A few months ago, Elder M. Russell Ballard announced an “inspired and timely” initiative replacing Scripture Mastery in seminary. The new program, Doctrinal Mastery,[1] teaches students “how to apply the doctrine of Christ and gospel principles to the questions and challenges they hear and see every day among their peers and on social media.” With this program, leaders have issued guidelines to help students handle difficult questions about the church, either their own or others.
Origins of Doctrinal Mastery
In a panel discussion at last week’s Seminary and Institute Annual Training Broadcast, Elder Kim B. Clark explained that Doctrinal Mastery was the brainchild of Brother Chad H. Webb, Administrator of Seminaries & Institutes of Religion:
About a year ago I was asked to take a look at how we might help the rising generation better deal with questions that they have about doctrine, about Church history, about their lives and what’s happening in the world around them… Brother Webb and I spent some time together talking through those issues. One day he came into my office, and he said, “I have an idea.” We sat down around the table and he began to tell me his idea, and I felt the Spirit of the Lord. And I realized that I was listening to revelation. He proposed this idea of taking the time in seminary that we normally and historically have spent doing Scripture Mastery and use that time to do something he called ”Doctrinal Mastery.” And the idea was to do exactly what we had been working on—to help students in seminary, especially, cope with and answer questions that they have but also learn how to apply the doctrines that they learn to challenges they face in their personal lives, challenges their friends have, questions that come up in lots of different settings, so that the gospel becomes not only something that they live in their personal lives but something that they love and share and becomes the way they interact with people.
Acquiring Spiritual Knowledge
Doctrinal Mastery starts out heavy discussing general acquisition of spiritual knowledge (à la “teach a man to fish”).[2] Three principles help students “understand eternal truth and resolve questions or issues.”
First, act in faith. “We act in faith when we choose to trust God and turn to Him first through sincere prayer, a study of His teachings, and obedience to His commandments.” Basic Sunday School answers. Having problems? Pray more, read your scriptures, go to church, attend the temple, etc. It’s a good thing this is the first step, since it’s the first thing you’ll hear from any member if you admit to questions or doubts.
Second, examine concepts and questions with an eternal perspective. Take the long view. This one has several aspects. They advocate examining historical events within the context of that time and culture – awesome! They point out that historical events shouldn’t bug us because, “historical details do not carry the saving power of ordinances, covenants, and doctrine.” I agree many historical details don’t matter in the long run, but historical details surrounding priesthood restoration, prophetic authority, or origin of the scriptures can definitely impact how we view ordinances, covenants, and doctrine.
Also within this concept of eternal perspective is “reframing” stuff: “We seek the help of the Holy Ghost in order to see things as the Lord sees them. This allows us to reframe the question (to see the question differently) and view ideas based on the Lord’s standard of truth rather than accepting the world’s premise or assumptions.”[3] This reminds me of a line from Disney’s Zootopia, “Press Conference 101: You wanna look smart? Answer their question with your own question and then answer that question.”
Finally, seek further understanding through divinely appointed sources. “These sources include the light of Christ, the Holy Ghost, the scriptures, parents, and Church leaders.” They admit it’s possible to get reliable information from other trustworthy sources (the teacher’s manual advocates teaching students about mormonnewsroom.org and the Gospel Topics page, for example), but then…
However, sincere seekers of truth should be wary of unreliable sources of information. We live in a time when many “call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). Satan is the father of lies and seeks to distort truth and persuade us to turn away from the Lord and His appointed servants.
Evaluating reliable versus unreliable sources is always a good thing, but were overt scare tactics really necessary?
Helping Others Acquire Spiritual Knowledge
The Doctrinal Mastery program also teaches students how to respond when other people approach them with tough questions.
