Let us evolve

[stemelbow]

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4654869-155/new-scholarship-coming-to-mormon-lessons?fullpage=1

Quote

It is an "exciting time to be a historian and a Mormon," she says, but also frustrating to bring discoveries to her Sunday school class, where they are "greeted with suspicion, even outright denial."

Today, there is "one relatively small group of Latter-day Saints who have read and are digesting the new Gospel Topics essays," Parshall says, "and a much larger majority who have never heard of them or who question their validity. What is that division doing to our ability to discuss our faith?"

The Salt Lake City-based researcher worries about the next generation of believers.

"The young people I associate with today are struggling to understand our past and present, and to find their place in the church now," Parshall says. "Some of them who might have [stayed in] the church won't be here in two or three years if our curricula and teaching materials aren't updated until then."

I think we're getting to a point where it is more and more acceptable to face the facts at Church.  For along time some of us have been going to Church feeling silenced because tough issues are largely shouted out, while the majority feel obliged to toe party lines and pretend they know that which they don't know in order to keep the peace, or whatever.  I'm happy for the future.  But we're still pretty stuck.  Curious the effect reality will have on our Church and religion.  Maybe I'm too harsh or whatever....but we'll see.

I'd agree with the quotes above in every particular.  There's not a lot of room to discuss our faith these days.  Probalby more than there was in some ways.  In the end, we'll need to continue to push for openness and acceptance else we'll lose the younger generations.  That's my estimation.  I know plenty will continue to dig in heels, insist the Church is perfect while the people aren't (or whatever), and resist in every way change.  But, I don't think it'll be stopped.

 

 

[Boanerges]

Thanks for sharing the article, I missed it in my daily look at the Trib site. And there's no need for anybody's feathers to get ruffled, I look at the other paper daily as well.

I think you and she are absolutely right stemelbow. Even in our high council when the SP talks about the essays he gets small amounts of push back - mostly from people who haven't read them. He has outright asked who has read them and less than half raised their hands. He has followed that with an invitation to become familiar with them because it's important that we understand what's out there when we talk to members of the stake.

I really don't know what's taking so long with revamping and updating the adult Sunday School curriculum. I had high hopes for next year until a couple months ago when it was announced nothing is changing. Of all years to make a change, the church history/D&C/PoGP one would be the most impactful. I have my own theories about the foot dragging, but whatever the reason we are still losing good people by appearing to try to ignore the stuff. For those of you who hold the idea that it's all out there and even the gospel topics essays are on LDS.org, how does that explain that most people have not even read them? We actually had a member of our stake council say she was unaware that we allowed gays (that's right, allowed) in the church before the SP sent out information about the updated site and encouraged us to read the materials (he included stuff sent to him from Salt Lake). This woman is the president of a stake auxiliary, and she thought we shunned gays. To her credit, she did say her perspective and attitude changed as a result of the materials and discussion we had.

Oh, an added thought. The article does mention that new material was added to the online version of the lesson manual. Our gospel doctrine teacher is very old school and shuns technology. He uses the Hard copy manual. I'm not sure he's all that unusual.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Boanerges

[Marmonboy]

The new information is supposed to be in the printed material by the end of the year--it takes longer to physically print up a bazillion manuals than to post stuff on one web page.

[churchistrue]

I was looking at future gospel doctrine lessons here https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual?lang=eng and don't see the new additions.  I guess it's not finished yet?  

[stemelbow]

27 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I was looking at future gospel doctrine lessons here https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual?lang=eng and don't see the new additions.  I guess it's not finished yet?  

I hope so, but I don't know.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Boanerges said:

Thanks for sharing the article, I missed it in my daily look at the Trib site. And there's no need for anybody's feathers to get ruffled, I look at the other paper daily as well.

I think you and she are absolutely right stemelbow. Even in our high council when the SP talks about the essays he gets small amounts of push back - mostly from people who haven't read them. He has outright asked who has read them and less than half raised their hands. He has followed that with an invitation to become familiar with them because it's important that we understand what's out there when we talk to members of the stake.

