I learned in church today

[DU Ute]

Two huge thumbs up here. I hate the doom and gloom and am in no way convinced the world is more evil now than some other time. I would argue the opposite. Moreover, the concept is little more than a worn-out meme, argued by every generation in one form or another.

I can't believe you guys think this, what with women breaking free from their traditional subservient roles, the media shining a light on Church history and the gays getting married, and all.

[LA Ute]

First, it too often turns into a retrenchment hour. There aren't many things that bug me worse in the Church than this common idea that the world is getting increasingly wicked and we must fight it. This is not just a member thing--this comes all the way from the top. We are in the safest time in the history of mankind. More people have access to education, freedom, clean water, etc than ever before. Fewer teenagers are sexually active than they were 10-20 years ago. I don't get the pessimism. It may not be uniquely Mormon, but we sure are good at it.

This is a very interesting point. I think the tension is between being happy and grateful, on the one hand, while remaining vigilant on the other. We need to do a better job as a people at getting that balance right.

As Mormons (and any religious group that takes the Bible seriously) we are steeped in worry over the wickedness of the world. Teaching Old Testament Seminary this past year has reminded me of all the dire warnings of the ancient prophets, who kept telling Israel and Judah to repent or face disaster. Well, they didn't repent and they suffered disaster, the effects of which have continued throughout history. For Mormons there is that Book of Mormon repentance - prosperity - pride - destruction cycle. It's just everywhere.

But Pres. Monson and others also keep reminding us that we live in the greatest of times (and we do) and that we should be the happiest, most cheerful people on earth. (I'm reminded of a Maxwell talk of some years ago entitled "Be of Good Cheer." It's a classic on this subject.) I think they're totally right.

I tried to tell my Seminary kids, over and over, how great our times are, how special they are as young people living in this time, "their day," as I called it, and how happy we all should be because of what's been revealed to us and because we get to take part in the great events those OT prophets foretold. The kids always seemed to like that. (As teenage Mormons who are usually a tiny minority in their peer group, they love suggestions about how to rationalize their place in their world.)

But I also told them that the "war in heaven," which they studied at the beginning of the year, never really ended, but just moved to earth. We do believe, after all, that there is a miserable, evil being called Satan whose greatest desire is that we be as miserable as he is. I just warn them that just as there are plenty of opportunities for them to be very, very happy, there are just as many opportunities to make themselves miserable, and plenty of people who are prepared to help them take either path.

To borrow from Dickens, it is the best of times and the worst of times. But you're right, too often we obsess about the "worst" part and neglect the "best" part.

I agree with your other post that we don't do a good job of teaching about the academic aspects of religion (or theology, I guess, is more accurate). I feel pretty ignorant about other religions, for example. We could do a lot better at that.

[Northwestcoug]

I completely agree with your second and third points. Those of us who are interested have CUF (or timesandseasons or whatever) to discuss the controversial stuff. Most people aren't all that interested and it's selfish of us (or the instructor) to devote time to it in class. I also agree that the manuals are decent at keeping these discussions centered and not going off on crazy tangents (I'd guess that the "have you ever been persecuted for being a Mormon?" question was NOT in the manual). A good teacher can do something interesting with the manual.

I have two major problems with GD, at least as it's commonly done. First, it too often turns into a retrenchment hour. There aren't many things that bug me worse in the Church than this common idea that the world is getting increasingly wicked and we must fight it. This is not just a member thing--this comes all the way from the top. We are in the safest time in the history of mankind. More people have access to education, freedom, clean water, etc than ever before. Fewer teenagers are sexually active than they were 10-20 years ago. I don't get the pessimism. It may not be uniquely Mormon, but we sure are good at it.

Second, I hate the straw men that are continually put forth and beat down. All it does is belittle and isolate people who have doubts. And it makes me want to argue. Again, this stuff is probably not found in the manual.

Get rid of these two things and GD is a much more pleasant experience for me.

I guess I agree. I don't think Sunday school should be a place where faith is challenged or destroyed. If you're going to make the effort to come, you should be rewarded. And I wouldn't trust your neighborhood GD teacher to give the controversial topics a fair shake.

But there is no official outlet for members to learn or understand the thornier issues. If the church wants to put as much a positive spin on the controversies as possible, what better place to start in the manuals? I don't think ignoring it isn't going to work much longer (and yes, they are being ignored if the church is letting someone else talk about it, and not doing it officially).

[wuapinmon]

I'm taking this with me to Costa Rica next week:

[FMCoug]

I guess I agree. I don't think Sunday school should be a place where faith is challenged or destroyed. If you're going to make the effort to come, you should be rewarded. And I wouldn't trust your neighborhood GD teacher to give the controversial topics a fair shake.

