If they look hard enough, Gospel Doctrine teachers will see changes to their (online) Doctrine & Covenants and Church History manuals this year. Elder M. Russell Ballard said last February, “[W]e are making extraordinary efforts to provide accurate context and understanding of the teachings of the Restoration.” Newer materials have already been incorporated into seminary and institute curricula, and leaders are now setting their sights on Gospel Doctrine.
The Bad News
The changes aren’t obvious. Matthew McBride, web content manager for the Church History Department, explained to the Deseret News, “We’re using essentially the same manual with some additional links to supporting materials to help students and teachers answer questions.” Generally, the only mention of new supporting materials in the manual happens in the “Preparation” section of each lesson, not in the body of the lesson itself. At a minimum there’ll be a simple link (“Additional historical material for this lesson”) taking the teacher to a central webpage listing supplemental material by lesson number. Occasionally the lesson will link directly to recommended reading material. Regardless of how it’s accessed, since the material is never mentioned in the body of the lesson, it’s up to the teacher to figure out how supplemental information is pertinent.
Class member study guides don’t refer to new materials. That small percentage of class members who arrive well-prepared for discussion won’t even be aware of new supplemental material if they rely solely on the study guides. Student exposure will be limited to what the teacher presents to the class (which, admittedly, is already the case for most class participants).
The Good News
We technically have permission to talk about controversial stuff in Sunday School. One consistent complaint you’ll find on the bloggernacle is that we don’t talk about unpleasant details of church history in Sunday meetings. Well, this (theoretically… maybe… sigh, probably not) could change that. The Gospel Topics essays were necessary because, at least in recent memory, we had very few “authorized” materials covering controversial church history topics. Even when the Gospel Topics essays were first released, people encountered resistance when bringing up the content of those church-approved essays in Sunday meetings. We now have authorized church-approved materials to discuss controversial church history topics and space to discuss those topics via a church-approved curriculum.
The “Helps for the Teacher” chapter is awesome. Most content changes are concentrated in the “Helps for the Teacher” chapter at the front of the teacher’s manual. I always thought that chapter was helpful when I taught Gospel Doctrine, but I’m excited about this improved framework. (I’m fully aware that I’m a nerd and most teachers don’t look at this.)
The updated “Materials You Should Use” portion section recommends many useful resources beyond just the scriptures and Our Heritage (pretty much the limit of what you were supposed to use before). Most people reading this blog are familiar with two recommended resources: the Gospel Topics essays and the Joseph Smith Papers. Another recommended resource is Revelations in Context. This newer collection of essays by historians gives backstories on revelations in the D&C from the viewpoint of specific historical figures. Two recommended resources provide female perspectives on church history: Daughters in My Kingdom and The First Fifty Years of Relief Society. Perspectives of church history from members outside the United States (19th through 21st centuries) are provided with Pioneers in Every Land.
Additional paragraphs to the “Teach from the Scriptures” section in the “Helps” chapter explain that changes made to the Doctrine and Covenants in the 2013 edition of the standard works were largely due to research from the Joseph Smith Papers . Links are provided if teachers want more information about those adjustments (I hadn’t seen much of the published explanations of the changes, so I found it interesting).
Two new sections were also added to the “Helps” chapter: “Guidelines for Learning about Church History” and “Answering Difficult Questions.” Rather than summarize, here they are in full:
Guidelines for Learning about Church History
Keep the following guidelines in mind as you study and teach Church history:
1. Help class members focus on the gospel principles taught in the Doctrine and Covenants using accounts in Church history to give context to those principles.
2. Recognize that the past is different from the present, and it is important to remember that many attitudes and beliefs that we take for granted today were very different in previous decades and centuries.
3. Be aware that available records of the past are incomplete and open to interpretation, and some stories are more reliable and accurate than others.
