mfbukowski Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 18 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. Well that's a good attitude imo. But remember it was a TEST. We all have them, sometimes as hard as Abraham's. What the real story is, is to trust God even in times of severe trials. He's there for us. 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 3 hours ago, CV75 said: 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). Yes, those are proven techniques. I use them, too. Thanks.
Bernard Gui Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 (edited) 11 hours ago, JarMan said: 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? There are lots of views and ideas out there. Some of them might be revelatory. Here’s a reference to Satan from Old Testament times. “29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.” Edited June 7, 2022 by Bernard Gui
Saint Bonaventure Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 I'll share one of those glimpses into the differences between LDS and Catholics.... I don't know of a parish that would get away with having an adult Sunday School/Bible Study that would resemble what Ben Spackman, and some others, are describing. Teaching a Catholic Bible Study for adults is usually done by someone who is pretty darn serious about the Bible, dogma, doctrine, Church history, mysticism, etc. This person is a catechist, and while maybe not a theologian, often has an advanced degree, and definitely needs the approval of the priest. In addition to official reasons, there are also cultural reasons for this. Because Catholics fast for at least an hour before Mass (and some for much longer), and young people will have classes after Mass, coffee, donuts, and socializing are offered. Diabetics, old folks, and those who are just hungry meet their social and gustatory needs with the coffee and donuts. Some folks just leave, but if they have children taking classes, then their options are largely socializing/coffee/donuts or a Bible Study that is so good that it is really worth people's time. Bible Studies I've been in have men and women who are pretty serious about learning. There are the church ladies who go to daily Mass, the guy who is flirting with Eastern Orthodoxy and who has a book about the filioque in his satchel, the trads who will inevitably reference Vatican II, the libs who are in the Communion line but not the Confession line....you get the idea. 2
CV75 Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 11 hours ago, JarMan said: 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? Job 2:1-4, 6-7 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/job/2.1,2,3,4,6,7?lang=eng&clang=eng#p1,2,3,4,6,7 1 Again there was a day when the asons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and bSatan came also among them to present himself before the Lord. Job 1:6-9, 12 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/job/1.6,7,8,9,12?lang=eng&clang=eng#p6,7,8,9,12 6 ¶ Now there was a day when the asons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and bSatan came also among them. Zechariah 3:1-2 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/zech/3.1,2?lang=eng&clang=eng#p1,2 1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the aangel of the Lord, and bSatan standing at his right hand to cresist him. 1 Chronicles 21:1 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/1-chr/21.1?lang=eng&clang=eng#p1 1 And aSatan stood up against Israel, and bprovoked David to number Israel. Psalm 109:6 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/ps/109.6?lang=eng&clang=eng#p6 6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let aSatan stand at his right hand. 1
JarMan Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: There are lots of views and ideas out there. Some of them might be revelatory. Here’s a reference to Satan from Old Testament times. “29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.”
JarMan Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 Nice try. We know this isn’t from OT times precisely because it describes a Christian Satan.
JarMan Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 13 minutes ago, CV75 said: Job 2:1-4, 6-7 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/job/2.1,2,3,4,6,7?lang=eng&clang=eng#p1,2,3,4,6,7 1 Again there was a day when the asons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and bSatan came also among them to present himself before the Lord. Job 1:6-9, 12 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/job/1.6,7,8,9,12?lang=eng&clang=eng#p6,7,8,9,12 6 ¶ Now there was a day when the asons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and bSatan came also among them. Zechariah 3:1-2 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/zech/3.1,2?lang=eng&clang=eng#p1,2 1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the aangel of the Lord, and bSatan standing at his right hand to cresist him. 1 Chronicles 21:1 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/1-chr/21.1?lang=eng&clang=eng#p1 1 And aSatan stood up against Israel, and bprovoked David to number Israel. Psalm 109:6 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/ps/109.6?lang=eng&clang=eng#p6 6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let aSatan stand at his right hand. You should do your research on these verses before you throw them out as indicating a Christian version of Satan.
