Let us evolve

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

It is really difficult to 'challenge' anything in a Sunday School setting without causing contention.  And--more to what i'm saying--it's really hard to present new information in Sunday school without having 1) those that agree with it assuming it's true or a solid interpretation (regardless if it actually is) and 2) those who don't agree with it assuming it's false (regardless if it's actually not).  

Unless something is presented in the actual lesson manual, there is little way to square those two groups of people into a cohesive class that can move forward with the Spirit.  Sunday School needs the authority of the lesson manual to create unity and direction because most members don't have the prerequisite knowledge to accurately judge random info that class members or teachers might present.

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I wouldn't have a problem with a class members presenting their contradictory opinions.  I think the teacher should be held to a higher standard than class members.  Teachers, for the most part, represent the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

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.  

I'm telling you I don't see it happening in my ward. And no, in my recollection I have never done it myself, nor would I consciously do such a thing. I'm passionate in my belief that it ought not happen.

Quote

Everyone thinks their own speculative views are fine and everyone else's are false doctrine.  

It's not that difficult to differentiate authoritative doctrine from speculative views. It's all laid out on lds.org.

Quote

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.  

If that ever happened, I'm quite unaware of it.

Quote

Official Mormon doctrine is not that well defined.  95% of what we discuss in gospel doctrine is private and speculative.  And that's OK.

I earnestly disagree with this. And no, it's not OK for that to happen.  

[Scott Lloyd]

By the way, notwithstanding the lessons and discussions in our ward's gospel doctrine class are quite orthodox, I would not characterize them as being in the doldrums. There's not a week goes by that I don't feel stimulated by what goes on in class, nearly always toward some behavioral application of what is said therein.

 

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

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.

 

People aren't harmed by hearing other's opinions.  In my mind, there's nothing to fear regarding the market place of ideas.  I'm with Pres. Brown who suggested "Only error needs to fear freedom of expression"

 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way, notwithstanding the lessons and discussions in our ward's gospel doctrine class are quite orthodox, I would not characterize them as being in the doldrums. There's not a week goes by that I don't feel stimulated by what goes on in class, nearly always toward some behavioral application of what is said therein.

 

I can pick out a handful to people in my ward who feel the same, I'm sure.  But sadly, some of the rest of us disagree completely. 

[bluebell]

Just now, stemelbow said:

 I'm with Pres. Brown who suggested "Only error needs to fear freedom of expression"

 

So how do you have a 'market place of ideas' in Sunday School, and also keep out errors so we don't have to 'fear freedom of expression'?  

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It is really difficult to 'challenge' anything in a Sunday School setting without causing contention.  And--more to what i'm saying--it's really hard to present new information in Sunday school without having 1) those that agree with it assuming it's true or a solid interpretation (regardless if it actually is) and 2) those who don't agree with it assuming it's false (regardless if it's actually not).  

Unless something is presented in the actual lesson manual, there is little way to square those two groups of people into a cohesive class that can move forward with the Spirit.  Sunday School needs the authority of the lesson manual to create unity and direction because most members don't have the prerequisite knowledge to accurately judge random info that class members or teachers might present.

 

I disagree.  Class members, in my view, do have more than sufficient prerequisite knowledge.   Surely it takes some skill and tons of effort, but that's what we need, in my view. 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way, notwithstanding the lessons and discussions in our ward's gospel doctrine class are quite orthodox, I would not characterize them as being in the doldrums. There's not a week goes by that I don't feel stimulated by what goes on in class, nearly always toward some behavioral application of what is said therein.

 

First, thank you for showing me how to spell that!  I knew i wasn't spelling it right but could not figure out what actually was.

Our Sunday school class is definitely in the doldrums.  And i'm one of those people that usually loves Sunday school.  Teachers make all the difference though and when you get one that's not great at it, it can be brutal.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

So how do you have a 'market place of ideas' in Sunday School, and also keep out errors so we don't have to 'fear freedom of expression'?  

I'm not sure what you mean.  In my view, "errors" saturate the class material as is.  We dont' come close to keeping out errors. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

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.

 

 

I agree but if you think this is tough, try taking on the cause that is represented in D&C 93 and Alma 32 that truth is contextual, or in "spheres" and is "what is sweet"!

Even the enlightened souls here  treat that as anathema.  They still want to agree with Dawkins that science disproves religion and that religion is about what happens "out there" in the world.  Go figure.!

Getting them to accept the essays is just the first step!

But it will happen or the church will die.  Them's the choices.  

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree.  Class members, in my view, do have more than sufficient prerequisite knowledge.   Surely it takes some skill and tons of effort, but that's what we need, in my view. 

I'm impressed if you have been a member of sunday school classes where the majority has any prerequisite knowledge on BOM translation procedures and translation procedures in general, other than what is already a part of the Sunday School curriculum.  

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what you mean.  In my view, "errors" saturate the class material as is.  We dont' come close to keeping out errors. 