I really don't know what's taking so long with revamping and updating the adult Sunday School curriculum. I had high hopes for next year until a couple months ago when it was announced nothing is changing. Of all years to make a change, the church history/D&C/PoGP one would be the most impactful. I have my own theories about the foot dragging, but whatever the reason we are still losing good people by appearing to try to ignore the stuff. For those of you who hold the idea that it's all out there and even the gospel topics essays are on LDS.org, how does that explain that most people have not even read them? We actually had a member of our stake council say she was unaware that we allowed gays (that's right, allowed) in the church before the SP sent out information about the updated site and encouraged us to read the materials (he included stuff sent to him from Salt Lake). This woman is the president of a stake auxiliary, and she thought we shunned gays. To her credit, she did say her perspective and attitude changed as a result of the materials and discussion we had.

Oh, an added thought. The article does mention that new material was added to the online version of the lesson manual. Our gospel doctrine teacher is very old school and shuns technology. He uses the Hard copy manual. I'm not sure he's all that unusual.

I think it's unlikely some of these things will be brought up in too many classes.  But they will be at some point.  that's good.  It'll grow.  We have a ways to go, for sure.  All progress seems too slow for an impatient person like me, but I have to accept that it's not as easy to put into practice changes in established religions and organizations. 

[churchistrue]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I hope so, but I don't know.

Kind of strange someone in church office would comment on it before anything's been released.  I wondered if I misunderstood.  But it seems like what he's saying is that those lessons will be modified to include new references at the end to the "edgy" material, right?  I hope he didn't speak out of turn.  It concerns me the source is someone over the website history.lds.org and not someone involved with Sunday School curriculum.  

[Calm]

The youth are being taught the essays in seminary.  I don't remember if it started this fall or last fall.  I believe insititute as well, though those manuals may take longer to update, being in more detail.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

"

Church leaders today are fully conscious of the unlimited access to information, and we are making extraordinary efforts to provide accurate context and understanding of the teachings of the Restoration. A prime example of this effort is the 11 Gospel Topics essays on LDS.org that provide balanced and reliable interpretations of the facts for controversial and unfamiliar Church-related subjects.

It is important that you know the content in these essays like you know the back of your hand. If you have questions about them, then please ask someone who has studied them and understands them. In other words, “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” as you master the content of these essays.

You should also become familiar with the Joseph Smith Papers website and the Church history section on LDS.org and other resources by faithful LDS scholars.

The effort for gospel transparency and spiritual inoculation through a thoughtful study of doctrine and history, coupled with a burning testimony, is the best antidote we have to help students avoid and/or deal with questions, doubt, or faith crises they may face in this information age.

As you teachers pay the price to better understand our history, doctrine, and practices—better than you do now—you will be prepared to provide thoughtful, careful, and inspired answers to your students’ questions."

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/evening-with-a-general-authority/2016/02/the-opportunities-and-responsibilities-of-ces-teachers-in-the-21st-century?lang=eng

[Calm]

"

Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties.

The Church places great emphasis on knowledge and on the importance of being well informed about Church history, doctrine, and practices. Ongoing historical research, revisions of the Church’s curriculum, and the use of new technologies allowing a more systematic and thorough study of scriptures have all been pursued by the Church to that end. We again encourage members to study the Gospel Topics essays cited in the links to the right as they “seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”"

https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng

[Scott Lloyd]

I would have no objection whatsoever to discussion in a Sunday lesson at church of the content of the "Gospel Topics" essays.

I would strenuously object to someone in a Church class -- be it teacher or student -- advocating, say, a belief that the Book of Mormon is fictional. Such anti-doctrinal, heretical views have no place in a Church-sponsored venue.

And yes, I would "dig in my heels" on something like that.

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[churchistrue]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would have no objection whatsoever to discussion in a Sunday lesson at church of the content of the "Gospel Topics" essays.

I would strenuously object to someone in a Church class -- be it teacher or student -- advocating, say, a belief that the Book of Mormon is fictional. Such anti-doctrinal, heretical views have no place in a Church-sponsored venue.

And yes, I would "dig in my heels" on something like that.

 

Just curious, what about offering up the theory that BOM could be (hate the word fiction) inspired, non-historical scripture.  Not advocating it.  Just throwing it out there.  Like in the context of explaining Deutero-Isaiah for example.  Would this be OK in a gospel doctrine setting?