Step 1 – Listen carefully and prayerfully. “Listen attentively before you respond, seeking to clarify and understand the actual questions they are asking. Thoughtfully seek to understand the true intent of their questions and their feelings and beliefs.” Brother Webb explained in another venue that the goal is to make sure the questioner is genuine in their concern and not simply looking “to entrap, to find fault, and to accuse.” Evaluating intent isn’t easy, but at least they welcome the possibility that difficult questions might not always be about sowing seeds of doubt.
Step 2 – Teach and testify of gospel truths. “Share applicable teachings from the scriptures and modern prophets and how they have made a difference in your life. Help those with whom you speak examine or reframe their questions in the context of the gospel and the plan of salvation.” Hopefully seminary and Sunday meetings will pay off and the student can immediately recall relevant teachings to help the questioner. As for the reframing… ugh. I refer you back to Zootopia.
Step 3 – Invite them to act in faith. “Remember that the Lord requires us to seek spiritual knowledge for ourselves. We must therefore invite others to act in faith through prayer, obedience to the commandments, and diligent study of the word of God, using divinely appointed sources, particularly the Book of Mormon. If applicable, invite them to remember experiences they may have had when they felt the Holy Ghost and to hold fast to eternal truths they have learned until additional knowledge comes.” Sunday School answers to the rescue! And a nod towards other divinely appointed sources (light of Christ, the Holy Ghost, the scriptures, parents, and Church leaders).
Step 4 – Follow through. “Offer to search for answers, and then follow through by sharing what you learn. You could also search for answers together. Express confidence in the Lord’s promise to provide personal revelation.” As a last resort, try to help them find an answer. Go figure.
- What do you think of the new suggestions for acquiring gospel knowledge (or helping others to acquire gospel knowledge) in the new Doctrinal Mastery program?
[1] For a comparison of the Doctrinal Mastery core document to previous seminary curricula and youth-related publications, see this analysis at Faith-Promoting Rumor.
[2] The rest of the year Doctrinal Mastery covers the same topics as the Come, Follow Me curriculum, incorporating relevant scripture passages from that year’s course of study. (Because, clearly, teenagers don’t get enough of the Come, Follow Me curriculum in the second and third hour meetings every Sunday).
[3] The “reframing” example in the training broadcast was about a student concerned with gender equality in the church. The student’s original question was, “When will the Church be like everyone else and start treating men and women equally?” The teacher first responded, “How might the world define equality and fairness?” Then she asked, “How does the Lord define equality and fairness?” and “How does the Lord view the role of men and women in the plan of salvation?” As a kid, I wasn’t impressed with teachers who avoided answering questions, and “reframing” my statement that way would’ve been incredibly irritating.
Wheat & Tares 
I’m always afraid of programs, but I support the sharing of correct principles. And, I want to be one who helps to build up rather than to tear down. So I want to be supportive.
As for reframing, it can be very helpful in the context of a sincere but misplaced question, and can be necessary in the context of an insincere question. Every parent refrains questions from his or her children. Our scriptures show where our God and Savior do the same thing. If we want to teach and minister like the Savior did, we will need to learn to reframe questions from time to time so that an honest and productive dialogue can occur.
I think the principles and steps outlined in the original posting can help a person become more Christ-like. But as I said at the beginning, I’m afraid of programs. I’m supportive, but I wouldn’t want the “program” to become its own purpose and end. Similarly, I support scripture mastery (memorizing scripture verses) in principle while wondering about some of the examples of its becoming a program.
Oops! Every parent reframes… I really don’t like the auto-corrupt feature…
Ha! That’s Sunday’s youth lessons up the creek again then. For goodness sake, why can’t they concentrate on different aspects with the different programmes instead of trying to replicate eachother! Back when the youth essentially studied the adult GD course Sundays they weren’t interested because hey, they got to cover all that stuff in Seminary anyway, and now that the Sunday curriculum has changed Seminary has to follow suit! So where, exactly, will our youth actually be studying the actual scriptural text?
My kids are not stupid. They know very well what avoiding a question looks like. I can’t imagine mine not realizing that reframing is a way to twist things around back into someone’s comfort zone rather than doing the much harder work of critical thinking.
