Ben Spackman’s thoughts on Sunday School

[rongo]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/event/teaching-in-the-saviors-way-churchwide-broadcast

It sounds like this one on Sunday will be pretty standard fare. 

In RSVPing for the zoom meeting with the general SS presidency, I was sent an agenda. It sounds like there is going to be even more of a focus on "home centered" than there is now. 

---

The Sunday School

               Focus - Home Centered Church Supported Gospel Learning

Church Supported Gospel Learning

               As a teacher or leader, what can you do differently to help class members improve in their home-centered Gospel learning?

“The Role of a Teacher”

Teaching in the Savior’s Way (read this as a Presidency)

                                             Love those you teach

                                             Teach by the Spirit

                                             Teach the Doctrine

                                             Invite Diligent Learning

               Teacher Council Meetings

Stake Sunday School Responsibilities

               Church Handbook

                              Stake SS Presidency Responsibilities – Section 6.7.1 and 6.7.1.4

                              Sunday School – Chapter 13

                              Teaching – Chapter 17

                              Teacher Council Meetings – Section 17.4

                              Annual Stake Leadership training meeting – Section 29.3.4

Stake Sunday School Presidencies should visit wards regularly to:

Thank the Teachers and Ward Sunday School Presidencies for their

               remarkable service

                              Attend Classes

                              Attend Teacher Council Meetings

                              Train ward SS presidencies

 

[rongo]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You need to read "Motel of the Mysteries." A motel from the 1980s is discovered by archaeologists in the year 4000. They excavate it like King Tut's tomb (if you know the story of that excavation, you'll notice the similarities). I was able to find a truncated version that's mainly the pictures here: https://www.plainlocal.org/userfiles/352/Classes/32796/Motel of the Mystery PDF Version.pdf

Thanks for that! I also think about the short story "By the Waters of Babylon" (where a brave mystic defies his culture and visits the abode of the gods --- which is revealed to be an ancient New York City, along with the Great God ASHING [the W and the ton had fallen away from Washington). 

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I thought of that. The sedimentation would take quite some time, wouldn't it?  

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Steve Thompson said:

For those interested in Ben Spackman's take on the issue of genocide in Joshua see: https://benspackman.com/2022/06/gospel-doctrine-lesson-18-joshua/#more-430.  Essentially Spackman argues that the genocide never happened.  Of course, that requires seeing parts of the books of Exodus and Joshua as non-historical.

I think when you start pulling on the thread, it becomes most of the books as non-historical --- not parts of them. 

If there was an invasion of Canaan by Israelite tribes, then there certainly would have been war atrocities (which are always called genocide in our day). When you hold their feet to the fire, most LDS higher critics acknowledge that they don't believe there ever were tribes of Israel --- that they are cultural mythical heroes that people already in Canaan later came to identify their descent and attachment to. But that isn't the end of the thread --- continued pulling unravels almost everything. It leads to the same place as the "the Book of Mormon can still be inspiring if the people, places, and events never existed/happened." Many people have long since made that peace with the Bible, in order to accommodate the opinions of the higher critics.  

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

It's a good idea.  I'm just not sure if I would be the right one to do that. I had a good talk with my husband about it and he wasn't sure I should do it either.  I go back and forth on it because I do think it is important to be able to talk about these kind of things.  I'm just not sure I can do it without anger if people try to convince me that God really wanted these people to die.

I'm sure you'll hit it out of the park! Welcome to Gospel Doctrine. It's "rough and tumble, wild and wooly" (skip to 1:43 for that reference, but the whole thing is fun. I think this was edited from some sort of Scientology video?). 

 

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Prophecy can certainly appear to be anachronistic when comparing earlier forms of scriptural expression (e.g. the serpent in Genesis) with more recent expressions and their translations (Satan, Lucifer, devil later in the OT).

That's convenient.

[SteelMagnoliainTexas]

Some of this is really long winded.  I find in general at Sunday schools everywhere they have general topics like how to become better at resisting when everyone else would be at the bar from work etc...how not to get "lol st in the crowd" wheneveryone else is breaking Gods laws.  

Ok what are the real issues.  If we're "latter day saints" then what are sapposed to be feeding our souls?  Or listening to?  For so long in churches and synagogues they avoid the subject of the last days and even say it's not important.

[mfbukowski]

On 6/7/2022 at 10:24 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

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.  

Just know that Ben's stuff is wonderful but not really designed for any real Sunday School lesson I have ever been in, in California.

 

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

Forgive me if I'm missing the obvious, but are no longer a believer, @JarMan?

