“If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.”
This quote is attributed to Isaac Asimov, who would have been 100 this January. As a kid I was drawn to his ability to create expansive worlds within his books. While growing up, I also appreciated his ability to present non-fiction science in a clear and friendly style. His works regularly included the theme of searching for better ideas and a better future.
This idea of searching for better information and ideas started me wondering about the Gospel Topics Essays. Mary Ann wrote a spectacular post last year about the Gospel Topics Essays, the Gospel Topics, and History Topics. I thoroughly appreciate the active engagement of the Church and others with history, questions and doubt, and difficult theology. I wonder at what level we as members engage with these topics, however. While some general authorities have encouraged openness, others show that we still have a difficult relationship with sticky topics and doubt.
- In the years since these essays, have we progressed beyond local discouragement or discomfort to being comfortable using these essays in talks and in class?
- Are seminary manuals actively engaging with nuanced and difficult topics regarding the restoration and the complex reality of scripture?
- How has your local experience been regarding the use of these Church created resources?
- Note: Isaac Asimov acted despicably in many areas of his life. This post is not primarily to discuss that. For an excellent discussion, read Emily Nussbaum’s essay “What should we do with the art of terrible men?”
- Image: Dr. Isaac Asimov by Phillip Leonian from New York World-Telegram & Sun. United States Library of Congress. Public Domain.
Wheat & Tares 
Problem #1: If the Book of Mormon is not historical, if none of it actually happened, what does this mean for everything else?
“In the years since these essays, have we progressed beyond local discouragement or discomfort to being comfortable using these essays in talks and in class?” I can’t speak for others, but in my ward this is a definite no. It seems to be very dependent on how lenient leadership is, how willing teachers are to push the envelope, and how tolerant ward members are to alternate interpretations of history.
I’m still running across people who haven’t heard of the Gospel Topics Essays. I’m even more surprised when I meet members who have read “Saints” (and are disappointed in it’s surface level treatment) but have no idea the Church History Topics exist.
The Church has recently revamped the Gospel Topics section, and there was even a Church News article encouraging people to use it: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/church-updating-gospel-topics-a-rich-resource-for-talks-lessons-and-personal-study?lang=eng
Maybe it’ll help?
The Topics section (that has both the Essays as well as Church history topics including Masonry, etc) is literally on the home screen of the Gospel Library app.
Right on the main screen 2 taps away and 2 ways to get there, as you can also click “Church History.”
No exactly buried.
I’m glad Mary Ann called out that it wasn’t as accessible in the app in her Feb 2019 article, because they seem to have taken her feedback
The Gospel Essays are almost never used in my ward. In a ward council meeting our bishop said that he won’t read them, even though they are published by the church, because he knows they will plant seeds of doubt. That’s a point of view I don’t understand but which I believe is fairly common.
The seminary system in my experience leaves almost no room for nuance. I had three kids go through early morning seminary and the lessons, by my kids accounts, promoted simple views of doctrine and history. One teacher flat out taught that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy, and this was only 5 or 6 years ago.
I haven’t heard many General Authorities refer to the essays much, although admittedly I don’t listen to General Conference much.
The Book of Mormon proclaims itself to be a true historical document. Personally, I think we’ve run out of “nuance” room on the BofM. All throughout my life, I was repeatedly told that the BofM is the keystone holding up the arch that is the Church. I’m taking the Church’s leaders on this at their word: the arch is gone. And no amount of pretending some kind of nuanced understanding of the BofM is going to put Humpty Dumpty back together.
I find it very interesting that the first comment by “p” got two downrates. For just asking what seems to be a very fair question?
re: “keystone” — every metaphor/analogy fails at some point. Their authors do not always articulate where they fail. The BoM as “keystone of our religion” might be looked at in the larger context of which the phrase was a part. That context gives some a hint that the metaphor was always problematic. It is also, if taken to its logical extreme, inconsistent with other JS’ teachings about what some might call the heart or lynchpin (also metaphors) of our religion. Perhaps the concept of the possibility of revelation/inspiration from God to man is really at the root (another metaphor) of the whole thing. Perhaps it is this, from JS:
““The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it”.