So on one hand, I love the teaching of the kids to listen with care. I’m glad scripture mastery is out. But, this still feels like avoidance. It will work for the kids that don’t question in the fit’s place, but not for the rest.
I hadn’t heard about this. I have two thoughts. First, isn’t all of seminary doctrinal mastery? Isn’t doctrinal mastery what we do in SS and AP and YW? Setting aside a specific time for “doctrinal mastery” seems to be parsing things with too fine a blade, something that all large organizations are prone to do.
Second, a generation ago didn’t we have a real push for scriptural mastery? Didn’t we have concerns that our students weren’t versed well enough in the scriptures? I think we have done spectacularly well with that. I look at my kids and their friends and they have a familiarity with the actual scriptures that I never got when I grew up in the church.
If someone “reframed” my question in the way that you showed in Footnote #3, I would start thinking that they weren’t listening to me at all, let alone “prayerfully and carefully.” In fact, just reading about this makes me frustrated.
The sample question begs the answer. I always reframe questions that include their own answer.
Perhaps it might be better to say:
You’ve just asked a question that included a number of assumptions.
I’d like to ask questions about your assumptions before we just plunge forward without examining them…
After all, how many people like it when they are asked “why can’t you just listen to the spirit and quit being a rebellious apostate?”
Sometimes it isn’t that blunt. Maybe “what is wrong with you that you are such a confrontational heretic and when will you get over yourself?”
Would anyone disagree that reframing those questions is fair? People don’t want to. They just want a simple answer that agrees with their preconceptions and validates them.
I think that any time we look at reframing and just say “that is avoiding the question ” we are exposing our preconceptions.
At the same time, reframing can be a very powerful tool for change.
If people earnestly seek the Spirit and learn to reframe and explore they also learn to expose preconceptions.
How much of what we believe is just unquestioned traditions of the fathers?
Consider some examples:
1. When the change was made to having deacons pass te sacrament did you know it was because the priesthood is not required to pass the Sacrament and they felt it was good for boys to learn to serve.
2. Did you know midwives used to be set apart to give blessings to women in labor? What does that imply?
3. Well, I can’t give everything away from future posts.
But reframing is something that it is good to teach kids to do.
Look at it in oractice here:
http://www.ldsliving.com/6-Harmful-Myths-Mormon-Women-Often-Hear-About-Their-Bodies/s/82465?s_cid=e2160516&utm_source=ldsliving&utm_medium=email
I expect more of it in the future.
I’m with Rt. My kids are 15 and 13 and they know when someone doesn’t know the answer to questions. And they are already quite familiar with the way the church never answers a direct question with a direct answer (and for them, even “I don’t know” is a more direct answer than the mental and rhetorical gymnastics they usually get in response).
As Stephen Marsh indicates, reframing can be helpful, but since I don’t believe that the church is acting with sincere, honest intent (it still clearly wants to indoctrinate our youth with its version of “the truth”), “reframing” in this case sounds a lot more like “avoidance” or “deflection” or even “lying”. I think a big reason why our young people are leaving the church isn’t because of the complex questions that arise when attempting to cleave to one’s faith, but because they feel the church isn’t being honest with them and isn’t really listening to them. The young people I work with have remarkably fine-tuned BS detectors and I think most of them would call BS on the kind of mealy-mouthed hemming and hawing that they tend to get in response to their intelligent, earnest questions.
Ji, a lot of the principles in the program are quite good (trusting God, looking at things in context, evaluating reliability of sources, etc.). I also worry that turning it into a program will take away something. I know good instructors will be able to make this awesome.
Hedgehog, to be clear, this is just replacing Scripture Mastery. Most of the time will still be spent studying the scriptures. It’s just instead of the students memorizing scriptures along the side, they’ll be going over these doctrinal concepts and tying them to their course of study (so when they’re studying the New Testament, supporting scriptures passages for the doctrinal topics will be drawn more from the New Testament, I think). It doesn’t look like the general “acquiring spiritual knowledge” first two lessons will have any adjustment from year to year, though.