"Critics point at this as proof the BOM and in turn the LDS church is false, but we as members should be aware there are various ways LDS scholars explain this, such as 1. (traditional) Nephi could have had an "advanced copy" of Deutero Isaiah, ie something Deutero Isaiah was based on 2.  (less traditional)  The BOM is a historical record, but Joseph might have expanded on the original text in an inspired way, and Joseph was responsible for inserting the Deutero Isaiah and integrating it into the BOM.  or 3.  (least traditional) some LDS scholars believe the BOM could be an inspired, non-historical scripture "translated" through a "catalyst theory" kind of process, similar to how the LDS church essay on Book of Abraham suggests for BoA, thus Joseph in an inspired process, revealed the non-historical BOM in the midrash/pseudepigrapha tradition.  The church doesn't officially endorse any of these.  All we know about the translation process from Joseph was that it was done "by the power of God".  But these are a few options to explore that LDS scholars have put forward, if you're trying to figure out how to resolve these kinds of things."

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Just curious, what about offering up the theory that BOM could be (hate the word fiction) inspired, non-historical scripture.  Not advocating it.  Just throwing it out there.  Like in the context of explaining Deutero-Isaiah for example.  Would this be OK in a gospel doctrine setting?

"Critics point at this as proof the BOM and in turn the LDS church is false, but we as members should be aware there are various ways LDS scholars explain this, such as 1. (traditional) Nephi could have had an "advanced copy" of Deutero Isaiah, ie something Deutero Isaiah was based on 2.  (less traditional)  The BOM is a historical record, but Joseph might have expanded on the original text in an inspired way, and Joseph was responsible for inserting the Deutero Isaiah and integrating it into the BOM.  or 3.  (least traditional) some LDS scholars believe the BOM could be an inspired, non-historical scripture "translated" through a "catalyst theory" kind of process, similar to how the LDS church essay on Book of Abraham suggests for BoA, thus Joseph in an inspired process, revealed the non-historical BOM in the midrash/pseudepigrapha tradition.  The church doesn't officially endorse any of these.  All we know about the translation process from Joseph was that it was done "by the power of God".  But these are a few options to explore that LDS scholars have put forward, if you're trying to figure out how to resolve these kinds of things."

 

 

I would regard this as scarcely any better than overtly asserting that the Book of Mormon is fictional. So no, it would not be OK with me.

And by the way, I reject the so-called "Deutero-Isaiah" concept.

If Nephi could behold in vision the details of Christ's birth and mortal ministry many centuries before it happened, and if Joseph could prophesy that the gospel would be restored in latter days by a prophet who bore the name Joseph and who would be named after his father, then Isaiah could certainly prophesy the coming of Cyrus the Great and identify him by name.

But this, perhaps, is taking the thread afield.

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The youth are being taught the essays in seminary.  I don't remember if it started this fall or last fall.  I believe insititute as well, though those manuals may take longer to update, being in more detail.

My son has yet to be taught anything from the essays in seminary.  I'm curious how they are integrated into the manuals.  I haven't seen.  He's been eager to discuss issues, but when he brings them up he gets rebuffed by his seminary teacher, which has really turned him off of seminary. 

[stemelbow]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would have no objection whatsoever to discussion in a Sunday lesson at church of the content of the "Gospel Topics" essays.

I would strenuously object to someone in a Church class -- be it teacher or student -- advocating, say, a belief that the Book of Mormon is fictional. Such anti-doctrinal, heretical views have no place in a Church-sponsored venue.

And yes, I would "dig in my heels" on something like that.

 

no room for a member in the ward to think the Boom of Mormon is fictional while also acknowledging the rest of the ward, most likely, disagrees?  Say someone might teach from the material but also offer a note that his/her personal belief is "these things likely didn't happen" just so people are clear.  Do you likewise object if someone offers their personal opinion about something making clear it's his/her opinion? 

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Just curious, what about offering up the theory that BOM could be (hate the word fiction) inspired, non-historical scripture.  Not advocating it.  Just throwing it out there.  Like in the context of explaining Deutero-Isaiah for example.  Would this be OK in a gospel doctrine setting?