I don't want to violate board rules, but because it's so relevant to the thread I'll share some personal information. I'm a 48 year old lifelong member. I've always had doubts and things because I'm kind of a science-y guy. But part of the fun has always been to combine my understanding of science with my understanding of the gospel to come up with a worldview that made sense to me. I've been a part of this board for a long time and I fondly recall past years when this board was mostly about apologetics instead of discussing rainbows every other thread. (But I digress. . .) I came here for years to be enlightened by those who understood the scriptures and church history much better than me and could help me understand how to continue to piece together seemingly incongruent parts. I did a ton of apologetic-type reading and research and over time became comfortable with a lot of the answers. There were things I still had to "put on the shelf" but I was okay with doing that because, after all, won't we have an eternity to sort everything out? I served in many callings over the years--and here comes the part that's relevant to this thread--for the first time I was called as Gospel Doctrine teacher. I started part way through a NT year and I resolved I was not going to teach the same class I had been a student in my whole life. From primary to seminary to BYU to Sunday School it had always been the same boring, sanitized, mindless, rote, flavorless gruel. It was gonna be different this time. I threw myself into this calling in a way I never had before with any other calling. I wanted to know the history so I started seriously researching the history. I wanted to understand the words that were always so familiar but just not quite understandable. So I started studying modern translations and reading commentary from a wide range of sources and found out to my delight that there was much more to these stories than I had imagined. I worked a lot of this extracurricular material into my lessons. People seemed to enjoy my classes and I got a lot of pleasure out of people telling me how much they had learned or had their interest held. A few times I was worried I had colored too far outside the lines but my bishops were always very complimentary about my classes and never offered a word of criticism or correction. One bishop acknowledged I was taking a different approach, but just smiled and told me my testimony shined through it all and to keep doing what I was doing.

I went through the church history year and hit all the hard issues using the church essays as the excuse to "go there." Often I would start the lesson with a perceived problem and we would work through the class so that by the end we had a solution. This was my way of working in all of the apologetic stuff I had learned over the years and felt very solid about. We spent an entire lesson on the MMM, discussed the First Vision Accounts openly and frankly, talked about race and the priesthood, and so on. I exposed every problem I knew about and had time to address and provided a faithful answer to the problem as best I could. I think I got people's attention, made them uncomfortable a little bit, and opened their eyes some and yet my instructions from my leaders were to keep on.

The Book of Mormon year was wonderful. I love the Book of Mormon. I truly believe (present tense) that it's the greatest work of literature ever produced. I was spending upwards of 20 hours each week preparing for my lessons and just enjoying the process of studying it with a purpose. I asked hard questions. Mostly these were about why the theology in the Book of Mormon is different from other standard works. I spent a lot of time on the faith/works paradigm in the Book of Mormon and identified teachings from other church leaders that seemed contradictory. We talked about of lot of important LDS theology that's absent from the Book of Mormon.

When we got to the OT year I threw myself in with even more vigor knowing this was my weakest area, but also knowing that understanding the OT would help me understand the Book of Mormon better. I didn't know this strategy would contribute (among other things) to a complete loss of my testimony. I studied the OT using both secular sources and faithful sources from other religious traditions and for the first time the OT began to make sense to me. I was finally getting a version of the stories and scriptures that didn't dance around the hard parts or distort the obvious meaning of what I was reading. OT people were typical ancient people who did typically atrocious ancient things, all the while thinking they were satisfying their pagan, blood-thirsty gods. But through it all--all the war, famine, destruction, captivity, and barbaric rituals--some of the people were able to develop an ethical code based around some core principles that resonate with us still today. This makes sense to me from a historical perspective because this is what was happening in other ancient societies around the world. The (partially) contemporary Greeks are a perfect example. I finally understood why the OT was so brutal. It's for the same reason Homer is so violent. It's because ancient people actually were very cruel and barbaric and both the OT and Homer are actually ancient texts. (Moderns may be just as brutal, in my opinion, but they're brutal in distinctly modern ways.)

The problem with all this is that Lehi and his family came out of this very same ancient culture, yet act surprisingly modern. Or rather, they act the way moderns are supposed to be. The Nephites don't take slaves from their defeated enemies. They show restraint against their enemies in warfare. They fight defensive wars only. They don't kill or conquer territory for their God. They don't perform wholesale butchery of defenseless people. These are the opposite of the ideals of ancient people.

Warfare and such is just one layer, of course. You also have to consider that the doctrine emanating from the Lehites is distinctly modern, or at the very least, not pre-exilic. There are dozens or hundreds of other anachronisms that others have pointed out. I held for years to ideas of expansionism or "creative interpretation" put forth by others to explain the anachronisms. But when I finally stepped back and looked at my world view that was supposed to accommodate both faith and reason, I realized it was a mess beyond repair. I had put so many things on the shelf there was literally nothing left but what was on the shelf. The most obvious answer here, applying Occam's (overused, but in this case, appropriate) Razor, was that I had built a castle of sand. And now, strangely, I have peace. The gospel never brought me that.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I don't want to violate board rules, but because it's so relevant to the thread I'll share some personal information.

