Ben Spackman’s thoughts on Sunday School

[Fether]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

Wow, you seem to have a low opinion of women.

Huh?

 

7 hours ago, juliann said:

That is all you see? "Offense?" What I see is damage to souls when all that is preached is an idealized lifestyle that a growing body of single people aren't a part of. Single people have just as much a role...and importance....as married people. They not only deserve to be seen as valuable as they are but the church is going to increasingly suffer if they don't stop excluding and infantilizing such a large part of their membership.

We are talking about celebrating mothers ONE day a year. 

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Can you provide some examples of what you mean?

I’ve been digging in deep this year to the OT, with the help of a lot of different bible scholars, and my testimony of the OT is way stronger than it’s ever been.

That the scholars don’t shy away from the difficult parts is one of the reasons my esteem of the book has grown.

It's been four years since I taught Gospel Doctrine. I remember because my last year teaching was the OT. I just now went and browsed the lesson material in the Come, Follow Me Manual (I assume this is what's being used now) and looked at the first 4 or 5 chapters. There is precious little in there relating to the OT. Most of it is PofGP and BofM, with some D&C and OT sprinkled in.

Do the bible scholars you read tell you the same creation and garden stories you find in the lesson manual? The ones I read certainly don't. The scholars don't even tell the same stories that most of Christianity tells. That's because the biblical characters weren't Christians, weren't even necessarily monotheistic, and used scriptures in a way completely different than us moderns. But we teach them as if they were doing their home teaching (sorry, ministering), attending the temple (without all the blood and smoke and stuff), and helping their neighbors move on the weekend. In other words, we portray them as modern Mormons instead of the ancient barbarians they were. We gloss over the extreme violence, cultish ritualism, and somehow manage to make Abraham a hero for being willing to sacrifice his own son. God destroys the whole world with a flood? Well it must be just because God did it. And by the way the story is definitely literal and definitely is not talking about a regional event. Oh, and that snake in the garden? Guess what? He's just a serpent. Nobody in OT times thought he was supposed to represent the devil as we know it. The devil hadn't even been invented by then.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Yet when I learned from scholars, and they were liberal theologians, what is in the Bible, it strengthened my belief in the church. It is very easy to place church doctrine in the context of the Bible and early Christianity. Very easy. My first reaction to discovering this in academic classes rather than the church was why in the world isn’t this in our manuals?? However, it does require that one treats the Bible as a collection of disparate texts written for different audiences at different times and in different cultures. Nothing kills discovery faster than insisting every word is Truth and that different texts/authors can be treated as one. 

You are one of the elite, then, who can harmonize these different accounts. The brethren know there are only a few of you, though, so that is why they don't allow the real story of the bible to be told.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

It seems even some very smart people do not read the instructions and so their expectations are out of context and even unrealistic.

I think a lot of smart people do read those instructions.  That doesn't mean that we can't do better.

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The instructions for the Old Testament 2022 CFM (note the subtitle: “Living, Learning, and Teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ”) are found in the:

Title Page https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-old-testament-2022/title?lang=eng

Conversion Is Our Goal https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-old-testament-2022/intro?lang=eng

Using Come, Follow Me—For Individuals and Families https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-old-testament-2022/using?lang=eng

Ideas to Improve Your Personal Scripture Study https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-old-testament-2022/personal?lang=eng

Why on earth would any dedicated scholar (especially the “disciple-scholar” – see reference below) expect CFM to give room for the rigorous academic application of theory and methods from diverse disciplines (e.g., ancient history, historical criticism, philology, textual criticism, literary criticism, historical backgrounds, mythology, and comparative religion)? Is, “Oh come on, just a little bit to make it interesting!” really scholarship? Is, "Oh come on, just a little bit to push people out of their comfort zone academically?" really programmatically (or socially) appropriate?

