Seminary--"Let's (15 years late) change!"

[JohnnyL]

The comments made in this article are astounding. It's like, "Since we finally can't keep our children sheltered, let's make them capable." But let's not actually make them capable, let's kind of pretend to make them capable. We were dealing with these serious problems with youth 15 years ago.

I really like this idea: "Lessons can be taught for a few minutes each day in class or grouped together in one class a week — ultimately teachers will decide when the Doctrinal Mastery is incorporated into their classrooms. The lessons include studying from the scriptures and words of the prophets, asking and answering difficult questions, and looking at case studies."
I hope 1) students submit questions ahead of time; 2) resources are provided for the teachers. Unfortunately, I don't think #2 is going to happen, at least not for a while.

I do kind of like this part: "The curriculum will focus on three principles as youth study the doctrine of the gospel — acting in faith, examining concepts and questions with an eternal perspective and seeking further understanding through divinely appointed sources."
I wish they would do better with it, though.

And I don't think the doctrine in the areas they have chosen have ever really been the problem. It seems like they are chasing red herrings (a visit to exmormon.org, etc., will show you that), when it's doctrinal history and church history and principles that are related to them that are the big problem. I really wish they would take the words of President Packer to heart, and GIVE IT TO THEM.

///
"New Doctrinal Mastery program is replacing Scripture Mastery for seminary students
By Marianne Holman Prescott@marianne_holman

Over the course of the next year, seminary instructors around the world will be implementing a new initiative — Doctrinal Mastery — in their classrooms to help the youth of the Church make connections between the doctrine of the gospel and how to apply it in their everyday lives.

Introduced in February by Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles during the annual “Evening with a General Authority” devotional broadcast to seminary and institute personnel, the new seminary initiative is meant to facilitate gospel learning and instruction on a deeper level.

“It was only a generation ago that our young people’s access to information about our history, doctrine and practices was basically limited to materials printed by the Church,” Elder Ballard said in that address. “Few students came in contact with alternative interpretations. Mostly, our young people lived a sheltered life.”

Recognizing the curriculum at the time — though well-meaning — does not prepare students for the climate they are living in today, Elder Ballard spoke of the great need for youth to feel comfortable asking questions as they are taught the doctrine of the gospel.

“Students have instant access to virtually everything about the Church from every possible point of view,” Elder Ballard said. “Today what they see on their mobile devices is likely to be faith-challenging as much as faith-promoting.”

In an effort to help students be informed, educated and spiritually taught about the doctrine and history of the Church, the new Doctrinal Mastery has been added to the seminary curriculum.

“These young people are immersed in a digital world where they are literally bombarded every day with voices and messages from the world,” said Elder Kim B. Clark, General Authority Seventy and Commissioner of Education for the Church. “Many of those voices and messages raise questions and issues of the day directly related to what we believe.”

The new Doctrinal Mastery program will provide opportunities during seminary classes for students to study, ask questions and teach one another. It will be geared toward learning how to apply doctrinal understanding to real-life situations.

“Think about what it is we are preparing them to become,” said Elder Clark. “We want them to be prepared to enter the temple of the Lord and make sacred covenants with Him and really understand what it means.”

What is Doctrinal Mastery?

The foundation for the new Doctrinal Mastery curriculum comes from ten doctrinal points — nine of which are from the youth curriculum, “Come, Follow Me.” The first point, “acquire spiritual knowledge,” focuses on the Lord’s pattern for learning truth.

“Teaching youth the Lord’s patterns for acquiring spiritual knowledge is an effort to help them better understand how to study the scriptures and words of prophets and to pray and act in faith, and to then live the things they are learning,” said Chad H Webb, Administrator of Seminaries and Institutes of Religion. “The other part of Doctrinal Mastery is intended to help them to study the doctrine as taught in the scriptures, in ways that will help them to find answers and to be prepared to respond to doctrinal, historical and social questions.”

The other nine doctrinal points include the Godhead, the plan of salvation, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, the Restoration, prophets, priesthood and priesthood keys, ordinances and covenants, marriage and family, and commandments.

