I objected to was the implication that scholarship should be the primary or final arbiter in matters of faith, rather than, as I see it, as light seasoning for an otherwise God/Spirit-centric epistemic feast.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

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.

The idea that Moses wrote the Torah (i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) is pretty uniformly taught in the Church, and I suspect getting even this simple teaching changed would be pretty tough. It's complicated by a factor that other non-LDS scholars don't have to contend with: The Book of Moses.

For example, here is how the Book of Moses is presented in one Ensign article:

Following the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, the Prophet Joseph Smith labored with his “new translation” of the Holy Bible. During this process, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what he had told Moses on Mount Sinai some 3,000 years earlier: “And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take [away] many of them from the book which thou [Moses] shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe” (Moses 1:41, emphasis added).

Joseph Smith had been called by the Lord to be a prophet “like unto” Moses who would restore the text of Moses’ writing so his words could be “had again” among the children of men.¹ A significant part of this prophecy’s fulfillment was accomplished through the Prophet Joseph Smith’s translation of the first six chapters of Genesis, now known as the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price.

The tie between Genesis and the Book of Moses is pretty dang strong, since The Book of Moses is actually the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis, and if Moses didn't write Genesis, that raises a lot of questions about the Book of Moses as well.

And considering what has happened with The Book of Abraham, I don't think the Church is going to do anything that might raise more questions about the Pearl of Great Price.

Edited April 13, 2012 by cinepro

[wenglund]

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

Drawing upon my several decades of experience in LDS apologetics, I happen to think it has to do far more with a shift of trust from God and the things of God, to man and the things of man. This is born out in numerous exit narratives that attribute their loss of faith to what they have learned from so-called scholars, and are conspicuously silent about what they learned from God or by living gospel principles. I can't be certain, but I don't believe they would have lost faith were they to have kept their eye single to God and continued to live the gospel as it is designed and to the end to which it is intended.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Areabird]

I would say that the majority of members go to church and remain active because of how the feel at church, not because of the scholarly merit of what they are learning, so integrating more modern scholarship into the lessons simply to retain members doesn't make sense to me. When you read the Book of Mormon or sit in a lesson, you either feel the spirit or you don't. The people who do stay in the church and the people who don't leave.

Is the goal of going to church to get that 'feeling'? If so, why bother with apologetics? Why not just say the church is true and refuse to engage in any discussions about it. If all you rely on is that feeling then why wouldn't any church be true? I'm sure many other people get that 'feeling' when they go to their church.

[KevinG]

Is the goal of going to church to get that 'feeling'? If so, why bother with apologetics? Why not just say the church is true and refuse to engage in any discussions about it. If all you rely on is that feeling then why wouldn't any church be true? I'm sure many other people get that 'feeling' when they go to their church.

Feeling is an inadequate word. Think gifts of the Holy Ghost, social support network, belonging and a host of other things that are the source of "feeling".

I cannot tell you how insulting it is to be told my profound revelations and relationship with God is a mere "feeling". I doubt an emotional state was the extent of Arany's meaning when feeling was mentioned.

[selek1]

Is the goal of going to church to get that 'feeling'?

The goal of going to Church is two-fold:

First, to worship the Lord.

Two, to be edified in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A bullet list of anti-Mormon approved talking points distracts from that goal.

If so, why bother with apologetics?

To combat the lies and distortions- you know, the wiles and "wisdom" of the Father of All Lies.

Of course, you are willfully conflating two very different activities.

It is one thing for me to devote my time to correcting the arrogant ignorance and assumption of Babylon.

It is something quite different for me to take away the Lord's time to do the same thing.

The time which the faithful consecrate to the Lord every Sunday is time to be spent about his purposes, not yours.

I would be a faithless and unprofitable servant were I to neglect his mission and commission in favor of your hobby.

Why not just say the church is true and refuse to engage in any discussions about it.

Because all that is needed for your side to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

We are commanded to teach the truth in boldness and with the Spirit.

There is no proviso in that commision requiring us to devote time (time consecrated to the Lord) addressing your pet list of favorite greivances.

If all you rely on is that feeling then why wouldn't any church be true?

Aside from the distasteful and rather aburd reduction of the Spirit to mere "feelings", no one has advocated your rather silly caricature.

Contrary to your assertion, Mormonism is a reasoned faith, rather than a blind one. We are counseled repeatedly not to take things simply on faith, but to reason for ourselves and ask of the Lord.

Until you can grasp that elementary concept, your perception of all things Mormon will be forever skewed by ignorance and prejudice.

I'm sure many other people get that 'feeling' when they go to their church.

I'm quite certain that they do.

But "that feeling" is not what Aranyborju and the faithful find edifying.

Edited April 13, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

I cannot tell you how insulting it is to be told my profound revelations and relationship with God is a mere "feeling". I doubt an emotional state was the extent of Arany's meaning when feeling was mentioned.

It is not needful to express, DaddyG, since the slight was offered intentionally.

By denigrating the sacred as mere emotionalism, Areabird was being deliberately offensive and dismissive.

But then, when you're down to a single arrow in the quiver, you use what you have.

[selek1]

Some months back, a critic (I forget precisely who) made the accusation that posting on boards such as this while at work constitued theft from one's employer.

The argument was made that such activity represented a theft of time and working productivity, and was further, a misappropriation of company resources (computers and bandwidth to be precise).

The usual suspects gleefully piled on, and made a tremendous racket about "hypocrisy", "dishonesty", etc.

As I recall (and I admit upfront that my recollection may be faulty), Areabird was one of them.

That earlier accusation has an ironic bearing on this discussion.

