hope_for_things Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 15 hours ago, CV75 said: Maybe I can re-phrase: You can't demonstrate the value of Ben Spackman’s top scripture scholarship picks for Sunday School as being as useful for meeting the purposes of Sunday School (“1. Strengthen individuals’ and families’ faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ through teaching, learning, and fellowshipping. 2. Help Church members “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77) at church and at home.” -- https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/sunday-school/12.1?lang=eng&_r=1#121 ) as BYU’s curriculum and resources are for college-level evolutionary science classes, the purpose of which is, “Students will be able to describe the history and development of evolutionary thought… Students will be able to list and describe the evidence for evolution and its required corollaries…Students will be able to describe the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Provide detailed explanations of the the processes of evolution by mutation, migration, genetic drift, non-random mating, and natural selection… Students will be able to explain adaptation, providing examples from several different fields of biology (e.g., cell biology, physiology, conservation biology, bioinformatics, medicine, behavior, etc.)… Students will be able to describe the history of life on earth. Identify major evolutionary transitions over time, and explain the tools and evidence that support current hypotheses of the history of life.” https://catalog.byu.edu/life-sciences/biology/evolutionary-biology-0 ). I’m sure you were a wonderful Sunday School presidency member though, and maybe you can vouch for Ben Spackman being consulted to improve Sunday School curriculum. Sorry, but this strikes me as just defending the status quo without any honest evaluation of problems.
hope_for_things Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 8 hours ago, Calm said: I can vouch for Ben Spackman being consulted to improve my SS curriculum. Ben is not only brilliant, but wise and wonderful. He was at that UVU conference a few weeks back and I finally got to meet him in person and thank him for his good work on the blog. He's a good guy.
CV75 Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Sorry, but this strikes me as just defending the status quo without any honest evaluation of problems. Of course it strikes you that way, and it's very easy for you to say such a thing, but you haven't provided much in the way of a revolutionary vision but to claim how wonderful your four-option curriculum is, presumably expertly tailored for different interests and levels of learning. I don't now what's keeping Ben Spackman back, though.
hope_for_things Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 Just now, CV75 said: Of course it strikes you that way, and it's very easy for you to say such a thing, but you haven't provided much in the way of a revolutionary vision but to claim how wonderful your four-option curriculum is, presumably expertly tailored for different interests and levels of learning. I don't now what's keeping Ben Spackman back, though. Doesn't seem like you want to have an mutually respectful conversation, just take pot shots.
JLHPROF Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: What I would do if I were approaching a reformation of our core principles, would be an evaluation of what is essential to Mormonism and I would try to make it very simple and less descriptive. Another problem I have with the AoF as currently constituted is I have no reason to believe that Joseph Smith ever intended them to be canonized. Its really the closest thing to a creed that the LDS church has, and Joseph was very anti creeds. I just don't think it serves us well to have these declarations of specific beliefs and I see that much of the light and knowledge we have received as a society and people is in contradiction to some of these simplistic statements. I would scrap the whole list and start over from scratch, and make the ideas more broad principles and less specific. The thing is, these ARE the core principles. With the exception of #10 I can't think of a single line in these articles that doesn't describe a core foundational doctrinal principle of the Church. (And even #10 still is technically, the Church just doesn't "emphasize" that any more). As for adding, well, I also can't think of any principles that the Church believes in that could be considered foundational enough to be added. Maybe a 14th article on eternal families and marriage. I'm open to ideas? What would you drop and what do you think is missing?
CV75 Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 Just now, hope_for_things said: Doesn't seem like you want to have an mutually respectful conversation, just take pot shots. I'm sorry you take my posts as pot-shots and defending the status quo. I'm pointing out the fault in your suggestion that an academically-oriented Sunday School advances faith and doctrine in the same way that the BYU evolutionary science curriculum advances students' ability to describe the science. Fundamentally they are very different; most notably that the latter represents academics for academics sake. You have an opportunity here to describe your SS project and how that advances faith and doctrine.