I mean, you seem to be presenting two contradictory ideas.  First, that Sunday school should be a market place of free ideas and second, that you agree that we should fear the free expression of error.

There is no way to have a market place of free ideas without also allowing error freedom of expression.  

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

First, thank you for showing me how to spell that!  I knew i wasn't spelling it right but could not figure out what actually was.

Our Sunday school class is definitely in the doldrums.  And i'm one of those people that usually loves Sunday school.  Teachers make all the difference though and when you get one that's not great at it, it can be brutal.

I definitely agree with that!

We have been blessed over the years with a string of outstanding teachers [and I bracket myself in saying that, as I taught the class for several years].

One of the factors that helps make our class vibrant is that we get a lot of good class discussion, and from a variety of people, not just from the same ones week after week. As I intimated earlier, much of the discussion is behavior-oriented, focusing on practical application of the doctrines and principles in the day-to-day lives of members.

And, in my opinion, that's where the real value of Sunday School rests, not so much in chatter about mysteries or imponderables or matters that might spark disagreement or contention.

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm impressed if you have been a member of sunday school classes where the majority has any prerequisite knowledge on BOM translation procedures and translation procedures in general, other than what is already a part of the Sunday School curriculum.  

I'm not saying that.  I'm saying grown ups in the Church have enough prerequisite knowledge to entertain thought, as it pertains to gospel discussion.  And yes, often, that would mean thoughts shared in such a scenario would stray from the standard material. 

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

The problem though is that there ARE wolves among them.  This board to me, is a Sunday School class and at least I wait and listen to figure out if every newcomer is a good guy or bad guy or investigator, someone I can help, or someone I need to squelch.  Honestly, that is the way I see it.  I see my self as an apologist- an advocate and defender of the church, not for one minute as an impartial observer in the "market place of ideas".   I have BEEN in the market place of ideas and made my decisions and now advocate for a definite position which is the position of the church- albeit as I understand it, which is itself a bit unorthodox.

And no, "members" are not there yet.  It is not their fault- I have had advantages in education and use of my time to study this stuff out- advantages they may not have had.  It is easy to understand but honestly we have 2000 years of culture to overcome in hammering out this new paradigm that makes the new church essays cohere with the restoration as it should have been taught from the beginning- but even those early teachers did not have the cultural attitudes to see it the way the scriptures tell the story of contextual truth.

They brought with them a Protestant and "non-Restored" mentality

Seriously- is that a wrong attitude?  Should we NOT be seen as advocates for the church instead of rebels?   Perception is everything in sales.

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I mean, you seem to be presenting two contradictory ideas.  First, that Sunday school should be a market place of free ideas and second, that you agree that we should fear the free expression of error.

There is no way to have a market place of free ideas without also allowing error freedom of expression.  

What?  I have no idea why you think I said anything promoting that we should fear anything. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem though is that there ARE wolves among them.  This board to me, is a Sunday School class and at least I wait and listen to figure out if every newcomer is a good guy or bad guy or investigator, someone I can help, or someone I need to squelch.  Honestly, that is the way I see it.  I see my self as an apologist- an advocate and defender of the church, not for one minute as an impartial observer in the "market place of ideas".   I have BEEN in the market place of ideas and made my decisions and now advocate for a definite position which is the position of the church- albeit as I understand it, which is itself a bit unorthodox.

That's fine if wolves, however one views that metaphor, are amongst us.  What I'd say, though, we shouldn't fear ideas because they come from people we are skeptical of.  Fearing ideas is a problem, in my view. 

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

And no, "members" are not there yet.  It is not their fault- I have had advantages in education and use of my time to study this stuff out- advantages they may not have had.  It is easy to understand but honestly we have 2000 years of culture to overcome in hammering out this new paradigm that makes the new church essays cohere with the restoration as it should have been taught from the beginning- but even those early teachers did not have the cultural attitudes to see it the way the scriptures tell the story of contextual truth.

They brought with them a Protestant and "non-Restored" mentality

Seriously- is that a wrong attitude?  Should we NOT be seen as advocates for the church instead of rebels?   Perception is everything in sales.

I'd say we'll get nowhere if we don't try.  Members aren't where you are, sure.  But we, as members, have plenty of grounding to foster a place where free expression is welcome. 

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not saying that.  I'm saying grown ups in the Church have enough prerequisite knowledge to entertain thought, as it pertains to gospel discussion.  And yes, often, that would mean thoughts shared in such a scenario would stray from the standard material. 

Just picking a point here to focus on- "grownups in the church" are NOT ready to hear that there ARE nuanced ways to view the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

They are NOT ready to hear that the Book of Abraham is not a literal "translation".   It's there for them to find if they want to find it, but it is not there to clobber them over the head with when they are not ready and are simply there basking in the spiritual envelope of what the spirit tells them as they read it.