“keystone’ is bound to come up in SS tomorrow. I wonder if I can find a way to raise the problem of a failing metaphor.
All metaphors fail, because they are not the thing itself. That does not mean that the thing has failed.
I think the thought of the Book of Mormon as the keystone of our religion is apt and fitting, when it is considered in its original context and for its original purpose. It may not be apt in all other circumstances or for all other purposes. To me, the thought still has validity and value, but it should not be dogmatized — that is where error creeps in.
We also don’t want to dogmatize the essays. They are there as a resource for anyone who might find them helpful.
About historicity of the Book of Mormon: it has been distressing to me that we seem to emphasize *whether* the Book of Mormon is true rather than emphasizing so many of the concepts it actually teaches.
I’m not sure when the last time was that I heard King Benjamin’s speech discussed in depth in church (beyond a once-in-four-years gospel doctrine class discussion. Mosiah has some beautiful, insightful, and inspiring passages, whatever their origen may be.
We don’t talk enough about bearing one another’s burdens, recognizing that all are alike unto God, that the air we breathe is a gift from God which puts us in debt (hence none of us can feel superior to others), recognition that opportunities for learning are not equal.
Sometimes I wonder if those who believe most ardently in the historicity of the book are least likely to actually work to incorporate these ideas into their worldviews.
I feel more comfortable participating in gospel discussions if this is where our emphasis lies. If we discuss ethics, integrity (so unfortunate to see that word removed from the YW theme, as well as ‘individual worth’ –those would have made good foundations for the new YM theme), issues surrounding honesty, the worth of souls, and allow new viewpoints into the discussion.
And we *should* discuss historicity of the Book of Mormon and other scriptures at church. It can require some shifts in our thinking, but in the end we are stronger people if we base our teachings on truth and the pursuit of truth. And it will leave fewer of our young members experiencing feelings of betrayal as they discover issues within scriptural texts. Free inquiry is how we progress as people. Building our faith on things which in the end fail puts us in the category of the foolish man who built his house on sand. We have solid and good rocks upon which we can build our foundation–can we do it?
This entire idea also applies to so many of the beautiful teachings in the Bible that have stood the test of time. Instead of fretting over whether the flood was actually global, we can spend time discussing the Sermon on the Mount. We can look at the amazing scriptures in the Old Testament that discuss our obligations to one another. If we abandon the need to hold on to a literal interpretation we can study the enduring teachings without feeling a need to understand or justify some of the truly disturbing parts of the OT (slavery, genocide, for starters). If we abandon literal belief the truth really does set us free and we become deeper, more ethical people.
*origin
Toad,
Regarding seminary, I could not disagree more. I teach at a public high school in Utah. While I struggled with seminary instructors in the past, I was pleased over the last few years to find that our high students have discussed the 6-4 BCE date of Christ’s birth, that the Church has no official stance on Darwinian evolution, that the church is officially politically neutral, that women are encouraged to pursue as much education as possible, Joseph Smith’s method of translation, that the study of world religions is encouraged, etc. When I met with the seminary principal about a year ago, he bragged about how four members of his faculty possessed advanced degrees in world religions, history and ancient languages. The current seminary program is much better than it was even ten years ago.
To answer the three questions, no, no, and nothing. The reason behind the Gospel Topics Essays is that it allows the church to put to rest criticism that the church is hiding damning information about its past by including these essays on its website amid a significant amount of other content. The hope is to blunt critics who might try to dissuade believers from church activity by saying, “did you know such and such.” The hope is for leaders to be able to say to questioning members that church is open about the issue and that they’re just not getting the full story. The main purpose, however, isn’t actually to inform the membership about these controversial issues. The leaders never feature these issues in conference talks, church lesson manuals, or other literature where members typically look to inform themselves about Mormonism and spirituality within the Mormon context.
No.
No.
Nothing.
My experience is that most people are attending church for the spiritual affirmations and being part of a tribe.
There isn’t an emphasis on real deep learning and knowledge. Just trying to feel good and love each other and support the ward family.
The essays didn’t really speak to people and what they were going to church for.
From the “Come, Follow Me” study guide: “At topics.lds.org you can … also find Gospel Topics Essays, which offer in-depth answers to gospel questions.” Hardly “featured”, but clearly pointed to with approval by the manual.