hope_for_things Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The thing is, these ARE the core principles. With the exception of #10 I can't think of a single line in these articles that doesn't describe a core foundational doctrinal principle of the Church. (And even #10 still is technically, the Church just doesn't "emphasize" that any more). As for adding, well, I also can't think of any principles that the Church believes in that could be considered foundational enough to be added. Maybe a 14th article on eternal families and marriage. I'm open to ideas? What would you drop and what do you think is missing? They really aren't the essential core principles to me, many of them are flawed and not essential, and sometimes contradictory to core principles. I'm not saying we should start with the current AoF and expound on them. I don't think they should have ever been canonized in the first place. I think we ought to start from scratch and have broad ideals articulated in a values statement, rather than a creed. The whole way they are written is problematic to me. I don't think we should proclaim beliefs in doctrines this way at all. I think individual beliefs within Mormonism are all over the spectrum and not essential to the gospel. The core of the gospel for me is an experience and how we relate to others in action, not how our religion teaches a Christian tradition teaching differently than another denomination.
JLHPROF Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 Just now, hope_for_things said: They really aren't the essential core principles to me, many of them are flawed and not essential, and sometimes contradictory to core principles. I'm not saying we should start with the current AoF and expound on them. I don't think they should have ever been canonized in the first place. I think we ought to start from scratch and have broad ideals articulated in a values statement, rather than a creed. The whole way they are written is problematic to me. I don't think we should proclaim beliefs in doctrines this way at all. I think individual beliefs within Mormonism are all over the spectrum and not essential to the gospel. The core of the gospel for me is an experience and how we relate to others in action, not how our religion teaches a Christian tradition teaching differently than another denomination. I completely disagree. Not only that, I find nothing in the gospel that backs up your assertions. But if you want to design your own religion, you have every right. 1
The Nehor Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Doesn't seem like you want to have an mutually respectful conversation, just take pot shots. You are doing the equivalent of telling someone you want to reevaluate the core principles on which their family life is based and you expect dispassionate responses? 1
hope_for_things Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I completely disagree. Not only that, I find nothing in the gospel that backs up your assertions. But if you want to design your own religion, you have every right. I have no desire to start a religion. I think to some extent we all live in our own view of the world and our own religion anyway.
hope_for_things Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: You are doing the equivalent of telling someone you want to reevaluate the core principles on which their family life is based and you expect dispassionate responses? That's not my intention. I think the whole purpose of a message board about Mormonism is to have dispassionate discussions about it. I'm not trying to make anything personal, and I try very hard to keep things respectful in my messages even though I'm sure I fall short at times.
Calm Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I think the whole purpose of a message board about Mormonism is to have dispassionate discussions about it. Civil sure, dispassionate...I don't think you have been paying very close attention. Few people will put effort into unfunded personal research in order to develop the ability to talk intelligently about a subject unless they are passionate about it. Edited March 23, 2018 by Calm
carbon dioxide Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 On 3/22/2018 at 8:58 AM, hope_for_things said: One major problem I see is that Mormons aren't taught to "study" the scriptures using modern tools that are readily available, but often ignored. Historical criticism, literary criticism. Rather than actual study, we have a lot of proof texting happening. Rather than actually trying to understand what the original authors intended, we have a strong tradition of misappropriating the original intent to confirm our current biases. I have a problem with claiming one can know 100% for sure what was the intent of someone writing something thousands of years ago. We can make guesses of what they might or could have intended but that is about it.
hope_for_things Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 20 minutes ago, Calm said: Civil sure, dispassionate...I don't think you have been paying very close attention. Few people will put effort into unfunded personal research in order to develop the ability to talk intelligently about a subject unless they are passionate about it. Quote Dispassionate - Not influenced by strong emotion, and so able to be rational and impartial. Hmm... well, maybe I'm asking too much. I think being rational and impartial are qualities we should aspire too though, even if its difficult if not an impossible standard to achieve.
hope_for_things Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said: I have a problem with claiming one can know 100% for sure what was the intent of someone writing something thousands of years ago. We can make guesses of what they might or could have intended but that is about it. Me too. Thankfully in all my study reading biblical scholarship I've never ran into any scholars who claim to know 100% for sure what the intent of the original author was.