Hey, at least it’s a new program that isn’t built around ponderizing.
The Orher Clark–that is a silver lining.
Otherwise I think that once you start teaching the tools and kids sincerely seek the Spirit in using them, I think we get a lot of places people might not expect.
There is just a lot here.
KLC, according to the training session, they’re still hoping some memorization will occur outside of class time. I think the idea is that if students tie the scriptures with the concepts they’re learning in Doctrinal Mastery and Come, Follow Me, they’re more likely to remember them when needed.
Tobia and Stephen – I agree that the girl’s original question (“When will the Church be like everyone else and start treating men and women equally?”) is accusatory and shows bias. *Clarifying* things is not a problem to me. I feel like the most obvious response to that question would be to ask in what ways that girl felt women were being treated unfairly. Hone in on her specific concerns rather than assuming you know what prompted the question.
When you respond with questions that imply the girl has used worldly definitions instead of divine definitions, you set up that girl to feel shame for asking that question in the first place. That’s the fear I have with “reframing,” essentially dismissing the original question by suggesting it’s not what God cares about in the scheme of things.
Brother Sky, “I don’t know” is a fabulous response. It’s direct, and (according to Elder Ballard in his CES Broadcast) it should always be followed up with looking into the issue and coming back with a better answer the next time.
Other Clark, definitely a plus.
This is a good example:
If I teach the following, where are kids going to go with it?
” Fourth, Samantha suggested to Miki a unique method for how the two of them could respect each other’s views and still live together in society. In response to Miki’s suggestion that the two of them would simply have to live according to their own views without infringing on one another’s freedoms, Samantha suggested something better. She suggested to Miki something that is fundamental in a pluralistic society if everyone is to be treated fairly-we must stand up for the basic civil rights of others if we are to expect others to stand up for our basic civil rights. ”
The robust part of that message is that we must respect and protect the civil rights of others.
Or:
”
First, note that although Samantha and Miki’s particular disagreement was centered on one specific set of issues society is currently confronting, the same principles of engagement apply no matter what the issue might be. Whenever there is heated controversy, the best way to proceed is with love, respect, and understanding, while never abandoning the conviction of truth”
The robust part of that message is that we have to listen to others first and that when we listen we have to respect them.
I think that when you get people talking one on one, and listening first, you are going to get people who humanize those they talk with.
Regardless of the intent you impute the impact of using the methods and approach creates a culture of telling kids to pray and think for themselves.
That leads places.
http://www.byui.edu/devotionals/elder-von-g-keetch
Especially when you have this framing:
Quote:
” Third, although Samantha would undoubtedly have been overjoyed if Miki had seen the light immediately and had agreed to receive the missionaries the next day, that was not Samantha’s initial goal. Her initial goal was to understand where Miki was coming from-to respect her as a person and to understand her views. ”
That is telling kids that their first goal is to listen and understand with respect.
That is a real shift. If I tell a kid that should be their goal and where they start it creates a real structure for everything else.
There is just a lot there. Two years of this will have dramatic results.
MaryAnn– good points. I was thinking where the kids would go with the tools. But like any tool they can be misused.
Good point Stephen. I can see the benefits of reframing as you described it. I would even say I use the very same techniques when working through problems with my kids with a focus on multiple opinions.
I still can’t see any of the people who teach Seminary in my area using reframing as anything but a way to endlessly twist difficult questions back around to simplistic, well-worn answers. I use reframing because I’ve studied issues from so many different perspectives and want my kids to have lots of info to make up their own minds. Does this program help students to do that? I don’t think so although perhaps I am overly pessimistic. (and admittedly feeling frustrated by the church curriculum overall.)
The program teaches the kids the skills involved.
So they are going to:
(A) be able to see it when an answer is twisted to “you are just an apostate for asking the question ” and
(B) have the tools to reach greater understanding when talking with others.
