I think it must be true that the essential doctrines and principles of the gospel can be understood by someone of an intelligence that would render them barely accountable – for example, a child of 8. Is all of this teaching really just entertainment? How much do we really need to know about faith and repentance? Is seeking for ever more sophisticated understandings of doctrines, ancient scriptures and principles becoming a distraction from the fundamental, simple, clear doctrines of the gospel that can be, and were designed to be, understood by a child?

I feel like the never-ending hours of “instruction” in the 3 hr meeting block and other venues frankly exist not to allow for in-depth study, but rather to give ward members something to do, an opportunity to strengthen community, etc. I would suggest we are in fact fundamentally missing the point by suggesting that the quality of instruction in something like Sunday School should be high. Someone trained and erudite like Ben S can give a meaningful lesson every week for a thousand years, but I can’t – and why should we expect such of our wards? Torah is seriously tough!

I would suggest that this view indicates that perhaps we simply endure too many hours of groop instruction and we might want to find something better to do with our time together.

“If an Elder should give us a lecture upon astronomy, chemistry, or geology, our religion embraces it all. It matters not what the subject be, if it tends to improve the mind, exalt the feelings, and enlarge the capacity.” — Brigham Young

As I see it, this idea relates just as much to molding the past in our own image, or seeing the scriptures of the past mainly as background illustrations to contemporary Mormon living. The scriptures were not written from a North American LDS perspective of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Neither Isaiah nor Nephi viewed life from the same lens as members of, say, a typical Orem ward today. Their societies did not mirror ours in their particulars, and much of what we do and say would strike them as unhinged and bizarre. I get the importance of applying the scriptures to our lives, as scriptures are meant to be lived, but this is where things get tricky. I did not grow up in the USA, the church was present only in miniscule numbers. I am part of a different culture, with different expressions, experiences, concerns, fears, superstitions, and joys. If there is a difference based on geography, then all the more so with cultures many centuries removed from our own. This is what Walker was saying. We need to understand the values the scriptures care about, and when we do so the spirit can teach us with greater clarity how to apply the lessons in our own lives.

Glen, if you are disenchanted with Mormon blogs, why waste your time—and ours—by posting your comments?

I think you’re misreading this post pretty dramatically.

…liberal theory-making and other patent nonsense.

I think this is the first time I’ve ever officially been called “liberal” (see Chris above). You may be interested to know that the fairly conservative FairMormon blog liked this enough to cross-post it: http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/09/07/data-doctrines-doubts-improving-gospel-instruction/

It is shocking to me that Walker Wright actually read this ‘talk’ at a Stake Meeting.

With the approval and compliments of the Stake Presidency.

I hope those who wasted their time at the meeting had enough discernment to pass off the falsehoods that were floated out to them.

Maybe that’s why I’ve gotten numerous requests for copies of the talk: in order to uncover its falsehoods.

First, Wright is “not convinced that typical lessons suffer due to lack of skills or quality methods.”

To the contrary, teaching skill and method are crucial, because they encompass everything a teacher says and does. And bad teaching method can block the Spirit’s presence in the room.

Of course it can, which is why I gave resources (largely Church-produced) to improve teaching methods. But I still don’t think that is ultimately the problem and you haven’t really demonstrated otherwise.

So even Nephi was wrong, short-sighted, ignorant.

What? Pointing out that Nephi and Isaiah occupied a culture that is very foreign and alien to us can hardly be equated with your statement above. My point is that Nephi understands Isaiah because they are from the same culture. Isaiah is a bit harder for us.

The whole purpose of the scriptures is to impart values!

Right: impart values to *us*, not read on to them secular Western values because it is what we know.

He then mocks the practice of using story telling in teaching.

Huh?

Elder Neal A. Maxwell said…

Elder Maxwell also praised the work of Hugh Nibley. There is a reason the Maxwell Institute is named after him.

And Joseph Smith said…

No one is denying the importance of the Spirit or revelation. But you conveniently skipped over my point about Joseph Smith receiving divine translations and revelations and *then* hiring a Jewish schoolmaster to teach him and the School of the Prophets Hebrew. We should judge him not only by what he said, but also by what he did.

Someone on the stand should have turned off his microphone.

Well, they didn’t. Sorry to disappoint you.

It’s my experience that the world provides ample opportunities for folks to disagree with whatever you happen to believe, and so there is no reason to manufacture additional disagreement where none exists. Case in point:

I was dumbstruck by Walker’s wordplay in this incredible statement:
“However, Nephi largely occupied the same pre-exilic culture and background as Isaiah. Many of the same cultural assumptions and biases pervade Nephi’s writings.” So even Nephi was wrong, short-sighted, ignorant. Oh
Brother.

Nothing in Walker’s statement suggests that Isaiah was wrong, or that Isaiah was short-sighted, or that Isaiah was ignorant.

Walker was simply stating that, because Nephi and Isaiah came from basically the same culture, it was easy for Nephi to understand Isaiah.

I understand that “bias” is often used in a negative way, and that might have thrown you off down a false trail, but the reality is that all human cultures have their own assumptions and biases. Some of these are good. Some of these are bad. Some of these are neither. Who cares? Evaluating whether or not Isaiah’s and Nephi’s cultural assumptions were good/bad is so far way from Walker’s point that you could not see it with the Hubble telescope.

It pretty much goes down hill from there, and I’m not going to continue my point-by-point.

It’s my hope that you’ll be willing to consider that maybe, just maybe you’ve substantially misread Walker’s points. If you do so, I think you’ll find that his points are not nearly as objectionable as you fear that they are. I’d absolutely love it if you could go back to the section on Isaiah, reread it without an assumption that Walker is attacking Isaiah (which he flatly is not doing) and then see if the rest of the post makes a bit more sense and seems a bit less threatening to you.

Speaking as a high school teacher of Arts, Religious Education and Philosophy who has been a Gospel Doctrine teacher I suggest there can be a win win scenario – those who have the time and inclination to do the wider reading can simply bring what they have learned into the lessons and discussions – summarise for everyone the context and the key points that are helpful and relevant from what they have studied either informally during discussions or formally as part of the lesson supporting the teacher. I try to do this as often as seems relevant and helpful. We ingrain a considerable amount of knowledge and curiosity about things relevant to the scriptures we study in the core curriculum of the Church, so I think the average member can handle it. They can then investigate the sources used further for themselves if they want to.

My career is all about introducing young people to big and complex ideas and their social and historical context for the first time. They can understand and assimilate the main points from the extracts and summaries we give them without having to read entire academic tomes for themselves, and make quite a lot of progress in their understanding. I am therefore confident that same approach can work just as well with adults at Church who need introducing to and engaging with more sophisticated bread and meat. I expect most people can be persuaded to be willing students of those kinds of deeper insights and perspectives if they are explained in ways they can understand. We can bridge the gulf between the generally not very well informed and the members who are well versed in the torrent of new develpments and information pouring out of Church and wider-world sources if more space is given to them to share what they know without being judged.