Thanks for that! That certainly helps to see where you're coming from better. 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

That's convenient.

Convenient, and I think it’s realistic also (simplest explanation and so forth).

We have various OT texts written by different people / groups (Genesis 6^th-5^th centuries BC; Isaiah earlier), and likely derived from “temple drama” or “myth” depending on your attitude. These cannot be expected to capture the language and concepts held by the respective “authors” of the OT and other ancient people and groups, who developed their own texts as time went on (for example, Nephi’s inclusion of his revelation of "plain and precious things" in connection with the term/concept "devil", on which you are focusing, and Moroni’s abridgement of 1,000 years of religious records from the perspective of 350+ years of Nephite adoption of the Risen Christ’s teachings).

Now, the scriptures of the Restoration can be ignored in the interest of focusing on certain narrow aspects of scholarship, but we do not do that in Sunday School. And drawing broad conclusions from narrow aspects of scholarship is not scholarly, especially in matters of faith since religious belief involves additional mental states and processes than those used in disciplined academic scholarship.

[Teancum]

On 6/5/2022 at 8:32 PM, Navidad said:

When I pastored I preached verse by verse through biblical passages. Every week . . . every Sunday. If I were to preach through the book of Judges, I would schedule it for a year at least of teaching every Sunday morning for an hour. I am not a member, but I attend Sunday School every Sunday. I find it incredibly devotional and light weight.

Most LDS Sunday schools are like watching paint dry.  Even more so if you have been sitting through them for a lot of years.

[mfbukowski]

On 6/5/2022 at 5:32 PM, Navidad said:

When I pastored I preached verse by verse through biblical passages. Every week . . . every Sunday. If I were to preach through the book of Judges, I would schedule it for a year at least of teaching every Sunday morning for an hour. I am not a member, but I attend Sunday School every Sunday. I find it incredibly devotional and light weight.

Why then do you attend?

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Most LDS Sunday schools are like watching paint dry.  Even more so if you have been sitting through them for a lot of years.

That's why we attend, to help the teachers. They are not paid to prepare complex lessons as in other "denominations".

In our classes we have discussions involving all, not boring monologues from some wanna be professor

 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That's why we attend, to help the teachers. They are not paid to prepare complex lessons as in other "denominations".

In our classes we have discussions involving all, not boring monologues from some wanna be professor

 

In my experience even the discussions are fairly banal. And the material the teacher has to work off is awful.  The church has really worked hard in dumbing things down.  Correlation at its best.

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

In my experience even the discussions are fairly banal. And the material the teacher has to work off is awful.  The church has really worked hard in dumbing things down.  Correlation at its best.

🙂

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

In my experience even the discussions are fairly banal. And the material the teacher has to work off is awful.  The church has really worked hard in dumbing things down.  Correlation at its best.

It's too bad really - a large percentage of membership don't know very much about the gospel.
It makes critics and anti's jobs much easier - all they have to do is provide some "shocking" piece of gospel information and peoples testimonies are hurt.

If we taught the gospel and Church history to our membership more thoroughly perhaps we'd have a few less broken shelves when all of a sudden someone mentions the priesthood ban, adam-god, polygamy, blood atonement, or other issues.
And perhaps we'd have fewer people being led astray on issues of priesthood, tithing, SSM, prophetic infallibility, and other doctrinal questions.

Members posting on this board are sadly not the norm when it comes to understanding and studying the gospel.

Edited June 9, 2022 by JLHPROF

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

In my experience even the discussions are fairly banal. And the material the teacher has to work off is awful.  The church has really worked hard in dumbing things down.  Correlation at its best.

Religion is not science nor is it scientific alleged "factual religious history" (a myth as imagined as religious parables, but without their ability to teach).

Dumbing down?

Not enough!!!

We still cannot understand that all could be fairy tales or observations but it doesn't matter.

We should be discussing the significance of the lessons of the stories, not documentation or linguistics, and applying the lessons to our lives.

If we cannot do so ourselves then "dumbed down" Sunday school is the answer, so some who get it can enlighten those who can't.

The lessons are not important

The MEANINGS of the stories and how they can improve our lives, are everything!

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It makes critics and anti's jobs much easier - all they have to do is provide some "shocking" piece of gospel information and peoples testimonies are hurt.

Only so long as people see only alleged "facts" instead of the SIGNIFICANCE of the story.