"Critics point at this as proof the BOM and in turn the LDS church is false, but we as members should be aware there are various ways LDS scholars explain this, such as 1. (traditional) Nephi could have had an "advanced copy" of Deutero Isaiah, ie something Deutero Isaiah was based on 2.  (less traditional)  The BOM is a historical record, but Joseph might have expanded on the original text in an inspired way, and Joseph was responsible for inserting the Deutero Isaiah and integrating it into the BOM.  or 3.  (least traditional) some LDS scholars believe the BOM could be an inspired, non-historical scripture "translated" through a "catalyst theory" kind of process, similar to how the LDS church essay on Book of Abraham suggests for BoA, thus Joseph in an inspired process, revealed the non-historical BOM in the midrash/pseudepigrapha tradition.  The church doesn't officially endorse any of these.  All we know about the translation process from Joseph was that it was done "by the power of God".  But these are a few options to explore that LDS scholars have put forward, if you're trying to figure out how to resolve these kinds of things."

 

 

I think this is an good example of why Sunday school is not set up to handle these kinds of discussions.  

Most members of the class would have no idea how to judge this kind of information if it was presented by a random member (or even a teacher).  Most don't have the pre-requisites to do so, and introducing unauthorized opinions into class without the information needed to be able to process them (even good, well documented ones) encourages both 'the gospel according to ....' as well as 'instant rejection of all information that seems different from tradition' types of thinking.  Both mindsets can cause a lot of problems later.

I'm all for Sunday School improving and getting out of the dull drums, but it seems like a lot has to change first before we can get to a place where the above kind of discussion could even begin to work for most of the church.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

no room for a member in the ward to think the Boom of Mormon is fictional while also acknowledging the rest of the ward, most likely, disagrees?  Say someone might teach from the material but also offer a note that his/her personal belief is "these things likely didn't happen" just so people are clear.  Do you likewise object if someone offers their personal opinion about something making clear it's his/her opinion? 

I might object, i'm not sure. 

For example, I don't think i'd appreciate any teacher in secular school teaching something that I believe is fact and then ending it with "but I personally believe that's not true.  Just my opinion."  So going off of that, i might not appreciate a teacher at church doing something similar.  

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

no room for a member in the ward to think the Boom of Mormon is fictional while also acknowledging the rest of the ward, most likely, disagrees?  Say someone might teach from the material but also offer a note that his/her personal belief is "these things likely didn't happen" just so people are clear.  Do you likewise object if someone offers their personal opinion about something making clear it's his/her opinion? 

I draw a clear distinction between tolerance for someone to hold private beliefs and allowing that person to promulgate to any degree, however limited, anti-doctrinal or heretical beliefs in an official Church class or other Church setting. We need to maintain our Sabbath day worship services and classes as a sanctuary where gospel understanding is nurtured, not opposed or challenged. Our members attending them have the right to expect that.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My son has yet to be taught anything from the essays in seminary.  I'm curious how they are integrated into the manuals.  I haven't seen.  He's been eager to discuss issues, but when he brings them up he gets rebuffed by his seminary teacher, which has really turned him off of seminary. 

I wonder what would happen if he were to bring up the issues couched in quotations from the Gospel Topics essays. It surprises me that any full-time CES employee would be unaware of the essays, even if he/she were not altogether familiar with their content.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think this is an good example of why Sunday school is not set up to handle these kinds of discussions.  

Most members of the class would have no idea how to judge this kind of information if it was presented by a random member (or even a teacher).  Most don't have the pre-requisites to do so, and introducing unauthorized opinions into class without the information needed to be able to process them (even good, well documented ones) encourages both 'the gospel according to ....' as well as 'instant rejection of all information that seems different from tradition' types of thinking.  Both mindsets can cause a lot of problems later.

I'm all for Sunday School improving and getting out of the dull drums, but it seems like a lot has to change first before we can get to a place where the above kind of discussion could even begin to work for most of the church.