The average guy, I would argue, is not ready for those nuances.   If they search it out- fine- then it answers existing questions they have.  But if they do not have questions- why raise the issue?   How does it help them spiritually?

Besides- who is ready to say that the BOA is "proven" NOT to be the word of God or even the words of Abraham?   I have a testimony it is, but why raise all those nuanced issues for someone who does not need that confusion in their life?

I remember my dad telling his grandmother- born in 1860 and a wonderful woman who was uneducated- that the chair she was sitting in was made of tiny "atoms" which we buzzing around and had more space between them than substance.   She looked at him as if he had totally lost it.  She was seriously worried that her great grandson had totally gone over the edge and did not know what to do!   It was very upsetting for her

Did he need to have that conversation at all?

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just picking a point here to focus on- "grownups in the church" are NOT ready to hear that there ARE nuanced ways to view the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

They are NOT ready to hear that the Book of Abraham is not a literal "translation".   It's there for them to find if they want to find it, but it is not there to clobber them over the head with when they are not ready and are simply there basking in the spiritual envelope of what the spirit tells them as they read it.

The average guy, I would argue, is not ready for those nuances.   If they search it out- fine- then it answers existing questions they have.  But if they do not have questions- why raise the issue?   How does it help them spiritually?

Besides- who is ready to say that the BOA is "proven" NOT to be the word of God or even the words of Abraham?   I have a testimony it is, but why raise all those nuanced issues for someone who does not need that confusion in their life?

I remember my dad telling his grandmother- born in 1860 and a wonderful woman who was uneducated- that the chair she was sitting in was made of tiny "atoms" which we buzzing around and had more space between them than substance.   She looked at him as if he had totally lost it.  She was seriously worried that her great grandson had totally gone over the edge and did not know what to do!   It was very upsetting for her

Did he need to have that conversation at all?

Sure.  She would had to face the challenge of not knowing something if she did not.  I think members are ready for all that you describe.  Sure it can be challenging, but such is life.  Members need to be challenged--that's part of the point of callings, after all.

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

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.

I was disheartened to hear about this approach.  I was hopeful that the entire curriculum would be updated and that specific topics would be incorporated into the lessons (similar to the institute manual updates).  Unfortunately this is another evidence of how fearful church leaders are of spreading more honest history.    

Until these topics are discussed by church leaders in general conference, and incorporated directly into the lesson manuals, I don't see average members engaging with the challenging issues of a dominant narrative that isn't true to paraphrase Bushman.  

 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just picking a point here to focus on- "grownups in the church" are NOT ready to hear that there ARE nuanced ways to view the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

They are NOT ready to hear that the Book of Abraham is not a literal "translation".   It's there for them to find if they want to find it, but it is not there to clobber them over the head with when they are not ready and are simply there basking in the spiritual envelope of what the spirit tells them as they read it.

The average guy, I would argue, is not ready for those nuances.   If they search it out- fine- then it answers existing questions they have.  But if they do not have questions- why raise the issue?   How does it help them spiritually?

Besides- who is ready to say that the BOA is "proven" NOT to be the word of God or even the words of Abraham?   I have a testimony it is, but why raise all those nuanced issues for someone who does not need that confusion in their life?

I remember my dad telling his grandmother- born in 1860 and a wonderful woman who was uneducated- that the chair she was sitting in was made of tiny "atoms" which we buzzing around and had more space between them than substance.   She looked at him as if he had totally lost it.  She was seriously worried that her great grandson had totally gone over the edge and did not know what to do!   It was very upsetting for her

Did he need to have that conversation at all?

Good point.  There is a reason who don't try to teach calculus to the average 4th grader who just mastered fractions.  There's a reason that 1st graders and 6th graders have different curriculums.  Knowledge is typically a ladder, where you have to have the previous rungs in place before you try climbing too high or you'll fall.  Not everyone is ready for the same information at the same time.

 

[Jeanne]

How about a CES coordinated effort for adults who want to know..or a discussion group for those who have no other way to talk about things?  What would that hurt?  Maybe use some of the guidelines/books that the seminary kids are using?  This would be a voluntary effort from those who are really interested;  So many older adults are having discussions with their grandkids...I think they would love it.  A challenge, of course..but it would help blend in the old and the new without stepping on too many toes or testimonies.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Jeanne

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not saying that.  I'm saying grown ups in the Church have enough prerequisite knowledge to entertain thought, as it pertains to gospel discussion.  And yes, often, that would mean thoughts shared in such a scenario would stray from the standard material. 

It would also mean that thoughts shared in such a scenario would sometimes be false and/or heretical, though espoused as if they were true.

[bluebell]

Just now, Jeanne said:

How about a CES coordinated effort for adults who want to know..or a discussion group for those who have no other way to talk about things?  What would that hurt?  Maybe use some of the guidelines/books that the seminary kids are using? 

I've been in stakes that offer adult CES classes all the time.  I took one on Isaiah not that long ago.  They are awesome!