I have never heard the essays mentioned in church.
Back when Sunday school was covering church history and Doctrine and Covenants there were a few Sunday school lessons where the online version of the lesson had been updated to include references to the essays in the extra material section at the end. I was sensitive to this at the time, watching for teachers to see if they covered that material, and it was never once covered.
(For the last couple of years I have not been reading the lessons, so I don’t know if the online lesson material has any references to the essays.)
Contrast my current Utah ward with my former California ward. When Rough Stone Rolling was published I was living in a ward in California that was full of people with Ph. D’s and graduate students. It seemed like everyone there was reading RSR as soon as it came out. The essays had not been written yet, but much of the material that would be eventually covered by the essays was frequently discussed in this ward before the essays were ever written. I was a very traditional believer at the time and a lot of it sounded heretical to me.
I’ve never heard the essays discussed at church, except once when I brought one of them up myself, and except when Elder Snow visited for stake conference and briefly mentioned them.
My bishop encouraged the Elders Quorum and High Priests Group (yeah, a while ago) to use them. They didn’t.
My experience is similar to Tim’s – the only times I’ve heard the essays mentioned is when I’ve brought them up.
I asked the EQ pres once if I could give a lesson on the Race and the Priesthood essay. He said yes. We watched some of the videos and read most of the essay, focusing on the conclusions. My emphasis was on Christ inviting all to the table and on our obligation to make a place for everyone at the table.
I got a tremendous amount of pushback and efforts to downplay and excuse leadership’s role. I wasn’t being confrontational or provocative – just reading the essay and asking questions.
Some brought up their favorite theories – which I pointed out, again, we specifically “disavowed” – a strong word – and other attitudes that were “condemned”. The feeling I got from about half of the quorum was that they were perfectly comfortable with their views and feelings that were specifically addressed in the essay as being wrong and inappropriate.
I see the youth are much more open.
My youngest daughter is black and was frequently taught the old stories in YW and SS. It’s not enough to say she pushed back – she kicked back , in the face. Finally between racist and LGBT+ phobic remarks, she quit going at age 14.
If the church made the essays an official subject of study – one a month? – maybe we could make some progress in these areas. Not really hopeful they will. I heard Elder Snow (church historian during the essay time) say that they were not more heavily promoted because there was worry that people would leave and testimonies would be weakened.
I was blacklisted nearly 2 years ago for teaching the 11 year old Primary class about JS’ polygamy and specifically the ways that it contributed to his death. Haven’t held a calling since then. *shrug*
@p 1:04 pm
That’s a question that sits in the minds of many people I think. As an answer to the question “(What if) none of it actually happened?” I gravitate towards the Southpark answer. (Note: Some adult language in the clip.)
I recognize that this approach brings a lot more questions regarding efficacy of belief systems in improving behavior, as well as questioning why there is a need OF a religious or similar belief system to improve human behavior. However, if a system of believe can empirically help someone regularly be introspective regarding both self-improvement and the way they treat others, I support it.
Thomas Sowell (another controversial figure) once said: “There are no solutions. Only tradeoffs.” Notwithstanding my desire for perfect answers and solutions, I recognize the need to engage with the tradeoffs and consequences of life.
@ Mary Ann and jpv and anyone else:
Do you think the increased accessibility will help improve use? I still am concerned that like Toad’s comment, most people won’t even read them because they know “they will plant seeds of doubt.”
While some may venerate and encourage this type of “innocent/naive faith” – I don’t find that to be faith at all. Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote: ‘It is not as a child that I believe and confess Jesus Christ. My hosanna is born of a furnace of doubt.’ I find that basing a testimony on a level that finds the Gospel Topics Essays to be instruments of doubt to be an easy way to eventual disappointment and disbelief. Comforting in the short run, but ultimately not sustainable.
@ Toad and Camus:
I wonder if part of the vastly different seminary experiences may also be the fact that while some seminary teachers work for the church, many others are simply individuals called to the position. Whatever they believe they essentially teach. Additionally, CES in general and the Seminary Dep specifically have regularly lagged behind in still teaching and promoting things that the church doesn’t believe. Just a few years ago in a university level institute class in suburban SLC, the full time institute director was teaching that the church did not believe that the gay was biologic in origin.