The curriculum will focus on three principles as youth study the doctrine of the gospel — acting in faith, examining concepts and questions with an eternal perspective and seeking further understanding through divinely appointed sources.

“What this isn’t is a hundred answers to a hundred questions,” said Brother Webb. “This is more about how do you think about information and how do you turn to trustworthy sources, and how do you frame questions in a gospel premise instead of the world’s premise.”

The new Doctrinal Mastery will replace Scripture Mastery — where students memorize specific scriptures throughout the standard works — and will still coordinate with the book of scripture students are studying that year.

“That means Doctrinal Mastery becomes topical, not sequential,” said Elder Clark. “We figured out a way to get the scriptures in there so you still have 25 scriptures that are part of Doctrinal Mastery, but the focus is really on topics — doctrinal topics.”

Lessons can be taught for a few minutes each day in class or grouped together in one class a week — ultimately teachers will decide when the Doctrinal Mastery is incorporated into their classrooms. The lessons include studying from the scriptures and words of the prophets, asking and answering difficult questions, and looking at case studies.

“It’s the same effort as Scripture Mastery, but we think it will be more helpful and more relevant,” Brother Webb said. “We will still study all of the standard works. It is not taking the place of our lessons, but it will take the place of Scripture Mastery and will add a dimension where students will now do more to understand how the doctrine applies to their questions and how these gospel principles apply to their own circumstances.”

Asking and answering questions

In his address Elder Ballard said, “More than any time in our history, your students also need to be blessed by learning doctrinal or historical content and context by study and faith accompanied by pure testimony so they can experience a mature and lasting conversion to the gospel and a lifelong commitment to Jesus Christ.”

For the youth of the Church today, asking questions and being asked questions is not unusual. It is the hope, said Brother Webb, that students bring their questions to class and instructors teach students in “a setting of faith with someone they can trust instead of thinking, ‘Well, nobody wants to answer my question so I’ll go look on the internet.’ ”

“[Students] are being asked these questions by their peers and they are seeing them all the time — daily, hourly on social media — so those questions have become part of their lives,” Elder Clark said. “This is something they are getting every single day and so we felt strongly that we needed to create seminary as a place questions were not only welcome, but embraced. We engage questions, and then we learn how to work with our students to address their questions in a way that not only helps them find answers, if there are answers, but helps them learn a process that equips them as individuals to be spiritually self-reliant.”

For seminary teachers, questions often invite the Spirit and provide a powerful teaching opportunity.

“If teachers have confidence that they can do it in a way that is helpful and doctrinally sound they will be more likely to be willing to have those conversations than if they are uncomfortable because they are unsure how to respond,” said Brother Webb. “Hopefully, this is going to give our teachers more confidence to invite these kinds of questions.”

Training for teachers begins with the annual training broadcast for instructors held on June 14. Additional training will take place in areas around the world over the next few months in preparation for the new school year."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... dents.html

[Robin Hood]

Personally, I've never been a big fan of seminary, especially not the early morning version.

[oneClimbs]

I've thought a lot about this and I don't have any conclusive answers as of yet per se, but here are some of my thoughts. I'm 37 years old and I have dug through countless documents on virtually every subject related to church history and there are still more questions than answers, although I think that the answers I have found are of value.

The thing is that out of all that information, none of it has brought me closer to God. None of it has had any positive effect on how I treat people, how I view the world, or what I understand about God. This morning I was listening to the first part of Mosiah and what stuck out to me was the transition from Zeniff to King Noah to Alma. King Noah was a blemish upon the history of the people with his many wives, pride, taxation, and wickedness, leading the people astray. King Noah dismissed all of the good priests and appointed his own wicked ones and Alma was one of them, he came out of that corrupt system almost like Moses came out of the Pharaoh's household. Indeed, Noah exhibits many characteristics similar to Pharaoh in his stubbornness and being influenced by his associates to reject Abinadi's words.