What can we learn from polygamy?

That is has only worked occasionally in history in the West!  How may, who did what to whom, the reports etc.?

Doesn't matter!

It worked for some who did it right and followed the rules.

Next.

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

It's too bad really - a large percentage of membership don't know very much about the gospel.
It makes critics and anti's jobs much easier - all they have to do is provide some "shocking" piece of gospel information and peoples testimonies are hurt.

If we taught the gospel and Church history to our membership more thoroughly perhaps we'd have a few less broken shelves when all of a sudden someone mentions the priesthood ban, adam-god, polygamy, blood atonement, or other issues.
And perhaps we'd have fewer people being led astray on issues of priesthood, tithing, SSM, prophetic infallibility, and other doctrinal questions.

Members posting on this board are sadly not the norm when it comes to understanding and studying the gospel.

Ever wonder why? If it's true, all of it, shouldn't the church be themselves and not worry about being upfront and honest from the beginning? Not just when the truth is spelled out all over the internet? It tells me some leaders weren't too sure themselves.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Ever wonder why? If it's true, all of it, shouldn't the church be themselves and not worry about being upfront and honest from the beginning? Not just when the truth is spelled out all over the internet? It tells me some leaders weren't too sure themselves.

That tells you that some leaders don't know if the truth claims of the church are true?

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Ever wonder why? If it's true, all of it, shouldn't the church be themselves and not worry about being upfront and honest from the beginning? Not just when the truth is spelled out all over the internet? It tells me some leaders weren't too sure themselves.

No, I consider this your basic helicopter parenting.
Church leaders were overprotective parents.  Don't want us exposed to things we couldn't handle.  And for decades they had that luxury.
Then the internet came along.

I don't blame them for wanting to protect us.  Because it mostly worked for decades.
If they made any mistake it's been being slow to change.

[Tacenda]

Just now, bluebell said:

That tells you that some leaders don't know if the truth claims of the church are true?

If they are worried of information getting out, yes.

[bsjkki]

After teaching RS, I came to the conclusion it was meant to be a gospel living support group. I think that is its purpose. I think Come Follow Me has shifted Sunday School to that same arena. And, like some seem to feel, it's okay if that is what it is. Two hour church has greatly diminished instruction time some because there really is only time for a very surface level scripture instruction. But, for many personal reasons, I find the format very unfulfilling. So, the solution for me is to sit and read my scriptures and 'tune out.'  For those with great discussion and awesome teachers, you are truly the lucky ones. I wouldn't even say my teachers are bad. I would prefer they talk and we have less discussion. This all just my opinion based on my experience and as we are all well aware, everyone experiences different things and have different experiences with gospel topics. I do miss gospel principles. I really liked that class and I liked teaching that class. It was generally very small. I like smaller classes. 

[bsjkki]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

If they are worried of information getting out, yes.

The only thing that truly converts are spiritual experiences and once those experiences happen, all this stuff is just stuff. But, people can come to think their spiritual experiences were never real. Some, have never had them at all. So, it's all very complicated. But, I don't think it is the role of Sunday church to provide 'expose's' on church history or controversial topics. It is to build faith. I enjoyed the new gospel topics essays. For others, they destroyed their faith. When in a faith crisis, it seams we don't provide a place to ask hard questions. I'm not sure how to fix that. I came here. I read the controversies and stayed. I sometimes wish there was a place to discuss harder questions in person but how would we do that? 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

It's too bad really - a large percentage of membership don't know very much about the gospel.
It makes critics and anti's jobs much easier - all they have to do is provide some "shocking" piece of gospel information and peoples testimonies are hurt.

If we taught the gospel and Church history to our membership more thoroughly perhaps we'd have a few less broken shelves when all of a sudden someone mentions the priesthood ban, adam-god, polygamy, blood atonement, or other issues.
And perhaps we'd have fewer people being led astray on issues of priesthood, tithing, SSM, prophetic infallibility, and other doctrinal questions.

Members posting on this board are sadly not the norm when it comes to understanding and studying the gospel.

My observation is that understanding and studying the gospel is connected more with the baptism of fire and the gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost than it is with well-correlated instruction and lesson manuals (not that there's anything wrong with that). That spiritual power is what absorbs the “shocks” (one role of the “Comforter”, an very apt title in this case) about the covenants we make, the history we learn, and the policies that are in place. I left out doctrine because that “distills” upon us in a non-shocking way.

The protection we seek (and seek for others), and I believe the leaders have said this all along, begins with faith (which leads to repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost and all its applications, and enduring in its applications). This protection could have worked with the advent of the internet just as with the advent of cosmetic surgery decades before and Amway years before that.