Members can handle it.  The problem is not that, in my estimation, it's that members have been conditioned to think there are wolves among them and thoughts that run contrary to the norm are coming from wolves.  That and there's always the shouting out game we play.  Authoritative figures in wards tend to win out ideas that are not the norm.  It's a really weird culture we've created, in my mind.  I think these things need to be challenged at large.  The wider the info the better off we are.  The better we get when more people are participating in the actual marketplace of ideas. 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I draw a clear distinction between tolerance for someone to hold private beliefs and allowing that person to promulgate to any degree, however limited, anti-doctrinal or heretical beliefs in an official Church class or other Church setting. We need to maintain our Sabbath day worship services and classes as a sanctuary where gospel truths are nurtured, not opposed or challenged. Our members attending them have the right to expect that.

SOunds tough.  Nearly each Sunday I'd wager I could pick out someone promulgating personal private beliefs, often said as if it were Church sanctioned, to some degree or another.  If someone were to speak up and shout that out each time, Church would be a hellacious mess if you ask me. 

I differ from you view starkly, though.  I find one of the great virtues of Church is it potentially, at least, can be a place for people to truly share their true feelings and thoughts.  I consider doing so a necessity to the notion that Church is a place for people to truly share the welfare of their souls with each other.  Granted, that ideal is rarely achieved in any ward I've been in, but I've seen glimpses. 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder what would happen if he were to bring up the issues couched in quotations from the Gospel Topics essays. It surprises me that any full-time CES employee would be unaware of the essays, even if he/she were not altogether familiar with their content.

I wonder too. 

[churchistrue]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I draw a clear distinction between tolerance for someone to hold private beliefs and allowing that person to promulgate to any degree, however limited, anti-doctrinal or heretical beliefs in an official Church class or other Church setting. We need to maintain our Sabbath day worship services and classes as a sanctuary where gospel truths are nurtured, not opposed or challenged. Our members attending them have the right to expect that.

Come on.  Every week in nearly every SS class across the entire church private beliefs are expressed that are anti-doctrinal, sketchy, speculative, or flat out heretical.  I'd bet money you've done it yourself.  Everyone thinks their own speculative views are fine and everyone else's are false doctrine.  It's very hard to go very deep into anything in a SS setting without touching on a doctrine that you can find opposing opinions on from within the canon or even recent general authority talks.  Uchtdorf and Faust gave completely opposite interpretations on one of our most common BOM scriptures quoted.  Official Mormon doctrine is not that well defined.  95% of what we discuss in gospel doctrine is private and speculative.  And that's OK.    

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I might object, i'm not sure. 

For example, I don't think i'd appreciate any teacher in secular school teaching something that I believe is fact and then ending it with "but I personally believe that's not true.  Just my opinion."  So going off of that, i might not appreciate a teacher at church doing something similar.  

Thanks for saying, bluebell.  I don't think your view is far from the norm.  But I'd guess that that general attitude at Church is why many feel unwelcome and unappreciated.  I know that's the case for me.  I get that a personal opinion is just that, one man, or woman's opinion, but to create and maintain an atmosphere where some people aren't free to share what's on their heart and mind, is problematic in my mind, in many ways. 

I love to hear differing opinions though.  If a teacher would tell me his opinion I'm happy to hear it.  But it's a tough world.  I realize some get offended by other opinions.  No one wants to hear a teacher at a public school preach racism, for instance. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

SOunds tough.  Nearly each Sunday I'd wager I could pick out someone promulgating personal private beliefs, often said as if it were Church sanctioned, to some degree or another.  If someone were to speak up and shout that out each time, Church would be a hellacious mess if you ask me. 

 

That ought not be happening, and it is the role of the teacher to see that it doesn't. If not the teacher, then the bishop, whose task is to ensure that the teaching that goes on in his ward is doctrinally pure.

But my experience, in a ward that I regard as quite typical of the Church at large, is different from yours. I attend gospel doctrine class almost every week, and we never have people spouting off their own non-doctrinal opinion as fact.

Quote

I differ from you view starkly, though.  I find one of the great virtues of Church is it potentially, at least, can be a place for people to truly share their true feelings and thoughts. 

To the extent that involves the promulgation of undoctrinal beliefs to the potential detriment of  or harm to those in the class or meeting who are unable to process them, that should not happen, not in a Church setting.