The history is important, and with Noah it was clear. Our history is not so clear, and even a deep dive into it doesn't necessarily make it clearer, it only seems to muddy up the waters even more. Originally, I thought our participation in what we called "plural marriage" was legitimate. The more I studied the history and especially the Book of Mormon, the more I see it as a wicked and evil thing. I don't know for sure though about whether Joesph actually practiced it or whether it was attributed to him. One of his journal entries has been modified from him speaking against it to him speaking for it. If that was changed, then what else was? There are no explanations. I have multiple theories about what happened and while I lean toward one or the other, until I know for sure, I don't try to discount the "official story" because there are I think legitimate grounds where it could have been kosher given certain things. It seems more and more like a stretch, but it appears possible.

I think there is a great danger in being distracted by trying to make sense of history at the expense of actually living the gospel. I've tried to do both in my life and I feel like I have walked this great circle back to where I started. I've satisfied the intellectual side of my mind but it hasn't filled me with anything. I'm only filled when I am forgiving, serving, sacrificing, and doing good to my fellow man.

The doctrine and principles of the gospel far exceed in value what we call history. History is all myth, while certain events like an earthquake, a movement of people from one location to another, etc. can all be verified and may indeed be true, to look at individuals actions and try to ascertain what they thought about the things they wrote or said, what they actually meant in the grand context is a nearly impossible task.

There you are in the realm of pure speculation. When your history is based on eyewitness accounts, that may seem valid, but what people think they saw doesn't always equate to what was real. Why would people lie? When they have a good reason to. The official story is that our people DID lie, many times and over the course of years, in fact Joseph was lying the whole time he was preaching against plural marriage, that is the official point of view! So when can you trust that they are telling the truth? It's hard, perhaps impossible.

But doctrine and principles, they can be established with patterns. The Spirit can illuminate truth and for all the machinations and deeds of men, in the end, all that matters are the doctrines and principles because correct ones will lead a man to God and when a man knows God, and is redeemed and obtains his mind in all things, then all history, scripture, deeds, efforts, have served their purpose.

So what should be taught in seminary? What is more important, the history or the relationship with God? I think the latter is far more significant because when, and it will be a when, the student is able to navigate that history on their own one day, they will do it with a knowledge of God and with the ability to reach out to him for help and support.

If they spend all their time rehashing the deeds of men and trying to intellectually interpret their intentions with little emphasis on personal knowledge of doctrines and principles, then they will have no foundation and they will fall. When in the scriptures do we see the servants of the Lord obsessing continually over the acts of David and Solomon, or Moses' failings, or Peter, Judas, King Noah, Laman, Corianton, etc. Yes, they are mentioned and the mistakes are condemned but the focus is on the people and their relationships with God.

And even if the evils of the past are not condemned or mentioned, the focus being on a people and their God and their sins today are always paramount. The purpose of studying history should be to discover doctrines and principles, not for the sake of trying to figure out "what really happened" and "what people really thought" because I don't even believe that it is possible.

At the end of today, I want you to think of everything you have done. Even if you keep a journal, how well did it capture every moment? Were you aware of every facial expression and body movement you made while communicating with people? Did you convey with exactness every thought and intention? Do you know that everyone saw you as you actually are? Could you direct a movie of THIS day and show it to everyone that shared it with you to where they would all agree that you captured every moment as everyone else saw it?

No, we all see a different world. You grimacing because of a hidden knee pain from twisting it this morning could be interpreted by a coworker in a conversation to be a poorly concealed displeasure at talking with them. Every little thing you do today could be judged by others with an extremely low accuracy because of their own poor interpretation skills or your own lack of awareness as to how your existence in every moment impacts another.

If we cannot even understand what is happening right now around us, how well are we going to understand events and journal writings of those years, centuries, and millennia ago? We cannot, but we can understand doctrine and principles, we can exercise those things in our own experience and see if our results are similar to those of the past, we can have a living relationship with God.

Anyway sorry for being wordy but there it is.