Elder Holland spoke of the “disciple-scholar” -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/be-faithful-disciple-scholars-even-in-difficulty-elder-holland-says-at-maxwell-institute?lang=eng

A couple of weeks ago I found this quote and put it in our church program.  It came from a talk that Elder Maxwell gave:

Quote

“For a disciple of Jesus Christ, academic scholarship is a form of worship. It is actually another dimension of consecration. Hence one who seeks to be a disciple-scholar will take both scholarship and discipleship seriously; and, likewise, gospel covenants...So much tutoring is required, however, in order for the disciple to become 'as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit'”

                – Neal A. Maxwell

There was so much good stuff there, including the part I had to take out to make it fit. You can find the talk in the book "On Becoming a Disciple Scholar" at Deseret Book. (It is part of the plus program as well) 

Edited June 7, 2022 by Rain

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

The brethren know there are only a few of you, though, so that is why they don't allow the real story of the bible to be told.

Got it. The 'real story of the Bible' is the one that doesn't include believing the Bible to be the word of God. Yeah, I can't imagine why we aren't teaching that at Church ...

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

It's been four years since I taught Gospel Doctrine. I remember because my last year teaching was the OT. I just now went and browsed the lesson material in the Come, Follow Me Manual (I assume this is what's being used now) and looked at the first 4 or 5 chapters. There is precious little in there relating to the OT. Most of it is PofGP and BofM, with some D&C and OT sprinkled in.

Do the bible scholars you read tell you the same creation and garden stories you find in the lesson manual? The ones I read certainly don't. The scholars don't even tell the same stories that most of Christianity tells. That's because the biblical characters weren't Christians, weren't even necessarily monotheistic, and used scriptures in a way completely different than us moderns. But we teach them as if they were doing their home teaching (sorry, ministering), attending the temple (without all the blood and smoke and stuff), and helping their neighbors move on the weekend. In other words, we portray them as modern Mormons instead of the ancient barbarians they were. We gloss over the extreme violence, cultish ritualism, and somehow manage to make Abraham a hero for being willing to sacrifice his own son. God destroys the whole world with a flood? Well it must be just because God did it. And by the way the story is definitely literal and definitely is not talking about a regional event. Oh, and that snake in the garden? Guess what? He's just a serpent. Nobody in OT times thought he was supposed to represent the devil as we know it. The devil hadn't even been invented by then.

The bible scholars have all also been active members of the church, and they've shared some of what you have talked about.  I love how one talked about how the creation story was understood in the society where it was given, and what it was trying to teach (which was not a science lesson on how the earth was made). 

None of them have shied away from the more troubling parts, which I appreciate.  And I also appreciate how much each one tries to keep everything in context and works with what the writer and the culture believed at the time and not what we try to read into the text today.

It's been fascinating and I'm loving it.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The bible scholars have all also been active members of the church, and they've shared some of what you have talked about.  I love how one talked about how the creation story was understood in the society where it was given, and what it was trying to teach (which was not a science lesson on how the earth was made). 

None of them have shied away from the more troubling parts, which I appreciate.  And I also appreciate how much each one tries to keep everything in context and works with what the writer and the culture believed at the time and not what we try to read into the text today.

It's been fascinating and I'm loving it.

I love what bible scholars have to say about the bible, too. Why don't the brethren love it, though? Why don't the lesson manuals come within a million miles of it?

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

Do the bible scholars you read tell you the same creation and garden stories you find in the lesson manual? The ones I read certainly don't. The scholars don't even tell the same stories that most of Christianity tells. That's because the biblical characters weren't Christians, weren't even necessarily monotheistic, and used scriptures in a way completely different than us moderns. But we teach them as if they were doing their home teaching (sorry, ministering), attending the temple (without all the blood and smoke and stuff), and helping their neighbors move on the weekend. In other words, we portray them as modern Mormons instead of the ancient barbarians they were. We gloss over the extreme violence, cultish ritualism, and somehow manage to make Abraham a hero for being willing to sacrifice his own son. God destroys the whole world with a flood? Well it must be just because God did it. And by the way the story is definitely literal and definitely is not talking about a regional event. Oh, and that snake in the garden? Guess what? He's just a serpent. Nobody in OT times thought he was supposed to represent the devil as we know it. The devil hadn't even been invented by then.