Probably a ton of disparate experiences based on location or teacher.
@Math Nerd 6:51pm
I’ve always resonated with your approach – particularly considering the complexity of the Bible as a source of information. By staking our belief on the requirement of a global flood, (or many other specific tenets – Elder McConkie and Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith were often examples of this dogmatism) we overlook actual lessons within the scriptures.
@ Rockwell 7:18 am @Heber13 1:57am
I’ve noticed that too – when I’ve been in wards that were very close to a large university, the class conversations often included additional sources and ideas from Dr. Bushman and the Givens, etc – many of the same historical sources within the essays. Although, after I moved away, a new bishop was called and significantly changed that. Like Mary Ann stated, it was highly dependent on the leniency of the leadership and the willingness of teachers and ward members to engage with sticky history, rather than spiritual affirmations, as Heber13 mentioned. And while I can appreciate an encouragement to love each other and a desire for faith, the ideal seems to me to be love, warts and all. Faith, sticky history and theology and all. I hope that’s a direction we are heading towards.
Yes, there is progress as a consequence of the institution’s affirmation that such topics are not heretical—it is officially “okay” to discuss controversy. The culture, however, follows slowly, generation by generation, so I don’t expect Gospel Topics Essays to be used until families familiarize their children with the subjects.
No, I don’t think it is the responsibility of seminary teachers to teach Gospel Topics Essays. Seminary is, however, a great place to introduce Gospel Topics Essays as a response to controversial topics.
Yes, local ward leadership is aware of the Gospel Topics Essays, but I haven’t heard references in group settings. I don’t think Sunday Church is the place to discuss controversy: the focus is on healing and rejoicing and rest.
Anything controversial is trivial compared to the healing work of atonement that Sunday revisits; the content of essays in general distracts from the simplicity of sacrament, sabbath, and baptism.
@BeenThere
I really like your idea of having the essays an official subject of study, once a month. Repetition is a key to learning and memory, particularly when disavowed favorite theories still seem to be entrenched. Considering the decades of those entrenched theories being talked about from general conference to local wards and published in magazines and books vs the short time and relative lack of exposure of the Gospel Topics Essays, it’s no wonder those old ideas still thrive. I think your solution is probably the best – regular review of the topics within the essays, although Elder Snow’s comment is disheartening. If these truths as published by the Church are enough to drive people away from the faith and weaken testimonies, what does that say about this faith?
@ Travis 4:34 pm
While I know that is the thought process of many people, avoiding controversy at Sunday School (or even seminary) is a sure way to disappointment and disbelief. Ally Isom from Church Public Affairs with official approval in 2014, stated that Sunday School and Relief Society and Priesthood are the exact times to discuss faith struggles, doubts, and the contexts of scripture and sticky history. (Radio West, June 27, 2014) Unless we are presented with these contexts in a faithful setting, we will be presented with them outside of one. Which one do you think is the better way to preserve faith?
@Camus and JD. I wish my experiences were more like that of Camus. My stake is an early morning seminary stake which in practice means that must call teachers whose professions and families allow them to teach seminary 6-7 am. About half of our seminary teachers have college degrees. All are women (not a bad thing) and almost all are empty nesters. The stake tries to staff seminary with quality teachers but the reality is that for many areas there isn’t enough membership depth to have quality people who aren’t already in YM, YW, RS, bishopric callings, etc, AND who are able to be at church 5:45 – 7 am all weekdays.
@Travis I don’t care a whole lot one way or the other whether we are teaching gospel topics essays in Sunday School. I prefer lessons that focus on living gospel principles than doctrine and even history.
That said, I think it’s a problem when teachers teach content that has been disavowed in the essays or is just plain not accurate.. Fine if you don’t want to talk a bunch about Joseph Smith practicing polygamy. But don’t teach that he did not, etc. But that’s really just an overarching principle of don’t teach lies whether or not it’s in a gospel topics essay.
I don’t think most teachers teach lies intentionally but a lot might be inadvertently and then we set our kids up for a lot of disillusionment.