[captainfearnot]

I like the idea of Seminary, as a way for Mormon kids to get a formal education on the text of the scriptures. I've always been proud that even though Mormons have more scriptures to deal with, we still know our Bibles better than many of our Christian counterparts.

But I guess scriptural knowledge doesn't correlate with activity, and because the end goal of Seminary is not necessarily education but motivation, they keep monkeying with the curriculum. Instead of just teaching the text they are trying to manufacture a daily spiritual experience, with the hope that will keep kids in the church. I don't know whether that approach has produced the desired results or not, I only know that it felt tedious and contrived when I went through it.

[BTH&T]

I do kind of like this part: "The curriculum will focus on three principles as youth study the doctrine of the gospel — acting in faith, examining concepts and questions with an eternal perspective and seeking further understanding through divinely appointed sources."
I wish they would do better with it, though.

And I don't think the doctrine in the areas they have chosen have ever really been the problem. It seems like they are chasing red herrings (a visit to exmormon.org, etc., will show you that), when it's doctrinal history and church history and principles that are related to them that are the big problem. I really wish they would take the words of President Packer to heart, and GIVE IT TO THEM.

Trying to understand what you are thinking the students need.
Are you advocating giving students "anti" views and let them way the pros and cons?

[JohnnyL]

Off the top of my head, some things to consider, in no particular order:

1) I think a very realistic view is good. We are not perfect. The people in the church are not perfect. Our knowledge of doctrine grows as we need, seek, and understand it. Policies change. Directions change.

2) The way con-apologetics generally work (which I have seen over and over); an expansion of Nibley's thoughts on that, with clear examples. How to deal with con-arguments and people.

3) Some apologetic and church responses, while great, might not be the actual correct responses (see #1).

4) The importance of the BoM when our understanding fails (it has a great spirit that I have found supreme in clearing false spirits out of the mind and heart).

5) I can't think of a single investigator who has joined the church without making commitments. I think what seminary found (other thread) is that when people make commitments, things change for the better. Other than reading, there is no homework, no assignments. I find that many of the YW PPP assignments are too complicated. When I taught Gospel Principles, we had assignments every class, and reports every class on the previous assignment. Want the Spirit without contrivance and HolySpeakTM/ SpiritSellTM/ MakeMeCryTM (what's that called, lol?) and being manufactured? There it is, every time. And when things "go wrong", it's a perfect setting to talk about it.

6) A list of pro-LDS online resources, because yes, it IS helpful to know things, or to know that other people, some smarter than us, are aware but ok with not knowing.

7) I've found when teaching the scriptures that it's helpful to see the big along with the little. Want to know what the BoM is about? Grab the children's reader (comic book) version and read it in a few days, at most. Then go back, and in that context, teach the verses. If we learn so much visually, why do we rely so much on lectures?

8) Mix teaching methods. For example, we have two GD teachers who teach very differently; one stays on a verse for a few minutes, the other teaches most of the lesson. Very different styles, and we learn very different things. Show the students there are different ways to study the scriptures, like the teachers show them.

9) Concentrate on principles, and correlated principles. You can talk a lot about "what happened" and if it was right or not, and best or not, etc.; but what principles and lessons can we learn, either way?

[captainfearnot]

It's the age old question of inoculation vs quarantine.

The story of the 116 pages is a perfect example of effective inoculation. It has all the potential to be a faith damaging anti-Mormon story, and likely would be if it weren't so inextricably tied up in the text of the Book of Mormon itself and the church tried to minimize it. But since there is no way around it, they teach it straight on as miraculous and faith promoting. Every seminary kid learns it, and I don't know too many that leave the church because of it. And now they're immune to any anti-Mormon trying to use that particular story to try and shake their faith.

Could the church do the same with polygamy? The Book of Abraham? The Kinderhook plates, blacks and the priesthood, blood atonement, and all the other sticky wickets in church history? Maybe so. Or maybe seminary kids would only be able to absorb so many of these before they backfire, too many flu shots giving them the flu.

Clearly the church has instead opted for the quarantine strategy for many years, but that might not be a viable option any longer, with free access to information being what it is today.