I'm still trying to figure out the part that would cause people to leave the church or the church would need to change its doctrine, or both. 

[JarMan]

38 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I'm still trying to figure out the part that would cause people to leave the church or the church would need to change its doctrine, or both. 

May I suggest you read your OT a little more closely? Try reading it like an ancient would have. For help with that, see what many scholars have to say on the subject. A few of my favorites are Elaine Pagels and Christine Hayes. For NT material, try Bart Ehrman. There are many others.

[InCognitus]

18 minutes ago, JarMan said:

May I suggest you read your OT a little more closely? Try reading it like an ancient would have. For help with that, see what many scholars have to say on the subject. A few of my favorites are Elaine Pagels and Christine Hayes. For NT material, try Bart Ehrman. There are many others.

Bart Ehrman is fun, and if it wasn't for his misguided editorial, the facts he brings up support the LDS view of scripture.  And it looks like Elaine Pagels and Christine Hayes material would be just as interesting.  Again, these are things that many of the members that I know would eat up. And I still don't know why any of this would cause people to leave the church or the church would need to change its doctrine, or both. 

[JarMan]

13 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Bart Ehrman is fun, and if it wasn't for his misguided editorial, the facts he brings up support the LDS view of scripture.  And it looks like Elaine Pagels and Christine Hayes material would be just as interesting.  Again, these are things that many of the members that I know would eat up. And I still don't know why any of this would cause people to leave the church or the church would need to change its doctrine, or both. 

Let's start with Elain Pagels' view of Satan. He doesn't exist in the OT. Yet Satan is critical in the Mormon garden story. Without Satan in the garden the entire temple experience is a sham. So is much of our uniquely Mormon scripture. Why doesn't the lesson material teach us that Satan is really a post-exilic invention cobbled together from later Persian and Greek religions? Because that would directly contradict our teachings. Do you really think members would eat up the the idea that there's no Satan in the OT? Try that with the first three members you come into contact with and see how they react?

[rongo]

This thread has been interesting and relevant to me. We moved into a new stake in March, and I was just called to be the high councilor over Sunday School (which, per the handbook changes, is the de facto Sunday School President. The stake president told me to visit as many of our stake's adult and youth SS classes as possible in the next few months. He wants me to be the pointman on improving teaching in our stake. On Sunday, I visited three adult SS classes. By the third one, I had stopped off at home and grabbed my volume 3 of the Interpreter's Bible (KJV and RSV side-by-side, scholarly exegesis, and sermon notes on the same page). Each volume has over a thousand pages, and the whole Bible 

Some thoughts as I join this thread already well in progress:

1) Ben Spackman is a terrific person with a lot of good insights (I knew him from my days on the FAIR list). I differ from him on certain things, but he's a good guy who loves the Church. 

2) For those who dislike our classes' penchant for sharing opinions and views instead of being a "serious" theological seminary-type class, what they want to replace it with is . . . the opinions and views of various scholars. I'm not convinced that these opinions and views are actually superior to what we get when our local members discuss and share views, a la Mormon Sunday School style. Be careful what you wish for!

3) I had a teacher in a ward once who actually did limit comments to one per person per class, and this was effective in ensuring that "the usual suspects" don't dominate the discussion all the time. It can limit essential comments from people who had already shared, and I wouldn't want this to become a "policy." Teachers need to "read the room" and try to facilitate good discussion without artificial hard-and-fast rules, in my view, which means you sometimes have to shut people down and encourage participation of the "wallflowers and introverts" while not "hurting the wine or the oil." That is, there are people who gain from the class by listening, for whom it would currently be damaging to try to "smoke them out" and put them in the spotlight. A good teacher encourages these people to grow and step out on the limb without foisting this upon them before they are ready. Nobody's perfect at doing this. 