MrShorty Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 I can't really speak for Ben, but one of his frequent complaints about our official curriculum is often around questions of genre. Considering the timing of this complaint (while we are right in the middle of studying the "conquest narrative" parts of the OT), I wonder if Ben's main concern is that our CFM curricula never talks about what "conquest narrative" means or how that particular genre is not known for being historically accurate. As Ben often says, our default assumption as LDS is to assume that scripture is "documentary history", and I think you can see this assumption at play in our CFM curriculum for these chapters. How much does it take to add to our curriculum that some people don't believe God ever commanded genocide or that the Israelites actually carried out genocide, but that the genocide in these parts of the OT was a literary device added by the author(s) to demonstrate the superiority of the Israelite God over their neighbors' gods? 3
Popular Post Duncan Posted June 7, 2022 Popular Post Posted June 7, 2022 One thing I wish they would bring back or people locally would lead out on is bringing back Gospel Principles class. As it is now you have people who don't know anything about LDS temples and in the same class you have temple presidency members and people who have been going for 50 years and have a lot of knowledge about the subject-which is good but it could also lead to disconnection, people talking about stuff others don't know anything about and are shy to ask about 5
Bernard Gui Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 (edited) 50 minutes ago, JarMan said: Nice try. We know this isn’t from OT times precisely because it describes a Christian Satan. We know that. Right. While I appreciate the human efforts of the folks who write books thousands of years after the fact, I trust the words of the One who knows Satan intimately (kind of like a brother?) and is far more qualified to speak about him, and those to whom re reveals such knowledge. After all, it is called The Restoration. Edited June 7, 2022 by Bernard Gui
CV75 Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 43 minutes ago, JarMan said: You should do your research on these verses before you throw them out as indicating a Christian version of Satan. Of course I did my research. Whether the reader interprets any particular version or understanding (of any faith tradition), the role/title/term is clearly in both the OT and the Torah. 1
smac97 Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 On 6/5/2022 at 2:04 PM, bluebell said: We did learn some stuff about Judges in our sunday school class, and I was grateful for that. I hear what Spackman is saying though. It's very easy for Sunday school to become "personal experiences" time. Which I usually enjoy a lot in theory but when it's the same person--with kind of odd ideas--that's always talking, it can get old. Also, as a church, we are very good at what Nephi calls "likening the scriptures unto ourselves", and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. In fact, I think it can be very helpful and useful. But it can also be overdone. The scriptures also exist apart from ourselves, and they have their own context that has nothing to do with our cultures and personal agendas. I think we've fallen in to the habit of only likening the scriptures to ourselves and mostly fail miserably at actually studying the books of scriptures on their own merits. We don't have let the scriptures speak for themselves because we are so busy getting them to speak for us. But I think both kinds of study are important. I think the Latter-day Saints are not fully accustomed to scripture study being, shall we say, "uncomfortable." Part of this arises from the distinction between exegesis and eisegesis. "Exegesis," defined as "an explanation or critical interpretation of a text," contemplates careful or analytical ("critical") evaluation of scripture. Conversely, "eisegesis," defined as "the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas," is . . . well, that. The individual "reads into the text what the interpreter {the individual} wishes to find or thinks he finds there," and "expresses the reader's own subjective ideas, not the meaning which is in the text." I can't help but wonder if Latter-day Saints - virtually all of whom have no formal theological training (both a blessing and a disadvantage, that) - end up looking at scriptures like 1 Nephi 19:23 ("for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning") as being license to rely more on eisegesis and less on exegesis. This is not to say that the latter is exclusively preferable to the former. See, e.g., here: Quote "And their speech shall whisper out of the dust" (2 Nephi 26:16). There are two ways of looking at the scriptural phrase "familiar spirit," according to Paul Y. Hoskisson, director of the Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Research and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). Hoskisson wrote about two ways of approaching any text: "Exegesis" and "eisegesis." Exegesis is reading out of the text. The goal is to find the meaning of the text, which leads to a greater understanding of what the author is trying to teach. Eisegesis is reading into the text. It is bringing a pre-existing understanding into what is in the text to enrich the application of the