[diligently seeking]

I've thought a lot about this and I don't have any conclusive answers as of yet per se, but here are some of my thoughts. I'm 37 years old and I have dug through countless documents on virtually every subject related to church history and there are still more questions than answers, although I think that the answers I have found are of value.

The thing is that out of all that information, none of it has brought me closer to God. None of it has had any positive effect on how I treat people, how I view the world, or what I understand about God. This morning I was listening to the first part of Mosiah and what stuck out to me was the transition from Zeniff to King Noah to Alma. King Noah was a blemish upon the history of the people with his many wives, pride, taxation, and wickedness, leading the people astray. King Noah dismissed all of the good priests and appointed his own wicked ones and Alma was one of them, he came out of that corrupt system almost like Moses came out of the Pharaoh's household. Indeed, Noah exhibits many characteristics similar to Pharaoh in his stubbornness and being influenced by his associates to reject Abinadi's words.

The history is important, and with Noah it was clear. Our history is not so clear, and even a deep dive into it doesn't necessarily make it clearer, it only seems to muddy up the waters even more. Originally, I thought our participation in what we called "plural marriage" was legitimate. The more I studied the history and especially the Book of Mormon, the more I see it as a wicked and evil thing. I don't know for sure though about whether Joesph actually practiced it or whether it was attributed to him. One of his journal entries has been modified from him speaking against it to him speaking for it. If that was changed, then what else was? There are no explanations. I have multiple theories about what happened and while I lean toward one or the other, until I know for sure, I don't try to discount the "official story" because there are I think legitimate grounds where it could have been kosher given certain things. It seems more and more like a stretch, but it appears possible.

I think there is a great danger in being distracted by trying to make sense of history at the expense of actually living the gospel. I've tried to do both in my life and I feel like I have walked this great circle back to where I started. I've satisfied the intellectual side of my mind but it hasn't filled me with anything. I'm only filled when I am forgiving, serving, sacrificing, and doing good to my fellow man.

The doctrine and principles of the gospel far exceed in value what we call history. History is all myth, while certain events like an earthquake, a movement of people from one location to another, etc. can all be verified and may indeed be true, to look at individuals actions and try to ascertain what they thought about the things they wrote or said, what they actually meant in the grand context is a nearly impossible task.

There you are in the realm of pure speculation. When your history is based on eyewitness accounts, that may seem valid, but what people think they saw doesn't always equate to what was real. Why would people lie? When they have a good reason to. The official story is that our people DID lie, many times and over the course of years, in fact Joseph was lying the whole time he was preaching against plural marriage, that is the official point of view! So when can you trust that they are telling the truth? It's hard, perhaps impossible.

But doctrine and principles, they can be established with patterns. The Spirit can illuminate truth and for all the machinations and deeds of men, in the end, all that matters are the doctrines and principles because correct ones will lead a man to God and when a man knows God, and is redeemed and obtains his mind in all things, then all history, scripture, deeds, efforts, have served their purpose.

So what should be taught in seminary? What is more important, the history or the relationship with God? I think the latter is far more significant because when, and it will be a when, the student is able to navigate that history on their own one day, they will do it with a knowledge of God and with the ability to reach out to him for help and support.

If they spend all their time rehashing the deeds of men and trying to intellectually interpret their intentions with little emphasis on personal knowledge of doctrines and principles, then they will have no foundation and they will fall. When in the scriptures do we see the servants of the Lord obsessing continually over the acts of David and Solomon, or Moses' failings, or Peter, Judas, King Noah, Laman, Corianton, etc. Yes, they are mentioned and the mistakes are condemned but the focus is on the people and their relationships with God.

And even if the evils of the past are not condemned or mentioned, the focus being on a people and their God and their sins today are always paramount. The purpose of studying history should be to discover doctrines and principles, not for the sake of trying to figure out "what really happened" and "what people really thought" because I don't even believe that it is possible.