Answering Difficult Questions
As you teach, class members may ask questions about difficult historical or doctrinal topics. Do not avoid or dismiss any sincere question. Rather, acknowledge the question, answer it to the best of your ability, and direct class members to official Church resources. For example, the Church has published Gospel Topics Essays to answer questions about Church history (see lds.org/topics). While it is natural to want to answer every question, it is better to acknowledge when you don’t know an answer and point students to appropriate resources rather than to speculate or pass along your own opinions as Church doctrine or history.
The church history guidelines are well-written and make a lot of sense. The instruction towards difficult questions is consistent with the tone the church has recently taken (e.g. Teaching in the Savior’s Way). I appreciate that the church is pushing people to take questions seriously and help people find good answers.
Good and/or Bad News
They still really don’t want you to talk about polygamy, but at least they give you good resources if you do. The original teacher’s manual contained very little information about the church’s history with plural marriage, just a few paragraphs at the end of the “Additional Teaching Ideas” section of Lesson 31 about eternal marriage (with specific instruction that plural marriage should NOT be the focus of the lesson). The new manual still doesn’t want you to put plural marriage front and center, but they’ve made some modifications to what you are allowed to say (this is the only place in the manual I’ve found where lesson content has changed).
First, they start out with Jacob’s encouragement of monogamy. That wasn’t there before, so I’m noting it and calling this a good thing.
Second, the paragraph describing early church leaders practicing polygamy is essentially unchanged, but after the paragraph are direct links to three good resources:
- Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – this is merely an overview, summarizing the other plural marriage Gospel Topics essays (Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo, Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah, and The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage). Some might contend the church is still cheating a bit by nesting the essays this way, but if you’re not wanting it the focus of the lesson, it makes sense.
- Mercy Thompson and the Revelation on Marriage – Jed Woodworth’s Revelations in Context essay on D&C 132. This essay goes into Mercy Fielding Thompson Smith’s experiences with plural marriage. Notably, there is zero focus on “raising up seed” argument for polygamy. Hyrum taking on Mercy as a plural wife was more a “taking care of widows” thing, though Hyrum’s personal conversion to polygamy was based on being with both his deceased first wife and his second wife in the eternities. (If you’re wondering how that is supposed to explain Joseph’s practice of polygamy to the average church member, I’m right there with you.)
- The Messenger and the Manifesto – Jed Woodworth’s Revelations in Context essay on Official Declaration 1. This details President George Q. Cannon’s thoughts of the Manifesto and ardent defense when it was presented to church members. Interestingly, the essay relates Woodruff explaining his decision to Cannon of ending polygamy in late 1889.
Third, a new paragraph was added addressing the question of plural marriage in the eternities. This is a topic that causes many people angst, so I’m glad to see the church address it. But… whether or not it’s a good thing will depend on your viewpoint:
Latter-day Saints today do not practice polygamy. However, because temple marriage covenants are eternal in nature, some Saints may have questions about plural marriage in the eternities. Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who remarried after his first wife died, explained that although we do not know everything about the eternities, we do know that if we are faithful, our temple marriage covenants are eternal in nature: “There are a lot of people that live on this earth that have been married to more than one person. Sometimes those marriages have ended with death; sometimes they’ve ended with divorce. … For people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, ‘What will life be in the next life, when you’re married to more than one wife for eternity?’ I have to say I don’t know. But I know that I’ve made those covenants, and I believe if I am true to the covenants that the blessing that’s anticipated here will be realized in the next life”
So, yes, we believe in plural marriage in the eternities. Tracy M summed it up best at By Common Consent, “Until we don’t have modern (right now, sitting in the red chairs) apostles who are sealed to multiple women, this is never going to change.” But, again, this is a very small section (NOT supposed to be the focus) at the end of a large lesson about eternal marriage. The chance of a plural marriage discussion in the average Sunday School class is slim.