Elisa brings up a valid point, most teachers do not teach things that have been disavowed, definitely not it they know it had it has been disavowed.
But most classes are taught conversationally. Moreso the adult than the youth classes. A lot of weird folk doctrine can be brought up by the class members, and teachers are not always able to reign it in.
I don’t really have an answer for how it should be handled, but I think we should recognize that the problem is not just with teachers and leaders. If teachers can’t (or won’t) bring up the race and priesthood essay, for example, I don’t know if they have a way to counter some of the old teachings about race that have been disavowed.
@JD 4:53, my thought is that an institute-style class setting is more appropriate for controversy than Sunday church. Faith crisis isn’t a point of controversy—discussing faith crisis is different from discussion possible triggers to faith crisis. These waters muddy where beliefs enter. For example, some people believe a prophet can’t be a scoundrel; others believe a prophet can’t be scandalous; and for those who believe a prophet can be both a scoundrel and scandalous, there is an impasse.
@Elisa 6:01, agreed. Teachers who sugar-coat history are softening people’s shells. Self-serving-warm-fuzzy placebo topics are as addictive as drugs, and intellectual dishonesty have pervaded the institution for too long.
JD referred to Thomas Sowell and his statement that there are no solutions, only trade offs. Henry Kissinger made a related comment that any solution to a problem carries in it the seeds of a future problem. These are very pessimistic views of human nature, but, in my opinion, warranted.
So for years the Church, whether from specific Church leaders’s statements, or a broader us-versus-them mentality among the larger membership, discouraged open discussion about difficult issues—honest admission of shortcomings was viewed as giving the Enemy an opening against the Church. The BKP types were more worried about a 73-year-old widow having her testimony rattled by unpleasant and previously-unknown facts, and having to confront the fact that the Church and its leaders are not perfect, than they were worried about people leaving because they could not square difficult history with the truth claims of the Church.
That is beginning to change. I believe that the Church is trying (not always successfully) to be more open — hence the Gospel Topics Essays and the questions posed by JD. The Church leadership has become aware that young people leaving the Church in droves (a fact explicitly acknowledged by Marlin K. Jensen when he was Church Historian) is more of a problem than upsetting older Church members who are anxious to insist that only Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy testimonies are valid.
The problem for the Church in my view is that people like me, who want honest give-and-take about problematic issues, suffocate in an atmosphere that pushes the view that everything in the Church is perfect. But a lot of our membership NEED that affirmation, and my type IS a threat to them.
So the Church is going to lose people, whether it stays closed-minded or whether it opens up. The Church seems to be belatedly coming around to the idea that openness is better, but it is very hard for people and leaders, who have been nurtured on ideas of immaculate revelation and leaders who never make mistakes, to do this. People like me, and many of the people who comment on Wheat and Tares, those who want a more open and tolerant atmosphere, ARE a threat to their worldview and church view.
FWIW, I moved from Maryland to Utah more than two years ago. From an extremely conservative and rigid ward and stake to a much more sophisticated and tolerant atmosphere. Whatever you might want to say negative about Utah — and it CAN be said — I think that living in Utah means that one cannot help but be aware of Church-related problems. My Utah Bishop and S.P. are fortunately both tolerant and humane men, and there is generally a mature and nuanced view of Church-related difficulties in my ward.
But how do I deal with an older sister who pipes up in Gospel Doctrine class and says that she believes that Church members born and raised in the U.S. were more righteous in the pre-existence? (Take that, Dieter Uchtdorf and Ulisses Soares!) Answer: count under my breath to 1,000 and then make a (hopefully gentle) remark that God loves all His children equally.
Gotta love it!
“Yes, local ward leadership is aware of the Gospel Topics Essays”
I keep reading story after story about local leaders knowing nothing of the essays. I also keep reading story after story of local leaders who experience faith crises as a result of reading the essays, some even leaving the church altogether.
The Gospel Topics Essays and the new Saints volumes are moves in the right direction, but won’t work for a lot of members because the truth is most members don’t read much. Change to the culture and doctrine, change to the way mainstream members understand this stuff and think about this stuff, will come only when manuals/lessons change and when the content of General Conference talks change. Because members to go classes and listen to Conference.