But there is no official outlet for members to learn or understand the thornier issues. If the church wants to put as much a positive spin on the controversies as possible, what better place to start in the manuals? I don't think ignoring it isn't going to work much longer (and yes, they are being ignored if the church is letting someone else talk about it, and not doing it officially).

I agree with all of the above. One thing that would be great is if you saw more books from the between the lines approved channels (i.e. GA authors, sold at and promoted by Deseret Book, etc.) that addressed some of the issues.

That would be a great first step I think.

[UtahDan]

I agree with all of the above. One thing that would be great is if you saw more books from the between the lines approved channels (i.e. GA authors, sold at and promoted by Deseret Book, etc.) that addressed some of the issues.

That would be a great first step I think.

What do you infer from the fact that there aren't?

[TripletDaddy]

I agree with all of the above. One thing that would be great is if you saw more books from the between the lines approved channels (i.e. GA authors, sold at and promoted by Deseret Book, etc.) that addressed some of the issues.

That would be a great first step I think.

The Church already tried that. We ended up with the Doctrines of Salvation/MoDoc era of GA speculation that eventually became de facto doctrine.

I don't think the Breth will touch fringe doctrine with a ten foot pole anymore. It just isn't critical to the main mission of the Church.

Just my opinion, of course, but my guess is that if current leadership could wave a magic wand and make everyone forget about the specific speculations on minutiae from decades past, they would do so in a heartbeat. How much collective time and energy has the Church and its members spent/w.a.s.t.e.d trying to explain early Church musings like Adam/God, skin color, or men on the moon? Now weigh that cost against the collective benefit (if any) we as a Church body have enjoyed because we were privileged to be burdened with someone else's speculation on skin color, Adam/God or men on the moon.

Conversely, 100 years from now, I doubt anyone will be embarrassed/troubled to revisit President Hunter's wonderful address about forgiving grudges, President Hinckley's admonition to Stand for Something, or EldNar's challenge to not be so easily offended. These are timeless principles that actually matter in our daily lives...they make us better people for having heard and implemented them. These are the types of pontifications we will continue to receive from general authorities. Long gone and good riddance to the days when good but imperfect men put pen to paper and attempt to authoritatively explain all the vagaries of life and explore every cobwebbed corner of our mortal existence. We tried that, it didn't work, and I don't think the Church will ever look back. And probably for the better.

just my opinion.

[LA Ute]

The Church already tried that. We ended up with the Doctrines of Salvation/MoDoc era of GA speculation that eventually became de facto doctrine.

I don't think the Breth will touch fringe doctrine with a ten foot pole anymore. It just isn't critical to the main mission of the Church.

Just my opinion, of course, but my guess is that if current leadership could wave a magic wand and make everyone forget about the specific speculations on minutiae from decades past, they would do so in a heartbeat. How much collective time and energy has the Church and its members spent/w.a.s.t.e.d trying to explain early Church musings like Adam/God, skin color, or men on the moon? Now weigh that cost against the collective benefit (if any) we as a Church body have enjoyed because we were privileged to be burdened with someone else's speculation on skin color, Adam/God or men on the moon.

Conversely, 100 years from now, I doubt anyone will be embarrassed/troubled to revisit President Hunter's wonderful address about forgiving grudges, President Hinckley's admonition to Stand for Something, or EldNar's challenge to not be so easily offended. These are timeless principles that actually matter in our daily lives...they make us better people for having heard and implemented them. These are the types of pontifications we will continue to receive from general authorities. Long gone and good riddance to the days when good but imperfect men put pen to paper and attempt to authoritatively explain all the vagaries of life and explore every cobwebbed corner of our mortal existence. We tried that, it didn't work, and I don't think the Church will ever look back. And probably for the better.

just my opinion.

I fully agree with this. () Seriously, I think we are maturing as a church. In saying that I don't mean to be critical of or condescending to earlier church leaders, but IMO they were still learning how to bear the responsibility of leading such a significant movement, and I don't think they got an instruction manual on exactly how to do that. Your post describes some of the unfortunate results. It's easy to see how from time to time those "good but imperfect men" may have gotten carried away, resulting in Public Affairs now calling for a distinction between “our central beliefs" and "obscure or irrelevant beliefs.” That speech (by Mike Otterson) had to be approved by the First Presidency.

[Northwestcoug]

The Church already tried that. We ended up with the Doctrines of Salvation/MoDoc era of GA speculation that eventually became de facto doctrine.

I don't think the Breth will touch fringe doctrine with a ten foot pole anymore. It just isn't critical to the main mission of the Church.