At the end of today, I want you to think of everything you have done. Even if you keep a journal, how well did it capture every moment? Were you aware of every facial expression and body movement you made while communicating with people? Did you convey with exactness every thought and intention? Do you know that everyone saw you as you actually are? Could you direct a movie of THIS day and show it to everyone that shared it with you to where they would all agree that you captured every moment as everyone else saw it?

No, we all see a different world. You grimacing because of a hidden knee pain from twisting it this morning could be interpreted by a coworker in a conversation to be a poorly concealed displeasure at talking with them. Every little thing you do today could be judged by others with an extremely low accuracy because of their own poor interpretation skills or your own lack of awareness as to how your existence in every moment impacts another.

If we cannot even understand what is happening right now around us, how well are we going to understand events and journal writings of those years, centuries, and millennia ago? We cannot, but we can understand doctrine and principles, we can exercise those things in our own experience and see if our results are similar to those of the past, we can have a living relationship with God.

Anyway sorry for being wordy but there it is.

2 nephi 4
34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.
35 Yea, I know that God will give liberally to him that asketh. Yea, my God will give me, if I ask not amiss; therefore I will lift up my voice unto thee; yea, I will cry unto thee, my God, the rock of my righteousness. Behold, my voice shall forever ascend up unto thee, my rock and mine everlasting God. Amen.



2Nephi 28



24 Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!

25 Wo be unto him that crieth: All is well!

26 Yea, wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost!

27 Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more!

28 And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall.

29 Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!

30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

32 Wo be unto the Gentiles, saith the Lord God of Hosts! For notwithstanding I shall lengthen out mine arm unto them from day to day, they will deny me; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me; for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts.

[Serragon]

I have been a seminary teacher in the past. I am also our substitute seminary teacher in my current ward.

This change was put in to practice this year. The only difference I see is that the kids are no longer spending any time on memorizing scriptures. I haven't witnessed any deep doctrinal conversations or any instruction to engage in those types of conversations. It is really just implementing the teaching style now being used in the sunday youth programs.

Perhaps we are just not implementing it correctly, but I see almost no relationship between what is said in the article and what is actually being practiced.

[diligently seeking]

Years ago when PBS did that 4 part series on the Church it appeared and was told in an unflattering way. I remember thinking
And feeling through their subtle and overt negative portrayals of the restoration that "I have been changed through Jesus and that the many resources of the restoraton only deepend my love for Christ and increased the receiving of his grace in my life..." true / unflattering aspects of any churches history can't change the fact that if a healthy beautiful understanding of Jesus was made available which aided in bringing about a mighty change of heart / being born of God etc---- this is the stuff of good fruitful soil. Being founded on Christ is the goal and aim. From the blessings that flow from this approach there is not as much need to have to talk away or be extra astute in areas of history or theology which may be mired in ambiguities.

[JohnnyL]

I have been a seminary teacher in the past. I am also our substitute seminary teacher in my current ward.

This change was put in to practice this year. The only difference I see is that the kids are no longer spending any time on memorizing scriptures. I haven't witnessed any deep doctrinal conversations or any instruction to engage in those types of conversations. It is really just implementing the teaching style now being used in the sunday youth programs.

Perhaps we are just not implementing it correctly, but I see almost no relationship between what is said in the article and what is actually being practiced.

I was afraid of something like that. I won't repeat what I feel about the SS/ YW lessons, but I hope there's more to it than that...

[JohnnyL]

It's the age old question of inoculation vs quarantine.

The story of the 116 pages is a perfect example of effective inoculation. It has all the potential to be a faith damaging anti-Mormon story, and likely would be if it weren't so inextricably tied up in the text of the Book of Mormon itself and the church tried to minimize it. But since there is no way around it, they teach it straight on as miraculous and faith promoting. Every seminary kid learns it, and I don't know too many that leave the church because of it. And now they're immune to any anti-Mormon trying to use that particular story to try and shake their faith.