Local leaders don’t write manuals and generally don’t attend or supervise classes. So they really don’t have much impact on local teachings. Except maybe to on occasion shut down a progressive teacher that is trying to teach a very conservative group. That might be frustrating to the individual teacher, but it’s just a drop in the bucket in the big picture.
JD, “Do you think the increased accessibility will help improve use? I still am concerned that like Toad’s comment, most people won’t even read them because they know ‘they will plant seeds of doubt.'” – yes, I think improved accessibility will improve use. I was very heartened yesterday in Sunday School. In discussing approaches to studying the Book of Mormon, one man who is known for somewhat tangential comments asked, “Why don’t we talk about Book of Mormon geography?” An older lady (who recently served a senior mission in Guatemala) lightheartedly piped up that it took place in Guatemala, and the class laughed. But it gave me an opportunity to plug the Gospel Topics entry on “Book of Mormon Geography.” I also pointed out that the “Topics” section in the Gospel Library app had lots of great resources. One lady after class asked me to show her how to get to the “Book of Mormon Geography” entry. I also saw someone else reading the “Book of Mormon and DNA” Gospel Topics Essay after church.
At the very least we should not be teaching anything at church that is either demonstrably untrue or is clearly misleading.
An example would be the fairly recent Brigham Young manual which listed only one wife in the biographical information in the manual.
A seminary student told me about a lesson where, in an effort to be transparent, the teacher told them that Joseph Smith had a plural wife who was only 16. I noted that he had actually married a 14-year-old girl and that it was in the essay on the church website.
It’s this kind of half-truth that leaves our young members feeling deceived.
I can handle unsavory parts of church history if 1) they are presented truthfully and honestly, and 2) if I’m allowed to view them as mistakes of humans, not something I must accept as being approved of by God.
@BeenThere – I taught a fairly comprehensive lesson on the ban to a youth Sunday School class. (At the request of the class members.) I primarily cited to church sources, including the Gospel Topics essays. Got very hard pushback from bishop–didn’t get released but was asked to “stick to the manual” from then on.
To See or Not to See, that is the question.
Blue pill or red pill. Which one really provides “truth”? Which one really provides “peace”?
I think Taiwan Missionary hit the nail on the head.
I strongly feel that unavoidably, members of the church will have to either engage with these issues in church or outside of church. Which method do you think is the best way to maintain a degree of faith? A vast majority of members don’t attend institute. A vast majority of members won’t read individually – even the basic lesson manuals. When presented in a faith promoting environment like seminary, these issues can be appropriately approached and discussed, as opposed to students being blindsided by the comments from friends in high school. And they WILL be approached by friends and others in high school. Same thing in Sunday School, although earlier (with a degree of repetition) is better.
Like Taiwan Missionary said, my approach is likely threatening to those at church that simply need affirmation, and only affirmation. Oddly enough I agree with Elisa – I enjoy lessons that focus on practical applications of living gospel principles . I just feel that these lessons need to go hand in hand with lessons on Gospel Topics Essays. Because of that, I’ll probably never agree with Travis on this. I’ve seen too many of my childhood and adult friends be blindsided. Afterwards, they understandably realize that there are plenty of other churches to attend with affirmations and practical applications of gospel principles- if they attend another church at all.
What’s the bridge over this divide?
Math Nerd: “At the very least we should not be teaching anything at church that is either demonstrably untrue or is clearly misleading.”
So just how many pages of the “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” gets thrown out the window in order to meet that requirement?
Mark N:
Possibly a lot. In the end I seek truth. The value of truth is worth the cost of seeking it. I don’t think we should build our foundations on sand (That’s a good biblical concept that’s worth teaching. There’s the rub–there really are some great concepts that can be worth retaining. I suspect there are ways to do so that allow us to maintain our integrity, but it will require a straightforward and humble approach that is not easy to achieve.).
Can we look toward other faith traditions that have dealt with issues that have surfaced as a result of biblical scholarship? I like to think there is some gold that is worth salvaging, but to preserve it we will have to engage fearlessly in open and honest discussions. If we can accomplish this, we can be a force for good in the world.