author's words. "Anyone who reads the scriptures will at times engage in both exegesis and eisegesis, whether knowingly or unwittingly," Hoskisson wrote. "Therefore, the more conscientiously and consciously we engage in rigorous and careful exegesis and eisegesis, the better the chance that our reading of the scriptures will truly enlighten the mind and provide substance for the soul." Hoskisson used the related passages of scripture in 2 Nephi 26:16 and Isaiah 29:4 to show how this works in application. Those scriptures speak of a familiar spirit. The Book of Mormon version is illustrative: "For those who shall be destroyed shall speak unto them out of the ground, and their speech shall be low out of the dust, and their voice shall be as one that hath a familiar spirit; for the Lord God will give unto him power, that he may whisper concerning them, even as it were out of the ground; and their speech shall whisper out of the dust" (2 Nephi 26:16 emphasis added). Eisegesis approach: The word "familiar" has several meanings in English, according to Hoskisson. The most common meaning is "to be acquainted with." Hoskisson showed how applying this understanding of the word affects how the scripture is interpreted. "It is certainly true that the Book of Mormon will have a spirit about it that will be familiar to those who know the Bible; they will recognize the same spirit in both books," he wrote. Exegesis approach: The word "familiar" has another, less known definition in English that is connected to communication with spirits. Hoskisson looked at the Isaiah version at the Hebrew that was translated as "familiar spirit." The original Hebrew word was "ob." "This Hebrew word denotes, approximately, 'the spirit of a deceased person.' " "God's Word" translation, for example, rendered the phrase as "your voice will come out of the ground like that of a ghost." Hoskisson wrote that calling upon "familiar spirits" is condemned in the scriptures — and was usually done by a medium in a seance (see 1 Samuel 28). But he wrote that familiar spirits, or in other words, the spirits of those who have died, are not always evil. "Therefore, when the Bible says in Isaiah 29:4 that the inhabitants of Jerusalem who will be destroyed will speak 'out of the ground … as one that hath a familiar spirit,' the meaning is that destroyed Judah will speak from the dead," Hoskisson wrote. How will they speak? Through an unauthorized, and condemned, medium? No. According to Hoskisson, they speak through their records. "This has nothing to do with necromancy and divination, but everything to do with the dead speaking to the living through the records the dead leave behind," he wrote. The Book of Mormon paraphrasing of Isaiah is even clearer on this. "They also shall speak 'out of the ground … as one that hath a familiar spirit; for the Lord God will give unto him (Joseph Smith) power, that he (the translator of the Nephite records) may whisper concerning (the destroyed Nephites), even as it were out of the ground' where they are buried, and where the plates had been buried" (compare 2 Nephi 26:16). So which way of interpreting the scriptures is correct? Hoskisson wrote it is a choice. The reader can read eisegetically and see "a spirit which seems familiar" or exegetically and see "a message from those who have passed on before us." "Both ways," Hoskisson wrote, "… are correct and legitimate methods that can lead to enlightenment and understanding." Thanks, -Smac 4
bluebell Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 4 hours ago, rongo said: 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 2) Not speaking for anyone else, but I don't want to replace it with "the opinions and views of various scholars" (though if the words and opinions of lay people are at all useful than the words and opinions of believing bible scholars are at least equally so, if not more on some occasions). I would love to include the context of the books and the culture of the time, including what the actual author was trying to accomplish rather than only discussing what we want to accomplish with the verses in our culture today. I also would love to be learning more of the original hebrew and other languages, because that can make a huge difference in understanding what the verses actually mean. For example, learning that in Moses' time, serious covenants with someone in power usually included a physical aspect to them, changed the way that I see what we do in the temple in positive ways. They didn't just covenant with words but with their whole bodies. Learning that was incredibly helpful to me, not just in understanding the law of moses much better but also in understanding my own covenants in new ways. 3a) I am with you all the way on this one. I detest breaking out into small groups. It's just horrible and it feels like a way for the teacher to fill time most of the time while having to prepare less. 3b) our ward is still doing Teaching in the Savior's way once a quarter and I think those classes really do help and they are well attended when they have them. Especially just the repeated emphasis not lecturing but having discussions seems to help eventually hammer it in that the teacher shouldn't be doing most of the talking. But yes, if a teacher refuses to change then releasing them is often the only option. 4) You're poisoning the well a bit there by suggesting that all podcasters only podcast because they crave "attention, accolades, and adulation." That's probably true of some but I don't get that sense from the few that I've watched on occasion. Though I have run across a couple that are almost exclusively the podcasters personal opinions or interpretations of things, and I try to steer clear of those for the reasons that you've described. I would consider podcasts that feature people such as Spackman (who are only on because of their relevant education and knowledge from years in the field) to be a different group than the one's where sister Johnson or brother Garfield feel comfortable waxing authoritatively in front of a microphone because they read Hugh Nibley a few times, took an institute class in the 90s, or served on a High Council once. 3