This is a mostly predetermined road designed to help believers avoid the dangers to the church posed by inconvenient truths which is largely just an advanced form of indoctrination. But if your doubts have already begun to grow you’ll have a lot trouble staying between the curbs of this road and if you actually follow the spirit you probably already know that he testifies to truth not dogma or sophistry!
Mary Ann: “When you respond with questions that imply the girl has used worldly definitions instead of divine definitions, you set up that girl to feel shame for asking that question in the first place. That’s the fear I have with “reframing,” essentially dismissing the original question by suggesting it’s not what God cares about in the scheme of things.” Exactly. This is a huge problem in my experience within the church. People shut down questions with shaming tactics. If you have a question or don’t like something, you are a bad person for asking it or raising it. The organization is never wrong. Leaders never make mistakes, or if they do, God forbid you articulate it! Kids see right through this.
When I was in Bio 101 at BYU, a class of about 900 students, one day we had what the syllabus called an “in class homework assignment.” Naturally, all of us were using our notes to complete the assignment. The professor saw this and rebuked the class (he was walking through the auditorium with his microphone) by saying that some students were “cheating” on the “test.” There was an outcry from several of us at being called cheaters, and one student stood up and showed him what the syllabus said. He didn’t like being called on his mistake, so he used his sing-songy Mormon passive-aggressive voice and said that we should do “whatever the true gospel of Jesus Christ would have us do.”
I wasn’t the only one who lost respect for him that day. Dodging difficult questions and personal responsibility reflects poorly on us. Blaming someone who wants to know when the church will start to treat men & women equally with the label “worldly” is a pretty crappy tactic, particularly since there are plenty of examples of not treating men & women equally that are mainly cultural and could easily be discarded (in addition to the doctrinal issues). Who knows what she meant was unequal? What’s wrong with asking her what inequality she sees that concerns her?
My initial reaction to the change from “scripture mastery” to “doctrinal mastery” was anxiousness that this meant we were distancing students from the scriptures further in favor of proof-texting them to make predetermined doctrinal points.
This is a broader Christian concern. Catholics mostly relied on dogma from leaders rather than engaging directly in reading scripture, and when reformers actually read the Bible, they quickly saw that the dogma didn’t always match up what the scriptures actually said.
I hate to see us leaning Catholic on this. My preference would be a church of scriptorians, not a dogmatic church. But that preference seems to be under a bus lately.
Mary Ann: Yes, “I don’t know” is a good answer. I actually think it’s even better when followed by the phrase, “but why don’t we try to find out together?”
Also, is anyone else deeply troubled by the quote about being careful of sources and the whole referring to Satan thing? I read this pretty clearly as saying: “Avoid the evil internet which has lots of stuff that makes the church look bad and instead only look to church-approved sources.” This just seems absurd. How can one come to the truth of things if one only looks to sources which are clearly biased in favor of the church? If that’s “re-framing,” it’s clear that the church isn’t at all interested in getting at the actual truth of things. Until our leadership is willing to acknowledge the flaws/mistakes in our history and current practices, how can anyone trust what it says?
To bring this all back to our young people, it’s important to remember, I think, that they’ve been lied to by most institutions in their lives and they know it: the government (Iraq war, a variety of other things), various churches (the Catholic abuse scandal, various aspects of Mormon history) and schools (just memorize stuff, take a standardized test and voila! your educated). There is no way they’re going to trust or “have faith in” an institution that blithely dismisses any facts that are counter to the narrative it’s trying to construct. Young people are way smarter than that.
Bro. Sky, (“it’s clear that the church isn’t at all interested in getting at the actual truth of things”)
Elder Oaks says not all truth is equal.
I was initially skeptical of this, like I am with most “new” church programs. Another vapid product of the correlation machine, just old wine in new bottles.