On Radio West, Doug Fabrizio recently interviewed the scholar Karen Armstrong who claims that biblical stories were never meant to be read literally. It’s an interview worth listening to. It’s a place to start. https://radiowest.kuer.org/post/karen-armstrong-and-lost-art-scripture
Math Nerd: I hope Karen Armstrong, who is a highly-noted scholar, didn’t claim that her idea was original. An allegorical interpretation of scripture from a Christian point-of-view goes back at least to the establishment of the Alexandrian (Greek) school around 180 c.e. and shows up strongly in the writings of Origen and Clement of Alexandria.
@JD I think you’re right that we need to be aware of and teach these issues to prevent people from being blindsided later and I like your suggestion of combining gospel topics information with practical living.
For example, what I wouldn’t want to see are doctrinal or historical debates about whether or not polygamy or the priesthood ban or whatever else was commanded by God or what reasons there may have been, which is how I think the discussions would likely go without deft handling by the teacher. If I were teaching I would acknowledge the issue, acknowledge the potential messiness/difficulty with it, acknowledge there are a likely variety of views on the topics in the room, acknowledge that it’s ok to think leaders made mistakes, acknowledge that in some cases like the priesthood ban there has been real pain suffered by some people even if you personally have a different view or aren’t bothered by it, and then discuss how we can continue to follow Christ despite questions and create community despite differences of opinion. Those are just my initial thoughts but I certainly think it would be possible to address the topics in a way that focuses on living the gospel rather than debating it and makes space for a variety of views to coexist.
I think specific classes devoted to the essays would be appropriate in seminary or institute, although I think it would be better to sprinkle throughout a course. I think for Sunday school a better approach is probably to make explicitly teachers aware of the materials when they teach relevant topics (like priesthood restoration or D&C 132 or the Book of Abraham, etc). Link to them in the manuals. Of course, I think this is all best addressed within families but recognize that isn’t available or possible for everyone.
Larryco:
“I hope Karen Armstrong, who is a highly-noted scholar, didn’t claim that her idea was original.”
The opposite. I didn’t get that impression at all. I saw her to be addressing a modern rise in fundamentalism and the concern that as we focus on science in our schools and less on literature we don’t develop the tools to understand art and metaphor in the Bible and thus interpret stories literally when they were meant to be seen as art imbued with meaning. (I’m sure I’m not doing her justice.)
Elisa:
I wish I could be in a Sunday school class you taught. I would truly appreciate that approach.
@MathNerd that’s very kind. I’ve both been in and taught lessons like these so I know it’s possible.
@JD 7:34 Jan. 6, I get where you are coming from: I too have comrades whose faith has failed from institutional dishonesty. But I draw the line at the possibility that some person in the congregation might be mourning, healing, or in some sensitive space. So preserving that space is (for me) more important than a Gospel Topic discussion. Maybe the institution should develop institute-like classes for the congregation—it would help alleviate the general ignorance and provide a spot to converse—controversy needs to aired somewhere—any day of the week is reasonable… except the sabbath.
“These are not the days for Christian teachers to hold their peace and risk the faith of one-half of their people by humoring the mistaken views of the other half, through fear of disquieting them.”
— J. Paterson Smyth, How We Got Our Bible: Thoughts for the Present Disquiet (1894).
@Travis 7:11 pm
While I agree that succoring the flock is vital, I had thought that was one of the purposes of Sunday School- study and discussion, more than simple affirmations. I really don’t know anymore though, since Elder Snow’s comments on the lack of promotion of the Gospel Topics Essays. While understandable, they are disheartening to say the least.
Hawkgrrrl today has an excellent article about the Netflix movie “The Two Popes.” The future Pope Francis at one time in the movie states to Pope Benedict: “I no longer wish to be a salesman for a product I no longer endorse!” I really really think a significant portion of the members who leave may feel similarly. I definitely can understand that feeling. Particularly after Pres. Nelson uses rhetorical overstatement, or makes comments on science, or after Pres. Oaks misuses research studies in opposition to the author’s explicit statements. I’m sure many Catholic members that lamented the stances of Pope Benedict have rejoiced over the stated views of Pope Francis.
I don’t know what a good solution would ultimately be though.