The Nehor Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Hmm... well, maybe I'm asking too much. I think being rational and impartial are qualities we should aspire too though, even if its difficult if not an impossible standard to achieve. I think those qualities are useful in some cases and not so much in others. 1
RevTestament Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 On 3/21/2018 at 9:37 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accepts the Bible as, the first and foremost, of her Standard Works, chief among the books which have been proclaimed, as her written guides in Faith and Doctrine". (Lecture XII, The Bible Article # 8...) The first Sunday of this Month, (March) our Bishop challenged our Ward to read the Book of Mormon, by Easter and General Conference. We can all rest assured (as members) we will hear many General Authorities, give us the same challenge, for each of us all to read, and re-read, the Book of Mormon, as well. In my 39 years as a member of, The Church, I have served at least 25-26 years as a Gospel Doctrine Instructor, the last time for, four years straight. Each time, I would always admonish my students to always read the volume of scripture that we are studying in that calendar year. Currently the entire Church is reading and teaching the Old Testament. When I was teaching, I too have even admonished members to continue to read the Book of Mormon daily, but to put more the lion share of their attention in what we are studying, as it has always been my practice of mine well. True it is, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our Religion, but what of the foundation? You thoughts, Please Thanking you all in advance Wow, no more late night posting for me, I just had to delete most of the thread. Too much in errors, and just too much. What is left informs the narrative (I hope). I am glad you started this thread PaPa. My own family knows very well my feelings on this subject, and has watched me rant about "BoM this and BoM that - how about the Bible?" For me personally, the Bible has always been first and foremost. My appreciation for the BoM has been a longer, slower road although I finally received confirmation it is true. However, I was converted to the Church based on the Bible. I tried very hard to give our own children an appreciation for the Bible, because I felt if they grew up and went on missions, they would need to know it well. Maybe passing out Books of Mormon to passerbys worked well in the past, but for me personally, it is just not an approach which would have worked. I always had questions about the gospel, and my missionaries had answers out of the Bible and other Church scriptures - that is what made me excited about the Church, and willing to read the BoM. Sometimes I feel the Church has even engendered a mistrust against the Bible, which saddens me. Maybe when the sealed portion is revealed to us, I will feel similarly about the BoM, but I simply don't. Maybe it hides a lot more than I give it credit for - it is an important work - and is expressly written for the days of the seventh seal, but even here it greatly relies on and refers to biblical scriptures. On 3/22/2018 at 9:54 AM, Bill "Papa" Lee said: I would caution (oh and thank you, had to fix so many errors) Evangelicals, are almost worst, because they all but completely ignore half of the Bible. We devote every two years to the entire Bible. EV's devote most their entire lives to the NT, and little else. That is a Spiritually dangerous road to travel. I sometimes say LDS or at least I feel I am more Christian than many modern Christians, and although that sounds conceited, this is why. I find the reliance on a few verses from Paul, and the attitude that commandments do not apply in this age to be distasteful and even unChristian. When those who ignore most of the Bible and get it wrong insist that I am not Christian because I reject the doctrines of the trinity, I just find it ironic to say the least. However, the time is coming when the BoM and Bible will merge into one before the eyes of the people. All scripture is important, and the BoM will become much more important or prominent, if you will, in the future.
BillyandJane Posted April 7, 2018 Posted April 7, 2018 On 3/22/2018 at 7:58 AM, hope_for_things said: we have a strong tradition of misappropriating the original intent to confirm our current biases. Totally agree with this.
Mormons Talk Posted April 26, 2018 Posted April 26, 2018 For those of you interested in a deeper, more academic look at the Bible, you might enjoy the following facebook group, where we discuss college-level books on the Bible from multiple denominational perspectives: "Mormons Talk | OT Bible Scholarship (Old Testament / LDS / Mormon)"https://www.facebook.com/groups/1706281003000677/ 1
MormonMason Posted April 27, 2018 Posted April 27, 2018 On 3/22/2018 at 11:09 AM, hope_for_things said: Its a short amount of time, for sure, and I think many people would like the church to shorten the 3 hr block even further (bring on the 2 hr block!) But that doesn't mean we can't teach skills of scripture study and incorporate the best tools to accomplish it. There is no excuse for the church being stuck in a largely 19th century biblical scholarship orientation. This needs to change. Why not? Much of biblical scholarship still is stuck in the 19th Century. Such are most incarnations of the JEDP hypothesis, IMO. Why make use of tools rooted in such regurgitated things?