If it is "theft" and "misappropriation" to take "work time" away from our employer's goals, then it must follow that taking the Lord's time to address the agenda of critics is also "theft" and "misappropriation".

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

As Latter-day Saints, the time spent at Church (and in various callings) is consecrated to our Lord and Master. We should be about HIS work during that time, rather than attempting to appease the ravenous appetites of fools, critics, and apostates.

Anything less constitutes theft from the Most High God.

Will ye then rob God in order to appease Babylon?

Edited April 13, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

You have it wrong. I didn't suggest that scholarship wasn't, to some extent, faith's friend. What I objected to was the implication that scholarship should be the primary or final arbiter in matters of faith, rather than, as I see it, as light seasoning for an otherwise God/Spirit-centric epistemic feast.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Dagnabit.

Outta rep points again.

[zerinus]

Faith can be strengthened with a small does of scholarship.

". . . faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17).

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

". . . seek learning, even by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118).

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.

". . . teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom" (D&C 88:77).

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.

I am sure you did the right thing. With that kind of attitude, you will not be able to get much out of reading my book. With that kind of attitude, you will not be able to get much out of reading any really good book!

Edited April 13, 2012 by zerinus

[Bob Crockett]

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

Somehow I don't think that heresy will cure itself and become doctrinal. I'm pretty certain the Brethren won't buy into the Deverish (or Devilish) notion that Canaanite folk religion is an accurate representation of the Gospel.

[Hamilton Porter]

I am sure you did the right thing. With that kind of attitude, you will not be able to get much out of reading my book. With that kind of attitude, you will not be able to get much out of reading any really good book!

Just kidding, I'm buying it anyway.

[Areabird]

The usual suspects gleefully piled on, and made a tremendous racket about "hypocrisy", "dishonesty", etc.

As I recall (and I admit upfront that my recollection may be faulty), Areabird was one of them.

If I did then I was feeling particularly argumentative that day. Because I personally think it would be a real stretch to call that theft. It could be grounds for firing since you're not doing your job, but I wouldn't call it stealing.

[rameumptom]

I don't think we necessarily need to tie into modern scholarship, but modern views of doctrine. Many of our manuals were written in the early 1980s with influence from very focused General Authorities, such as Elder McConkie. That many LDS teachers still quote Mormon Doctrine as official doctrine, leaves much to desire in our Church. Why? Because it is bad enough to use manuals written 30 years ago. It is even worse to be quoting books written 1/2 century ago. We are a Church of living revelation!

So, we get a BYU religion professor teaching about the curse of Cain 30 years after the Church left such teachings behind. Why? Because we are not having the real dialogue.

Richard Bushman brings out a true history on Joseph Smith (Rough Stone Rolling) that shows his strengths and warts. Some hate it, because it isn't filled with faith promoting rumors found in earlier "history" books on Joseph. The reality is, we can either teach the members about such things in a faithful way, or let them learn it from anti-Mormon groups.

We need to get away from those GAs who once insisted evolution was wrong to believe in, and embrace the concept that God may reveal things in many different ways. There's nothing keeping us from believing in a 4.5 billion year old earth AND in Adam, except for old ideas that reject modern evidence.

That said, we need a new set of writings for our day. With great scholars, we can get much of this outside of the General Authorities, as a supplement to doctrine. I do prefer my GAs to focus on actual doctrine - things based upon pure revelation, and leave the speculating to non-GAs where it is non-binding.

[wenglund]

I don't think we necessarily need to tie into modern scholarship, but modern views of doctrine. Many of our manuals were written in the early 1980s with influence from very focused General Authorities, such as Elder McConkie. That many LDS teachers still quote Mormon Doctrine as official doctrine, leaves much to desire in our Church. Why? Because it is bad enough to use manuals written 30 years ago. It is even worse to be quoting books written 1/2 century ago. We are a Church of living revelation!

So, we get a BYU religion professor teaching about the curse of Cain 30 years after the Church left such teachings behind. Why? Because we are not having the real dialogue.

Richard Bushman brings out a true history on Joseph Smith (Rough Stone Rolling) that shows his strengths and warts. Some hate it, because it isn't filled with faith promoting rumors found in earlier "history" books on Joseph. The reality is, we can either teach the members about such things in a faithful way, or let them learn it from anti-Mormon groups.

We need to get away from those GAs who once insisted evolution was wrong to believe in, and embrace the concept that God may reveal things in many different ways. There's nothing keeping us from believing in a 4.5 billion year old earth AND in Adam, except for old ideas that reject modern evidence.

That said, we need a new set of writings for our day. With great scholars, we can get much of this outside of the General Authorities, as a supplement to doctrine. I do prefer my GAs to focus on actual doctrine - things based upon pure revelation, and leave the speculating to non-GAs where it is non-binding.

In other words, forget that Christ is in charge of his Church and has called and directed those he desires to administer the affairs of his kingdom, we need well-intended members like you to steady the ark.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Areabird]

If Christ is running the church then why did he allow McConkie to publish that book of inaccuracies? Rameupton makes a good point that we should officially clear out all the folk stories about our doctrine. I know I grew up believing a lot stuff through four years of seminary that apparently are bunk according to the apologists on this board. But if I went home and called them bunk with my former classmates around they'd say I was an anti-mormon.

[thesometimesaint]

Christ is in charge, but not everything thing said by his mortal representatives is doctrine.

[Hamilton Porter]

Somehow I don't think that heresy will cure itself and become doctrinal. I'm pretty certain the Brethren won't buy into the Deverish (or Devilish) notion that Canaanite folk religion is an accurate representation of the Gospel.

It's not Canaanite folk religion, it's parallels with Canaanite religion that contextualize the Bible in our favor.