But, as it was suggested upthread, in the right hands, this curriculum has the potential to teach our youth necessary critical thinking skills–something at which the church has been failing for many years. This new way is not perfect, and it will only be as good as the teacher using it, but its a step in the right direction. When I was in seminary in the 90s, my hard questions were usually met with trite or dismissive answers, sometimes followed by concerned phone calls to my parents.
Other Clark: I think the Oaks quote perfectly illustrates my point.
Hawk,
That story is infuriating. Another application of the DBAD principle, which I testify is a true principle.
It’s funny, my initial reaction was that this was potentially getting us away from proof-texting, because, let’s be honest, that’s really all scripture mastery ever was. What I disliked about scripture mastery was that it took a handful of scripture passages out of context, and basically told us, if you memorize these, you have mastered the Book of Mormon (or Old Testament, New Testament, or Doctrine and covenants). It gave the impression that these were the only scriptures that were really essential–that other passages not included in scripture mastery were either not important or not as important. It taught dogma, rather than scripture, but under a thin veneer that it was teaching scripture. For example, the Book of Mormon scripture mastery scriptures, if I recall correctly, all but eliminated the many many book of Mormon passages that forcefully teach salvation by grace–one of the strongest, most prevailing themes of the Book–in favor of scriptures that appear, taken out of context, to support works based salvation.
So maybe I was reacting more to my concerns with the old program rather than to positives about the new one, but my initial reaction was more positive.
I think scriptures are more important than doctrines. Scriptures are poetry, they are stories, they evoke things like passion and feeling. Scriptures have mystery and possibility. They are full of humanity and life. By contrast, doctrines are legalistic statements and creeds.
By the way what is the difference between a doctrine and a creed? I think there is not much of a difference. I saw a woman from the UU church the other day wearing a tee-shirt that said, “Deeds not Creeds!” That’s a concept that is deeply scriptural!
JKC, you won’t get rid of prooftexting that easily. They’ve gone from “Here’s a scripture, learn the associated doctrine” to “Here’s doctrine, learn the associated scripture.” If the student has internalized (or the teacher emphasizes) looking at things on context, then it could affect prooftexting.
By focusing on doctrine first, they can incorporate other stuff that you won’t necessarily find in scriptures. Like talking about Heavenly Mother when discussing the Godhead, or explaining the priesthood ban as an administrative/managerial issue when discussing Prophets and Revelation (https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrinal-mastery-new-testament-teacher-material/prophets-and-revelation?lang=eng)
I hope there is no teaching of heavenly mothers in seminary, and I’m scared of discussions if I don’t trust the teacher and his or her agenda, as we have no scriptural or doctrinal basis for the matter. I really feel it is best to let the scriptures speak for themselves — with an honest approach to reading scripture, seeing the people there as real people, and with real faith, hope, and charity, true knowledge can distill on the soul as the dew on the grass.
I think reframing is often exactly what is needed, for the reasons Stephen gave. Sometimes questioning the assumptions you’re making to frame a question in the first place is half your answer. I do think the terminology we use matters, though. The term “worldly” has nothing but negative connotations. For the example given, I do think it’s fair to ask what they mean by equal and where they got that concept from, since even non-Mormon kids generally don’t see men and women to be the same. But calling it worldly is a shut-down. Reframing a question does not invalidate it, at least it doesn’t have to.
I’m concerned about the new doctrinal-mastery direction. I feel like learning to read scripture is really important, and you have to start by becoming familiar with them first. Most kids aren’t. But I guess you need them to care even before that.
p.s. I admit there is a place for heavenly mothers in the broad tapestry of Mormon thought — but in my mind, that is separate from scripture and doctrine.
Just as a reminder, the kids will still be studying scriptures the vast majority of the time. This replaces Scripture Mastery (the monthly one or two class periods devoted to helping kids memorize 25 verses per year). It doesn’t replace the entire scripture-oriented main curriculum.