Could the church do the same with polygamy? The Book of Abraham? The Kinderhook plates, blacks and the priesthood, blood atonement, and all the other sticky wickets in church history? Maybe so. Or maybe seminary kids would only be able to absorb so many of these before they backfire, too many flu shots giving them the flu.

Clearly the church has instead opted for the quarantine strategy for many years, but that might not be a viable option any longer, with free access to information being what it is today.

I think they could, for many of those, and more. (I'm not sure how the 116 pages could be an anti-Mormon story?) It doesn't have to be THE answer, but possible answers that make sense--I think most of the children who need it, would understand. But, it might freak out the parents, lol. "I'm taking my kid out!!"

[captainfearnot]

(I'm not sure how the 116 pages could be an anti-Mormon story?)

Exactly. The fact that you grew up hearing about the story and don't even see its anti-Mormon implications is a glowing endorsement of inoculation.

Have you seen the South Park episode about Mormons? An LDS family moves into town, and their son Gary invites Stan over for FHE. The lesson is the story of the 116 pages. After the lesson the Mormon kids all cheer and Gary asks Stan if he sees how the story proves JS was a prophet. And Stan is dumbfounded because to him the story obviously proves the opposite. It's a great example of how two people can look at the same thing and see something completely different.

[oneClimbs]

(I'm not sure how the 116 pages could be an anti-Mormon story?)

Exactly. The fact that you grew up hearing about the story and don't even see its anti-Mormon implications is a glowing endorsement of inoculation.

Have you seen the South Park episode about Mormons? An LDS family moves into town, and their son Gary invites Stan over for FHE. The lesson is the story of the 116 pages. After the lesson the Mormon kids all cheer and Gary asks Stan if he sees how the story proves JS was a prophet. And Stan is dumbfounded because to him the story obviously proves the opposite. It's a great example of how two people can look at the same thing and see something completely different.

Reminds me of this quote from Avraham Gileadi:

"...the closer we get to God the more marked the paradoxes, it sometimes seems that God includes enough ambiguity in his revealed word to provide an "out" to those who resist his invitations to seek the truth. At virtually every level, in effect, God has built into the scriptures two ways that you can interpret them: one for those who want to fall back on established views, right or wrong, that may have some element of truth but not the whole truth; the other for those who want to search out all God has revealed no matter how great the paradoxes. God makes that a test for us - a "snare" for the self-righteous, but a path into his presence for his "disciples". (Isaiah Decoded, p.269)

[diligently seeking]

(I'm not sure how the 116 pages could be an anti-Mormon story?)

Exactly. The fact that you grew up hearing about the story and don't even see its anti-Mormon implications is a glowing endorsement of inoculation.

Have you seen the South Park episode about Mormons? An LDS family moves into town, and their son Gary invites Stan over for FHE. The lesson is the story of the 116 pages. After the lesson the Mormon kids all cheer and Gary asks Stan if he sees how the story proves JS was a prophet. And Stan is dumbfounded because to him the story obviously proves the opposite. It's a great example of how two people can look at the same thing and see something completely different.

Reminds me of this quote from Avraham Gileadi:

"...the closer we get to God the more marked the paradoxes, it sometimes seems that God includes enough ambiguity in his revealed word to provide an "out" to those who resist his invitations to seek the truth. At virtually every level, in effect, God has built into the scriptures two ways that you can interpret them: one for those who want to fall back on established views, right or wrong, that may have some element of truth but not the whole truth; the other for those who want to search out all God has revealed no matter how great the paradoxes. God makes that a test for us - a "snare" for the self-righteous, but a path into his presence for his "disciples". (Isaiah Decoded, p.269)

Beautimus!

[oneClimbs]

(I'm not sure how the 116 pages could be an anti-Mormon story?)

Exactly. The fact that you grew up hearing about the story and don't even see its anti-Mormon implications is a glowing endorsement of inoculation.

Have you seen the South Park episode about Mormons? An LDS family moves into town, and their son Gary invites Stan over for FHE. The lesson is the story of the 116 pages. After the lesson the Mormon kids all cheer and Gary asks Stan if he sees how the story proves JS was a prophet. And Stan is dumbfounded because to him the story obviously proves the opposite. It's a great example of how two people can look at the same thing and see something completely different.