3a) I, personally, detest attempts in SS class to do small group discussion. I get what people are trying to do (increase individual engagement and involved the introverts and wallflowers), but I personally strongly dislike it, and many others do as well. Still, it is an attempt to branch out beyond the traditional lecture, Q&A, and sharing of thoughts by volunteer model.

3b) I'm not sure what really can be done with ineffective teachers who won't learn/change, short of release. It's hard in a volunteer church to tell or imply to someone, "Wow, you're brutal," but there is some brutal teaching. Our stake president really wants to improve teaching, and he's tapped me to be over this. I'm well aware that there is going to be less enthusiasm for teacher improvement classes, trainings, etc. than there is for broadcasts, new manual launches, etc. (cf. this coming Sunday, June 12). So, this thread is doubly interesting and relevant to me. 

4) Boy, podcasts and extra Deseret Book resources (often tied to said podcasts) seem to be all the rage! I'm not super jazzed about what I'm seeing with this, because while there can be interesting insights, these are also but the opinion of the podcaster. I sense a growing trend to outsource personal thought and insight to couples or people who are the "podcaster type" (who crave attention, accolades, and adulation), and I think people are suppressing their own views and insights in favor of people who have channels or who sell products through DB. 

5) Here are two favorite quotes for me about personal study:

"It is a paradox that men will gladly devote time every day for many years to learn a science or an art, yet they expect to win a knowledge of the gospel . . . through perfunctory glances at books or occasional listening to sermons. The gospel should be studied more intensively than any college or school subject. Those who pass opinion on the gospel without having given it intimate and careful study are not lovers of the truth, and their opinions are worthless." --- John A. Widtsoe

"No one knows anything about Christ's work simply by being born a member of the Church, and often he knows little about it after years of unmotivated exposure in meetings and classes. He must learn, and learning involves investment and effort . . . Then, as we put the gospel truth to work in daily life, we will never find it wanting." --- Marion D. Hanks

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, rongo said:

this coming Sunday, June 12).

Which manuals…if you can share?

[Bernard Gui]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If you do this, it will be a long concert of cricket music.

And who has time to craft a substantive lesson EVERY week?

SS is first and third Sundays. With conferences, fifth Sundays, and other interruptions our class often goes a month without meeting.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 hours ago, rongo said:

Some thoughts as I join this thread already well in progress:

You and I often don't see eye-to-eye. This time, I nodded along with almost every word you wrote.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Rain said:

I think a lot of smart people do read those instructions.  That doesn't mean that we can't do better.

A couple of weeks ago I found this quote and put it in our church program.  It came from a talk that Elder Maxwell gave:

There was so much good stuff there, including the part I had to take out to make it fit. You can find the talk in the book "On Becoming a Disciple Scholar" at Deseret Book. (It is part of the plus program as well) 

I did say “some,” in reference to the Instagram. It seems to me his expectations don’t match the CFM instructions. If he wants to alter the CFM instructions to match his expectations, that’s another thing. If he wants his SS teacher and classmates to match his expectations, that is another thing also.

And if lot of smart people do read those instructions and act differently, that's yet another thing.

Thank you for the link! That applies to smart (my colloquial term in this instance for the academically-inclined) people who read the instructions and act accordingly. Yes, Neal A. Maxwell’s encouragement is for disciples (that comes first) who choose to become academic scholars, which can be a form of worship for those disciples with the aptitude and interest. If an academic is encouraging others to experiment with developing an interest in academic scholarship, there are more CFM-friendly and neighborly ways of doing that than complain on Instagram. The faith-study dynamic is part and parcel of our SS lessons, but not so much the faith-academic scholarship dynamic; not supposed to be.

I give the Instagram a "C" and if pass/fail, a "fail."

[Bernard Gui]

I have taught Gospel Doctrine for almost a year now. We have to decide what the purpose of the class is and how we will approach it. The previous instructor was very knowledgeable and used more of a lecture style. My preference (and that which is directed in the manual) is very little lecture and a lot of sharing. I do my best to involve all class members, but the problem is that many people have not done the weekly study that proper use of the SS time depends upon. My class includes folks with a huge spread of gospel knowledge and experience. Asking the right questions is the ticket, but that is not easy.