Ji, the Heavenly Mother stuff isn’t what you might expect. I would think people on the bloggernacle would be underwhelmed at the angle the teacher’s manual takes. Take a look for yourself: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrinal-mastery-new-testament-teacher-material/the-godhead?lang=eng
Ji, if the church is going to push a male-female family unit as a reflection of divine roles, they *have* to incorporate Heavenly Mother(s). Only going with male Gods weakens that position. The only other options for a male-God-only picture supported by scripture is that women don’t exist post-mortality or they do not acheive Godhead on the same scale as men. That position is incongruent with more recent positions of church leaders.
I had dinner with the late Elder Marvin Ashton (Q12) where the doctrine of Mother in Heaven came up. Elder Ashton said, “We don’t have a doctrine of Mother in Heaven, we just have a song.” I regret that I didn’t have the presence of mind to inquire if that was his “well thought out opinion,” or if it reflect the opinion of the 15 Brethren who declare what is and what isn’t doctrine.
That illustrated what it seems to me to be a challenge with doctrinal mastery. There will need to be something more definitive about what is and what isn’t doctrine, beyond declaring that church doctrine is what the current Church leaders say it is. We have just gone through a period where we were told that what many leaders of the past taught as doctrine turned out to be folklore. As a case in point consider the BYU professor and former mission president who was eviscerated for making a public statement which had been commonly taught for years as doctrine (or at least people assumed it was doctrine).
Parker, it was Bott’s statements that prompted an official church statement on race, the forerunner of the Race and Priesthood essay. The problem is that we *do* believe doctrine is decided by currently sitting prophets, seers, and revelators. Whether it’s Adam-God, blood Atonement, racial priesthood restrictions, or plural marriage, previous statements that were “doctrine” at the time are now *not* considered doctrine. After the 1978 revelation, Bruce R. McConkie essentially said that everything previously given about the relationship between race and the priesthood was moot. Current positions of church leaders override anything said previously. Which means… future statements will override anything we hear now.
Part of a 2007 newsroom piece to journalists said, “With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.” (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine)
Thanks for the link, Mary Ann. Yes, the notion is growing, perhaps for reasons you suggest. I don’t really like for doctrine to be developed to deal with the issue of the moment. Whether it is folklore creeping into doctrine or something else with heavenly backing, well, I’m willing to say there is a place for it in the tapestry of Mormon thought and leave it at that, but I do acknowledge that one person’s folklore is another person’s doctrine. The apostle Paul taught us to stay close to what is written, meaning the acriptures. For doctrinal mastery in seminary, the curriculum writers will be in the driver’s seat, and we can have doctrine without scripture and without revelation and without common consent. I wish the curriculum writers would stay close to the scriptures.
I have to say I’m super disappointed in the lesson plan in the link. Seems more appropriate for 8 year old than 17.
Feel free to disagree but this new program feels a bit cultish. I read the lesson “Acquring spiritual Knowledge” and there are disturbing things in it. It clearly looks to point students away from asking certain questions. It tells them only certain questions will lead to truth and only approved source are where you find those answers. It feels like mind control where you dont really study historical documents you just learn a scripture on each topic, pray, and ask the “correct” question.
mike, yes. That would be a concern to me.
My kids have been doing online seminary, and they can spot a leading question a mile off. My daughter in particular gets quite riled about it. Sometimes the link between the question being asked and the passage they are asked to read in order to answer it is tenuous at best, and in some cases downright misleading.
Mary An (34) I don’t think I need to be lectured on who gets to declare what is doctrine. I think I am pretty clear on that point (by the way is that doctrine?). My point was–based on how I interpret what I see and hear–that there is considerable confusion among church members as to what constitutes the doctrine of the Church. There seems to be a real struggle as to if, and which, policies, practices, pronouncements, proclamations, along with various beliefs treated as facts, are binding and are doctrine. If that is the case, and my assessment may be incorrect, then, as I previously stated, you have to be clear and precise about the status of what is being taught as doctrine.