Conclusion
It is reasonable to wonder if the average Gospel Doctrine teacher will use any new historical material in class this year. Often you never finish half the lesson material, let alone supplemental tidbits, but I’m hopeful with the minimal changes made so far. It took almost a year from the “soft launch” of the first Gospel Topics essay for the church to suggest local leaders point members with questions towards that resource. Now it’s not just priesthood leaders with the responsibility to lead church members towards answers. CES instructors and Gospel Doctrine teachers are tasked with understanding and addressing tough issues. Even if Gospel Doctrine teachers don’t incorporate the new supporting materials into their lesson plans, expecting them to become familiar with those materials puts them in a much better spot to handle difficult questions when they arise. And that, I think, is the point.
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Do class members use the class member study guides now we’re online and tableted up in class? I’m in primary, but on those opportunities when I am in Sunday School I go straight for the teachers manual.
The Revelations in Context were coming out parallel with the D&C Sunday school course four years ago, as I recall, because I was heavily into linking the relevant essays for the upcoming lesson on social media for family friends who might be interested (as well as relevant BYU Studies articles). They were generally grateful at the time. It’s good to see them linked in the manual.
Elder Ballard, in February of 2016 (!) said “we are making extraordinary efforts to provide accurate…” Better late than never? What about all the “faithful” history and other baloney I was taught in my formative years? It is more like too little, too late.
I am looking forward to these changes in the resources… But as you say – probably won’t have any effect right now
Hedgehog, you’re right. That website was created in 2013 (https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-website-gives-story-behind-dc-sections?lang=eng). I didn’t discover it until a year or so ago, so I assumed it was relatively new. There’s been a lot of hype about it, probably more because of the church is publishing a print version of the essays for the first time.
In the article you say, “The new manual still doesn’t want you to put plural marriage front and center, but they’ve made some modifications to what you are allowed to say…”
That, unfortunately, speaks volumes to me. Allowed to say…Can you believe that? What does that say about our culture?
I find the entire thing to be embarrassing. Why should I get excited about the essays? What new information did they convey that wasn’t previously available from outside sources? Whoa, the Church kinda-sorta admitted to some things they had been denying for decades, only after the Internet forced their hand. Am I supposed to be impressed? It was also done halfheartedly (e.g., just short of 15-years old, and the “generally forgotten” comment in the First Vision essay, which betrays the fact that lawyerly language is used to hide the knowledge of why the 1832 account wasn’t generally known, and how it came to light – https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng).
Just as I wouldn’t be impressed by a weasel-worded admission of bad behavior by my children, I’m unimpressed by similarly weasel-worded, forced admissions by grown adults claiming we should look to them for salvation and that they cannot lead us astray.
Wake me when their handling of these issues meets even the low bar we expect of our Sunbeam students.
Hedgehog, I do the same thing. I rarely attend Gospel Doctrine because of my Family History calling, so when I’m visiting a GD class I like to go straight for the teacher’s manual. My husband always calls it cheating. 🙂 I don’t go to the Preparation section, though, just to lesson content, so I would prefer to see changes reflected in the body of the lesson.
Fbisti, it’s too little, too late for a lot of people, but not everyone. The manual is still full of that “faithful” history, it’s just they’ve added a bunch of links to good research if a teacher feels inclined to use it (and a lot of teachers who are inclined to use good scholarly research were already incorporating it into their lessons). The Deseret News article made the point that a lot of parents are hearing about these newer historical materials for the first time from kids in seminary and institute where the church is actively pushing inoculation. Parents are bound to start asking questions in Sunday School classes, and this allows for them to be directed to resources in a church-sanctioned manner. If the church were really wanting every adult member to internalize the newer versions of church history, they would change the lesson content. That doesn’t seem to be the goal.
You’re right that what the church teaches in formative years is vitally important, which is why seminary and institute teachers were immediately required to incorporate this material in new curriculum. I don’t think the church has a good solution for how to deal with adult members on this front – this is step towards dealing with that problem.