bluebell Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think the Latter-day Saints are not fully accustomed to scripture study being, shall we say, "uncomfortable." Part of this arises from the distinction between exegesis and eisegesis. "Exegesis," defined as "an explanation or critical interpretation of a text," contemplates careful or analytical ("critical") evaluation of scripture. Conversely, "eisegesis," defined as "the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas," is . . . well, that. The individual "reads into the text what the interpreter {the individual} wishes to find or thinks he finds there," and "expresses the reader's own subjective ideas, not the meaning which is in the text." I can't help but wonder if Latter-day Saints - virtually all of whom have no formal theological training (both a blessing and a disadvantage, that) - end up looking at scriptures like 1 Nephi 19:23 ("for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning") as being license to rely more on eisegesis and less on exegesis. This is not to say that the latter is exclusively preferable to the former. See, e.g., here: Thanks, -Smac I would guess that the bold is probably right. It's what we've been taught to do in church settings from primary onward and I think we do it so much that often we don't even recognize that there is a way to study the scriptures and not do it. 2
bluebell Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 2 hours 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. Gaining more knowledge on the culture of the day, and also understanding some of what the author of it was likely trying to do, coupled with combing the story with some of the verses in the Pearl of Great Price, has changed my understanding of this story. It was never a problem story for me, especially with the understanding that Isaac was almost certainly a grown man and complicit in the act, but it means more to me know than it did before. 1
bluebell Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 2 hours ago, rongo said: 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. I think that's true for some hard things. But not all. There are some hard questions that I think we very much need to tackle in SS. Things like "did God actually command His people to kill women and children and what do we do with these kinds of narratives in our scriptures". 3
Tacenda Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 1 minute ago, bluebell said: I think that's true for some hard things. But not all. There are some hard questions that I think we very much need to tackle in SS. Things like "did God actually command His people to kill women and children and what do we do with these kinds of narratives in our scriptures". Thank heavens in the articles of faith it says we believe in the bible as far as it is translated correctly, definitely a saving grace to me.
Popular Post ksfisher Posted June 7, 2022 Popular Post Posted June 7, 2022 1 hour ago, Duncan said: One thing I wish they would bring back or people locally would lead out on is bringing back Gospel Principles class. As it is now you have people who don't know anything about LDS temples and in the same class you have temple presidency members and people who have been going for 50 years and have a lot of knowledge about the subject-which is good but it could also lead to disconnection, people talking about stuff others don't know anything about and are shy to ask about In my ward we have a new and returning member class. Same curriculum, but it gives the teacher and students opportunities to explain things at a more basic level and ask questions that may not be asked in the larger group. 5
bluebell Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 3 minutes ago, ksfisher said: In my ward we have a new and returning member class. Same curriculum, but it gives the teacher and students opportunities to explain things at a more basic level and ask questions that may not be asked in the larger group. That sounds like a great idea.
bluebell Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 9 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Thank heavens in the articles of faith it says we believe in the bible as far as it is translated correctly, definitely a saving grace to me. Yes! And a better understanding of the OT makes it much easier, in my opinion, to understand when 'as far as it is translated correctly' applies and why. Throwing out everything that we struggle with or don't agree with or that makes us uncomfortable is not a great way to read the OT, but it's what a lot of us do with these hard sections because we don't know what else to do with them.