Since there is far too much material to cover and minimal direction in the teacher’s manual, my preparation includes reading the assigned scriptures and both lesson manuals, contemplating what might be worthwhile to the members of the class, and then being very flexible during class time.

I also see a growing dependence on extra-curricular sources. Sister Gui and I have listened to Interpreter, Book of Mormon Central, and Smith-Bytheway podcasts among others. They have excellent knowledgeable guests, but I don’t have the time nor see the need to insert those materials into the lesson. Seems like that would be imposing my preferences on the class members. They sometimes share things they learned from other sources, but I try to limit that. I think those presentations are wonderful for personal and family enrichment, but they should not overshadow the stated purpose of Sunday School class which is to share personal insights gained by study and revelation. 

Since our motto is Teaching in the Savior’s Way, we are asked to follow this..

Quote

A gospel teacher, like the Master we serve, will concentrate entirely on those being taught,” said Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “His or her total concentration will be on the needs of the sheep —the good of the students. A gospel teacher does not focus on himself or herself. One who understands that principle will not look upon his or her calling as ‘giving or presenting a lesson,’ because that definition views teaching from the standpoint of the teacher, not the student. Focusing on the needs of the students, a gospel teacher will never obscure their view of the Master by standing in the way or by shadowing the lesson with self-promotion or self-interest.”

Perhaps those who want a deeper dive could enroll in Institute classes or do online study?

Edited June 7, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[rongo]

42 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You and I often don't see eye-to-eye. This time, I nodded along with almost every word your wrote.

Even a broken clock . . . 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Which manuals…if you can share?

Teaching in the Savior's Way is being combined with the CES manuals. They are finally letting us see how the sausage is made and letting us in on the trade secrets --- at least, that's the selling point for ElderUchtdorf's broadcast (per my SP).

Edited June 7, 2022 by rongo

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have taught Gospel Doctrine for almost a year now. We have to decide what the purpose of the class is and how we will approach it. The previous instructor was very knowledgeable and used more of a lecture style. My preference (and that which is directed in the manual) is very little lecture and a lot of sharing. I do my best to involve all class members, but the problem is that many people have not done the weekly study that proper use of the SS time depends upon. My class includes folks with a huge spread of gospel knowledge and experience. Asking the right questions is the ticket, but that is not easy.

Since there is far too much material to cover and minimal direction in the teacher’s manual, my preparation includes reading the assigned scriptures and both lesson manuals, contemplating what might be worthwhile to the members of the class, and then being very flexible during class time.

I also see a growing dependence on extra-curricular sources. Sister Gui and I have listened to Interpreter, Book of Mormon Central, and Smith-Bytheway podcasts among others. They have excellent knowledgeable guests, but I don’t have the time nor see the need to insert those materials into the lesson. Seems like that would be imposing my preferences on the class members. They sometimes share things they learned from other sources, but I try to limit that. I think those presentations are wonderful for personal and family enrichment, but they should not overshadow the stated purpose of Sunday School class which is to share personal insights gained by study and revelation. 

Since our motto is Teaching in the Savior’s Way, we are asked to follow this..

Perhaps those who want a deeper dive could enroll in Institute classes or do online study?

And perhaps those who want to take others on a deeper dive can make some friends

Regarding your class, something that worked for me is to prayerfully give someone an assignment ahead of time, and give the lectern to this individual for a few minutes. It would require them to read the scriptures, do some thinking, and draw upon personal experience and resources (sometimes academic!) to share.

Another thing that has worked over time is to wait patiently for participation, the unspoken message was that class members needed to be prepared. This drew in a few erstwhile complacent students. Similarly, just announcing a minute's pause for the class to contemplate certain questions before answering has brought in some reverence and revelatory experiences. Seems like a long silence but it pays off, especially for those who might normally be inclined to jump in and fill up a moment of silence (like they do in testimony meeting).