Orangganjil, the fact that Mormons recognize “approved” and “unapproved” sources of information about the church is not new and was a problem caused by church leaders in the first place. To expose churchmembers to these new materials, they are working within the obedience culture they created by putting them on that “church-approved” list. As a teacher, it was incredibly useful for me to point to a “church-approved” source to back up what I was saying. Maybe if I was older or a guy I wouldn’t have needed it, but if people didn’t know me well and I said something remotely critical of a traditional Mormon interpretation of scripture, eyebrows would shoot up and I’d have to physically pull out a printed source *they* could find at church distribution or Deseret Book before I could move on. Having those resources (like the gospel topics essays) labelled “church-approved” forces orthodox members to sit up and pay attention to ideas they might prefer to ignore. *That* is why I’m happy the church is creating more official resources looking critically at church history, even if the criticism is not as strong as I’d like in certain areas.
Thanks for the update Mary Ann.
Any reference to further information is a good thing in my opinion. The fact that the church does this in such a careful calculated way, though, is just embarrassing. Put it out there for crying out loud. It’s like pulling wisdom teeth over a six week period!!!
DHO quote on plural marriage is probably one of the most awkward responses one could ever give. What he meant to say was, “I will Ben married to both of my wives in the next life. Thanks for asking”. It’s this style of smoke and mirrors stuff that got the church into the current mess that it is in. Just say that you mean. Wouldn’t think it’d be that hard for a ex-judge..???
Mary Ann: “Maybe if I was older or a guy I wouldn’t have needed it” That comment just makes me want to take a flamethrower out and burn it all to the ground, Carrie Fisher style. And having met you, I believe you have sufficient personal gravitas to teach with authority. Harumph.
LDS Aussie, I suspect Oaks’ coy comments had to do with the context. He was speaking to a non-Mormon female interviewer for a documentary on national television. That his statement was chosen for the manual just shows how little recent authoritative statements the curriculum writers had to work with. (Over on the Interpreter website is Hales’ review of Pearson’s eternal polygamy book. He has a fun graph showing how often polygamy is mentioned in general conference over the years. It’s not a popular topic right now.)
Angela, thanks.
Mary Ann – I can’t speak for Americans, but Australians are pretty savvy (read: sick and tired) when it comes to “political speak” responses and circumstantiality. I believe it was disingenuous for him to say on one hand he doesn’t know, buy then next sentence say that the sealing are eternal. Of course he knows, we all know. When I want to hear answers to questions like that, I’ll listen to a politician…!!!
Good to know there is an extraordinary effort going on because from the looks of things I thought someone was dragging their feet.
Related but beside the point: There sure is a lot in “Gospel Doctrine” manuals and in “Gospel Topics” essays that cannot be found in 3 Nephi 11. Note particularly the warning in verse 40. Many of us have known for years that “doctrine” is a word very flexibly used in Mormondom (e.g. First Presidency claims that the former blacks & priesthood policy was “doctrine” and that it was not doctrine). But I just recently (belatedly) realized that lds.org and much of Mormondom uses the word “gospel” in ways that cannot be shoehorned into any English dictionary definitions of “gospel.” I haven’t yet found a satisfactory definition of “gospel” in Mormonspeak, but could use some help. Anxiously awaiting a GD manual change that would tell us what the name of the class (or the “Gospel Topics”) means. In the meantime, I appreciate the efforts and Mary Ann’s summary and comments. Thanks.
“We technically have permission to talk about controversial stuff …”
For me this is sick. We have always had permission to talk about controversial stuff. We have no professional ministers. It is our church! The reason that we are in this fix as a church is that when some did talk about this stuff decades ago , they were shut down. In a remote wards, social isolation worked. In places with higher densities of Mormons , they rounded up the ring leaders and made it very unpleasant for them. A few with silver tongues and exceptional diplomatic social skills flew impotently below the radar. Too many were kept busy with busy work and taught not to think. The obedience culture is counter to the essence of the gospel and is a diabolical apostate concept. Today, this latest splash is merely a more refined and subtle approach to business as usual. The orthodox church is never out in front of the problems with our history. You will never learn anything in church before our astute critics already are disseminating it. They should be teaching Sunday school, if it was anything more than a school in name only.