Popular Post smac97 Posted June 7, 2022 Popular Post Posted June 7, 2022 On 6/5/2022 at 2:24 PM, filovirus said: I taught the Gospel Doctrine lesson today at church. I spent the first 20 minutes talking about the background of the Book of Judges before we got into any type of discussion. But..we were just asked to cover 21 chapters in 50 minutes of lesson time. Members really should be studying at home if they want an in depth commentary that covers more than the surface. There are about 1,184 pages in the KJK Old Testament used by the Church. A typical Latter-day Saint will have maybe 46 or so Sunday lessons during the course of a year. That works out to about or about 26 pages of text per lesson. You are spot-on about personal, at-home study. I think its lack is often a material contributor to a loss of faith. I have lost count of how many "Why I Left" narratives I have encountered that include significant elements of "I didn't know anything about X" / "I was stunned when I found about about Y," "The Church never taught me about Z" sorts of pointed criticisms and complaints. I think in many such statements there exists a tacit expectation of the Church to systematically educate the members of the Church about every point of doctrine, every historical figure / event / development, every controversy, and so on. This is an unworkable expectation, one that sets the individual up for virtually guaranteed failure (the fault for which often ends up being allocated to the Church). Conversely, consistent personal study goes a very long way in strengthening faith, enhancing understanding, improving desires and goals, addressing concerns, and so on. Thanks, -Smac 7
JarMan Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 2 hours ago, CV75 said: Of course I did my research. Whether the reader interprets any particular version or understanding (of any faith tradition), the role/title/term is clearly in both the OT and the Torah. No. The devil of the BofM is clearly not in the OT.
Rain Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, MrShorty said: I can't really speak for Ben, but one of his frequent complaints about our official curriculum is often around questions of genre. Considering the timing of this complaint (while we are right in the middle of studying the "conquest narrative" parts of the OT), I wonder if Ben's main concern is that our CFM curricula never talks about what "conquest narrative" means or how that particular genre is not known for being historically accurate. As Ben often says, our default assumption as LDS is to assume that scripture is "documentary history", and I think you can see this assumption at play in our CFM curriculum for these chapters. How much does it take to add to our curriculum that some people don't believe God ever commanded genocide or that the Israelites actually carried out genocide, but that the genocide in these parts of the OT was a literary device added by the author(s) to demonstrate the superiority of the Israelite God over their neighbors' gods? THIS is the biggest problem I have with the lesson I am first supposed to teach. I am struggling so much with that genocide idea right now. I recognize that I have very strong feelings on it because of my work with refugees. The church always says that we should pray about things and it took everything I had to go to Heavenly Father who I know loves me deeply and all his children if he really commanded that because it feels so blasphemous to ask. So I finally had to say "You said we should ask if we lack wisdom. It feels so wrong to be asking you this, but I lack wisdom." But how Come Follow Me words it just makes me angry. That if only we had enough faith we would believe there are reasons God commanded this. Says nothing about being translated correctly or that this is bravado language or whatever. And yes, that anger is something I am trying to get past so I can listen to the Spirit better. Edited June 8, 2022 by Rain 4
JarMan Posted June 7, 2022 Posted June 7, 2022 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: We know that. Right. While I appreciate the human efforts of the folks who write books thousands of years after the fact, I trust the words of the One who knows Satan intimately (kind of like a brother?) and is far more qualified to speak about him, and those to whom re reveals such knowledge. After all, it is called The Restoration. Oh, please excuse me. I didn’t realize I was sitting in F&T Meeting.
Recommended Posts