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, JarMan said:

I love what bible scholars have to say about the bible, too. Why don't the brethren love it, though? Why don't the lesson manuals come within a million miles of it?

I couldn't really say, but if I had to guess (and I do), I'd guess it's because there are a lot of members who aren't interested in changing the narrative they grew up with and leaders don't want people really being challenged in SS.  Especially since the teacher also has no formal training and often won't be much use to members with follow up questions.  

I think it's probably the same reason that we don't spend any time dealing with the hard subjects in SS.  You don't get much discussion about Lot's daughters getting him drunk and sleeping with him to repopulate the earth, for example.  It's a story that is often a stumbling block for people trying to connect with the OT, but rather than deal with it, the manual pretends it doesn't exist because it's a nuanced topic that will eat a lot of time while making some people feel uncomfortable.

As someone else already posted, for good and bad our SS lessons seem to be focused on the lowest common denominator--the least of us (to borrow a phrase from the word of wisdom).  I think that's partly to cut down on disagreement during the class and partly purely due to the time restraint.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I couldn't really say, but if I had to guess (and I do), I'd guess it's because there are a lot of members who aren't interested in changing the narrative they grew up with and leaders don't want people really being challenged in SS.  Especially since the teacher also has no formal training and often won't be much use to members with follow up questions.  

I think it's probably the same reason that we don't spend any time dealing with the hard subjects in SS.  You don't get much discussion about Lot's daughters getting him drunk and sleeping with him to repopulate the earth, for example.  It's a story that is often a stumbling block for people trying to connect with the OT, but rather than deal with it, the manual pretends it doesn't exist because it's a nuanced topic that will eat a lot of time while making some people feel uncomfortable.

As someone else already posted, for good and bad our SS lessons seem to be focused on the lowest common denominator--the least of us (to borrow a phrase from the word of wisdom).  I think that's partly to cut down on disagreement during the class and partly purely due to the time restraint.

I think the hard questions and advanced content are better suited to firesides and things like that, anyway. The Church block should be more lowest common denominator than advanced, in my view.

There's a happy medium, though. Come Follow Me isn't the sweet spot, either. The least of us could be pushed more. 

[Chum]

On 6/6/2022 at 12:21 PM, bsjkki said:

The discussions are dominated by the same people each Sunday and the teachers don’t seem to be able to control the flow. It is a few dominating personalities that I honestly get tired of hearing from. 

This seems to be the issue everywhere.

On 6/6/2022 at 12:21 PM, bsjkki said:

I think classes would be improved if we had a one comment only rule.

I mostly agree - and I find rules thrive when applied as lightly as is practical. In this case we could have an occasional Everyone Else Day or something to that effect.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Chum

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I couldn't really say, but if I had to guess (and I do), I'd guess it's because there are a lot of members who aren't interested in changing the narrative they grew up with and leaders don't want people really being challenged in SS.  Especially since the teacher also has no formal training and often won't be much use to members with follow up questions.  

I think it's probably the same reason that we don't spend any time dealing with the hard subjects in SS.  You don't get much discussion about Lot's daughters getting him drunk and sleeping with him to repopulate the earth, for example.  It's a story that is often a stumbling block for people trying to connect with the OT, but rather than deal with it, the manual pretends it doesn't exist because it's a nuanced topic that will eat a lot of time while making some people feel uncomfortable.

As someone else already posted, for good and bad our SS lessons seem to be focused on the lowest common denominator--the least of us (to borrow a phrase from the word of wisdom).  I think that's partly to cut down on disagreement during the class and partly purely due to the time restraint.

In my true believing days, anytime the story came up about Abraham being commanded to kill his son, I was super disappointed in that God. Glad that I don't believe half or more of what the Bible says about God commanding such things.

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In my true believing days, anytime the story came up about Abraham being commanded to kill his son, I was super disappointed in that God. Glad that I don't believe half or more of what the Bible says about God commanding such things.

Could you believe in a God who offers his only begotten Son?

Edited June 7, 2022 by Bernard Gui