I was a fanatic student of all things Mormon especially controversial topics, about 40 years ago. I reached a point where I could not bear sitting through a class at church unless I was teaching it. The stifling boredom, the dubious doctrine, the steady stream of illogical thoughts, the frequent weeping and sentimental nonsense. I volunteered frequently to teach but seldom was asked. I developed a method of “teaching from the back row” which involved curious questions, colorful stories and plenty of humor. It often “flipped the conversation” and not always in predictable or productive directions.I am blunt and outspoken and not very sensitive to social cues (it takes swearing generally to get my attention). I worked 1/3 to 1/2 of Sundays and this had its advantages and disadvantages.
For 7 years I taught a gospel doctrine class in a fairly transient ward and I opened every class with a warning and invitation for anyone not willing to be disturbed or challenged or offended to leave and attend the other class.I certainly was not going to bear testimony of anything taught in the next hour. Many hated me and a few close friendships grew out of these conflicts even if opinions were not changed. A few told me privately that my class was a spiritual lifeline, just knowing they were not crazy or alone in their struggles.
About 10 years ago a new bishop called me in and told me nothing I ever taught disturbed him, but it was disturbing others and he informed me I would be given no teaching assignments for the next 5 years he was in charge. (I asked him if I could get that in writing). He also warned me to tone down my comments or he would disfellowship me and band me from making any comments. I adopted another method, the first week of each month I made it to church I said nothing, the second week only one or two entirely positive and comforting and bland comments. If my work schedule permitted me a third week at church in a month, I would allow myself one challenging comment. Even this was too much and I was warned repeatedly. I started attending only Sacrament meeting and then another church with my wife where as an ill-informed, nonmember guest any challenging remarks are not taken seriously.
Recently, I gave the old bishop who put me on the no teaching ($hit) list a copy of a talk by Elder Ballard given to institute teachers that among other things tells them they must know the gospel topic essays like the back of their hand and the days of ignoring /dismissing challenging questions are ending. I asked to discuss it with him in a few weeks. Now he is the one with the smoldering faith crisis and has apologized and accepted some blame for mistakes that harmed my family. But he still doesn’t want to discuss these problems with me and he continues to be the orthodox member (on the high counsel no less) in public. I have nothing but compassion for him.
I think these new manuals are d****d little and d***d late. Am I supposed to rush back to Sunday school? When they start putting people as controversial and disturbing as me on high counsels then maybe that will get my attention. I am getting too old and cranky to even care anymore. Blogging is better for the soul.
Postscript: Let me tell any lurkers from the sugar-coating committees a secret of how to drag my sorry old apostate arse back to Sunday school. Put intense focus on Christ; more than talking about Him, but inviting Him into the meetings. This would have to be obvious enough to draw my evangelical wife back and she will drag me back. She remains the religious one in the family. I have lost interest except I am concerned about dying and the resurrection and things like that. When we start to see evangelical Christians joining the LDS church in significant numbers and not leaving, then we are going in the right direction. They are a fluid people and change churches often.
Happy to report that a) it’s looking like I will get to attend Sunday school this year – junior and senior primaries have been combined, so there’s only one opening exercises/singing time; and b) our Sunday school teacher pointed out to the class the Revelations in Context as part of today’s introductory lesson.
The church has already made an improvement. On the site listing supporting material for each lesson, they now give a brief description explaining the pertinence of the historical article to the lesson: https://history.lds.org/article/church-history-study-guide?lang=eng
I’m super frustrated with their approach to this. I’m not expecting anything in our ward. The SS president – an intelligent professional with advanced degrees, born and raised in the church and a former bishop – has not read the essays and has no plans to. I’m married to him.
No instructions, either, from the stake.
Thanks for the space to vent.