MormonMason Posted April 28, 2018 Posted April 28, 2018 On 3/23/2018 at 8:45 AM, hope_for_things said: Its really the closest thing to a creed that the LDS church has, and Joseph was very anti creeds Joseph Smith himself wrote the Articles of Faith and published them as a representation of the basic tenets of our faith. They were published in a non-Church publication through the Wentworth Letter, and were first republished in the Church periodical, the Times and Seasons, during the administration of President Joseph Smith. Presidents Brigham Young and John Taylor (both of whom were friends with Joseph and knew Joseph's thinking and his likes and dislikes) approved of them for inclusion in the Pearl of Great Price. They became official scripture under President John Taylor. I think they should be left as is. I just don't see the need to change them.
hope_for_things Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 On 4/27/2018 at 3:10 AM, MormonMason said: Why not? Much of biblical scholarship still is stuck in the 19th Century. Such are most incarnations of the JEDP hypothesis, IMO. Why make use of tools rooted in such regurgitated things? The whole point of scholarship is a building upon the findings of the past and evolving our knowledge as we follow the strongest evidence. Documentary Hypothesis has its roots in the 19th century, and still Mormon culture is largely unaware of it. I don't see any problem with ideas having their roots in a particular time and place.
hope_for_things Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) On 4/28/2018 at 2:28 AM, MormonMason said: Joseph Smith himself wrote the Articles of Faith and published them as a representation of the basic tenets of our faith. They were published in a non-Church publication through the Wentworth Letter, and were first republished in the Church periodical, the Times and Seasons, during the administration of President Joseph Smith. Presidents Brigham Young and John Taylor (both of whom were friends with Joseph and knew Joseph's thinking and his likes and dislikes) approved of them for inclusion in the Pearl of Great Price. They became official scripture under President John Taylor. I think they should be left as is. I just don't see the need to change them. This letter borrows heavily from an earlier published statement in 1834 that Cowdery penned, and it just doesn't seem important to have been elevated to its current level of emphasis in Mormonism. You could pick and choose any number of things that were published in Joseph's lifetime and elevate them to scriptural status, but I would argue that we should be more selective and careful about what we elevate to that status in the Mormon tradition. Unfortunately, there isn't a sophisticated understanding of how our scriptures evolved into being, so most modern Mormons have unsubstantiated assumptions that everything is the way it is because it was God breathed. In this way we are very similar to fundamentalist Christians and their naive views about the Bible. So debating the value of something like the Articles of Faith, becomes a difficult prospect when many people entering the debate are just seeking to defend the status quo, rather than actually evaluating something. Edited April 30, 2018 by hope_for_things
MormonMason Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: The whole point of scholarship is a building upon the findings of the past and evolving our knowledge as we follow the strongest evidence. Documentary Hypothesis has its roots in the 19th century, and still Mormon culture is largely unaware of it. I don't see any problem with ideas having their roots in a particular time and place. The Documentary Hypothesis still is a hypothesis after all these years, with not enough evidence even to become a theory. It is fraught with many weaknesses and arbitrary decisions, and is founded upon unverifiable assumptions, even after over a century. Much that is written about it isn't worth the paper it's written upon. Why should most members of the Church concern themselves over something like that?
hope_for_things Posted April 30, 2018 Posted April 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, MormonMason said: The Documentary Hypothesis still is a hypothesis after all these years, with not enough evidence even to become a theory. It is fraught with many weaknesses and arbitrary decisions, and is founded upon unverifiable assumptions, even after over a century. Much that is written about it isn't worth the paper it's written upon. Why should most members of the Church concern themselves over something like that? Everything I've read by mainstream biblical scholars, including Mormons who are informed on the subject, is that the DH as a whole is well established as consensus. Where are you getting these opinions from?
Recommended Posts