Maybe I am the only one confused about whether some teachings or doctrine or not. After all, I’m still wrestling with being taught (indoctrinated?) as a youth that drinking a coke was against the word of wisdom. But this program which Elder Clay considers revelation, implies, does it not, that a doctrinal deficiency exists, and that deficiency needs professional attention. And that raises its own difficult questions.
“1] For a comparison of the Doctrinal Mastery core document to previous seminary curricula and youth-related publications, see this analysis at Faith-Promoting Rumor.”
This analysis is confirms many of my suspicions. My take-away: keep your copies of True to the Faith and Preach My Gospel.
Parker, didn’t mean to lecture. That 2007 newsroom article was issued in order to “clarify” what is considered doctrine in the church, because apparently journalists were quoting statements of past church leaders and asserting it was doctrine. How dare they. LOL.
I think your assessment about this program fixing a perceived deficiency is accurate. It seems like church leaders have typically just let out-of-date statements exist without comment, hoping that people will ignore them. When Randy Bott resurrected a lot of those “doctrinal” race statements, I think it really shocked leadership into comprehending the need for official up-to-date interpretations of controversial issues. And Doctrinal Mastery is part of making sure kids (just ahead of going into the missionary force) are aware of those new interpretations.
One of the big things I noticed in Ballard’s talk and the training session is the need for instructors to be up on what church leaders are *currently* saying on big issues (they are supposed to point kids towards mormonnewsroom.org as a resource).
Funny thing is I’m sure the aim is to underscore the need to trust *current* leaders of the church. But when you insist on telling kids they need to rely on statements from sitting prophets and take past statements with a grain of salt, at some point that kid will realize that the statements they are hearing now will inevitably be the ones that need a grain of salt in the future. That’s the uncomfortable reality with a belief in continuing revelation.
The more they change the more it seems the same.
About 500 years ago the Great Reformers launched what I now consider a massive fools errand. It was the birth of the scientific age and since religion was so important, it did not escape being recast into s scientific mind set. Thus was born the science of religion or theology; constructed of the bricks of doctrine with the tattered, confusing remnants of history known as the scriptures acting as the mother lode source of truth.
This resulted in an embarrassing litany of excesses too long to describe called Christian history to the point of fragmentation and discrediting of the Christian faith. Brother Joseph may be a bit more creative and close enough in time to have left too much documentation but he is not unlike many others who went before him.
For me the way forward is to think of religion as more like an art and less like a science. To hell with doctrine. Up with music and poetry and dance and folk tales and relics and such. We do science and technology all day every day. Give us a little break from it.
One statement in the reading said this:
“Finally, seek further understanding through divinely appointed sources.
These sources include the light of Christ, the Holy Ghost, the scriptures, parents, and Church leaders.”
I’m not sure what you want to call ‘divinely appointed sources’but let me remake that list.
Divinely appointed resources
1. The Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost.
2. The scriptures.
3. parents and leaders.
In the first of the list we mention two members of the Godhead. Nothing changes them. They are always powerful and reliable. With the light of Christ, it can lead you to the Lord’s Church. With the second – The Holy Ghost, once having what can come from Him, if you deny it, things can become unchangeable and horrible beyond comprehension.
With number 2, the scriptures are important to me to come to truth which is only possible with what everybody needs to have – and those things are only possible with what is mentioned in number one.
NUMBER 3. Parents and leaders….Yeah. They are helpful too. But they can only do anything for you if you are led to them by God or if they are led to you by God. Without God and maybe we should say without the Godhead everything else is kind of useless.
I see much good in this system, if they do it. For the last two decades now, you only talked about certain scriptures and not about others. I keep it in mind that this might only reach the youth who, basically know nothing anyway. We’ll see happens.
“For me the way forward is to think of religion as more like an art and less like a science. To hell with doctrine. Up with music and poetry and dance and folk tales and relics and such. ”
That is one of the most wonderful ideas I’ve heard in a long time. I’m going to steal it (like an artist).