Just my opinion, of course, but my guess is that if current leadership could wave a magic wand and make everyone forget about the specific speculations on minutiae from decades past, they would do so in a heartbeat. How much collective time and energy has the Church and its members spent/w.a.s.t.e.d trying to explain early Church musings like Adam/God, skin color, or men on the moon? Now weigh that cost against the collective benefit (if any) we as a Church body have enjoyed because we were privileged to be burdened with someone else's speculation on skin color, Adam/God or men on the moon.

Conversely, 100 years from now, I doubt anyone will be embarrassed/troubled to revisit President Hunter's wonderful address about forgiving grudges, President Hinckley's admonition to Stand for Something, or EldNar's challenge to not be so easily offended. These are timeless principles that actually matter in our daily lives...they make us better people for having heard and implemented them. These are the types of pontifications we will continue to receive from general authorities. Long gone and good riddance to the days when good but imperfect men put pen to paper and attempt to authoritatively explain all the vagaries of life and explore every cobwebbed corner of our mortal existence. We tried that, it didn't work, and I don't think the Church will ever look back. And probably for the better.

just my opinion.

Speculation of doctrine is one thing. I don't necessarily fault leaders trying to rationalize polygamy, racism, God-sanctioned killing, etc. They had faith that these doctrines were God-given, and they tried to explain how it was possible that He could approve of them. It's another thing to have the courage to officially talk about these controversies honestly, and let the member come to his/her conclusion about the correctness of the doctrines.

I think a healthy dose of humility is in order. If the church wants to ignore the controversies, or let an arms-length organization do it's messy work, that's their prerogative. And if they continue to do it, I'm sure the majority of the membership will approve. But don't expect me to be happy about it. I'm an adult. Hell, my 17-year old daughter is almost an adult. There are important issues that clearly aren't going away for a proportion of the membership. Just respect my intelligence. Deal with the issues. Their reluctance to do so becomes spiritual baggage for me, making it harder for me to see the worth of those recent talks you mentioned. To be sure, this is my problem. But I could appreciate our current leaders' advice more if the church were as humble as it expects me to be.

[LA Ute]

I fully agree with this. () Seriously, I think we are maturing as a church. In saying that I don't mean to be critical of or condescending to earlier church leaders, but IMO they were still learning how to bear the responsibility of leading such a significant movement, and I don't think they got an instruction manual on exactly how to do that. Your post describes some of the unfortunate results. It's easy to see how from time to time those "good but imperfect men" may have gotten carried away, resulting in Public Affairs now calling for a distinction between “our central beliefs" and "obscure or irrelevant beliefs.” That speech (by Mike Otterson) had to be approved by the First Presidency.

I think this recent talk by Elder Oaks, to the extent the summary is accurate, is an example of what I'm talking about/hoping for above.

BTW, I love it that all of the 12 now have iPads -- at the direction of President Packer, no less.

[Jacob]

I don't believe the primary goal of Gospel Classes is to educate. I'd say the lessons are more geared to inspire more than anything else.

Then it is failing at both. At least with respect to me.
I'd rather have it be school, and not devotional. I'd be surprised if a majority of active LDS feel differently on that point. Or if they felt that the best way to inspire were to avoid discussion of the actual scriptural texts.

[UtahDan]

I don't think the Breth will touch fringe doctrine with a ten foot pole anymore. It just isn't critical to the main mission of the Church.

I could be wrong but I don't think FM was talking about fringe doctrines when he said thornier issues. I think he is talking about the challenges to very basic things.

[LA Ute]

I don't believe the primary goal of Gospel Classes is to educate. I'd say the lessons are more geared to inspire more than anything else.

I guess in a perfect world it does both. I always learn or re-learn) something in GD class, and if I am paying attention I usually feel inspired. But again, it's 35 minutes in a long week when I can learn and be inspired in many other ways.

[Jacob]

I always learn or re-learn) something in GD class, and if I am paying attention I usually feel inspired.

Always? That reminds me of an apostle/prophet who was quoted as having said that he'd never been in a boring sacrament meeting. I thought he was full of baloney.

[LA Ute]

Always? That reminds me of an apostle/prophet who was quoted as having said that he'd never been in a boring sacrament meeting. I thought he was full of baloney.

I never eat baloney and I've been in plenty of boring sacrament meetings. But I said I learn or re-learn. Maybe "am reminded" is better. When the lesson was on Abinadi's prophecies last week, I was exposed to some insights I hadn't seen before and was reminded of things I already knew-- mainly just from reading the verses. I also went off on my own on some footnotes (iPads make that easier, and I always do it when the lesson is not terribly well-presented). So for me it was worth the time, and almost always is. That's just me. I know it's not the same for everyone.