Reminds me of this quote from Avraham Gileadi:

"...the closer we get to God the more marked the paradoxes, it sometimes seems that God includes enough ambiguity in his revealed word to provide an "out" to those who resist his invitations to seek the truth. At virtually every level, in effect, God has built into the scriptures two ways that you can interpret them: one for those who want to fall back on established views, right or wrong, that may have some element of truth but not the whole truth; the other for those who want to search out all God has revealed no matter how great the paradoxes. God makes that a test for us - a "snare" for the self-righteous, but a path into his presence for his "disciples". (Isaiah Decoded, p.269)

Beautimus!

Isn't this agency though? Nothing is straightforward accepted as good or evil. You find people that love communism and Nazism and I'll bet that there are groups out there who think puppies and Mother Theresa are evil. I mean, God himself came down among us and they took and crucified him! There will always be at least two ways to judge anything, and I find that absolutely stunning.

The one thing that seems to be the most clear to me is that this life is about what we choose and why and how we respond to the results of our choices. The importance of certain pieces of knowledge only really come into play depending on what we already know or don't know. Every one of us is using a brick of gold as a doorstop somewhere so to speak; we have no idea what we have.

[diligently seeking]

Exactly. The fact that you grew up hearing about the story and don't even see its anti-Mormon implications is a glowing endorsement of inoculation.

Have you seen the South Park episode about Mormons? An LDS family moves into town, and their son Gary invites Stan over for FHE. The lesson is the story of the 116 pages. After the lesson the Mormon kids all cheer and Gary asks Stan if he sees how the story proves JS was a prophet. And Stan is dumbfounded because to him the story obviously proves the opposite. It's a great example of how two people can look at the same thing and see something completely different.

Reminds me of this quote from Avraham Gileadi:

"...the closer we get to God the more marked the paradoxes, it sometimes seems that God includes enough ambiguity in his revealed word to provide an "out" to those who resist his invitations to seek the truth. At virtually every level, in effect, God has built into the scriptures two ways that you can interpret them: one for those who want to fall back on established views, right or wrong, that may have some element of truth but not the whole truth; the other for those who want to search out all God has revealed no matter how great the paradoxes. God makes that a test for us - a "snare" for the self-righteous, but a path into his presence for his "disciples". (Isaiah Decoded, p.269)

Beautimus!

Isn't this agency though? Nothing is straightforward accepted as good or evil. You find people that love communism and Nazism and I'll bet that there are groups out there who think puppies and Mother Theresa are evil. I mean, God himself came down among us and they took and crucified him! There will always be at least two ways to judge anything, and I find that absolutely stunning.

The one thing that seems to be the most clear to me is that this life is about what we choose and why and how we respond to the results of our choices. The importance of certain pieces of knowledge only really come into play depending on what we already know or don't know. Every one of us is using a brick of gold as a doorstop somewhere so to speak; we have no idea what we have.

When apathy... has a hold of me I struggle to connect the dots. When I choose to abide in God and his word (see John 15) Being illuminated by the light of his Everlasting word (see Alma 5) is the growing / gifted result.
Ambiguity diminishes and flees in that acquired sacred space.

[JohnnyL]

(I'm not sure how the 116 pages could be an anti-Mormon story?)

Exactly. The fact that you grew up hearing about the story and don't even see its anti-Mormon implications is a glowing endorsement of inoculation.

Have you seen the South Park episode about Mormons? An LDS family moves into town, and their son Gary invites Stan over for FHE. The lesson is the story of the 116 pages. After the lesson the Mormon kids all cheer and Gary asks Stan if he sees how the story proves JS was a prophet. And Stan is dumbfounded because to him the story obviously proves the opposite. It's a great example of how two people can look at the same thing and see something completely different.

Yes, but in the few years I did a lot of apologetics, I never ran into a 116 pages argument.

I've seen a lot of others, though.