Mormon Mentality - Thoughts and Asides by Peculiar People

By ESO

Sep. 7th, 2009 at 12:19 am

Every Sunday this year I sit through the Doctrine and Covenants Sunday School lessons. This time through (and many times before), the teacher has decided to emphasize Church History rather than the scripture. I have no doubt that the Institute manual suggests that they do so. But every week I find myself wondering: why are we so obsessed with our history?

I actually know some answers to that question. First and foremost, it is pretty recent history. I, and many others, can place my own relatives in these stories with just two or three “greats.” Then there is the fact that some of our doctrine is based on the history. I am not suggesting that we ignore the First Vision, but I wonder when protestants got over talking about Martin Luther and his Theses every week?

Part of my concern is that I don’t find this Sunday School presentation of history terribly convincing. If we are going to do Church History, let’s do it right. That would mean an inclusion of much more information, even some contradicting versions of events, because that is what real history does: presents you with various perspectives and lets you suss out what might have actually happened.

That kind of Church History might include fewer faith-promoting and exemplar tales. But if it were more authentic, wouldn’t it be worth it?

I know too many people close to my heart who decide they are done with the Church after they find out something they don’t like about Church History. Almost always, it is something to do with Joseph Smith. Interestingly, the things they find out are not always so awful, but they get the feeling that that information had been hidden from them by the Church and lose faith in the institution.

I don’t think anyone is a Catholic because of the history of the church. Ditto for most other branches of Christianity. Teaching Church History (poorly) does not convert anyone (member or not), so why do it?

1. a random John

Mon, Sep 7, 2009 @ 5:02pm

I’ve simply decided to lower my expectations for Sunday School. Our recent lesson on D&C 121 seemed to mostly focus on how small the jail was. The scriptures played a secondary role.

As you point out thought, we aren’t learning actual history so much as a series of sanitized faith promoting stories. As far as I can tell most people see nothing wrong with this, because what could possibly be wrong with anything in Church?

2. queuno

Mon, Sep 7, 2009 @ 6:38pm

We’re not interested in pure doctrine or history. We’re interested in presenting material to increase devotion. And I’m OK with that…

3. ESO

Mon, Sep 7, 2009 @ 7:12pm

queuno–fair enough, but does the version of church history presented in Sunday School and seminary increase devotion?

4. Ann

Mon, Sep 7, 2009 @ 8:22pm

I could have sworn that the class study guide this year claimed the disclaimer that the purpose of the class was to understand doctrines, not to discuss church history. But I just looked on lds.org and didn’t see that on the web-based materials. Maybe I was hallucinating, but I don’t think so.

5. queuno

Tue, Sep 8, 2009 @ 10:13am

ESO – Fair question, but due to my present Church calling, I’ve only been in SS 2-3 times this year. I’m just going off the fact that we have very limited time in SS (40 minutes a week) to go over the material. Anyone who wants really indepth stuff is probably having to do their own research.

If you mapped it back to the academic realm – SS in Church is presented as if it were a freshman-level course to 1000 students (that’s the level of presentation, not the actual presentation, obviously).

6. annegb

Tue, Sep 8, 2009 @ 12:28pm

This makes me glad that I’m the “depressed and unhappy in marriage—crazy, cultish, liberal and believing in psychics—working—possibly drunk or stoned—probably cheating on her saint husband—bordering on inactive-we must be sensitive and fellowship her and not complain if she doesn’t go to Sunday School because what the hell, she could try to kill herself again–or worse, write about us in her blog” person in my ward. Sure saves me a lot of trouble.

Like sitting through DOCTRINE & COVENANTS!!!

7. The Only True and Living Nathan

Tue, Sep 8, 2009 @ 1:56pm

I have no more problem with a “sanitized” version of history in D&C classes than I do with the presumably similarly-sanitized stories to be found in the Book of Mormon, the New Testament, etc. To complain that church history isn’t presented as a post-modern history and historiography seminar is to willfully misunderstand the purpose of the class, which is to help class participants understand the context of the revelations in such a way that it brings them closer to Christ. Such concerns are paramount, and rightly so.

As for “Why are we so obsessed with our history?”, I almost feel that the question makes no sense. It’s not history so much as STORY — the narrative in which God’s hand can be seen. The Old Testament is couched in story; the Gospels are practically nothing but story, as is the Book of Mormon. Why should the more recent account of God’s dealings with man be any different?

8. MCQ

Tue, Sep 8, 2009 @ 2:05pm

anne, no worries about being that person in your ward. We have six of those.

I never get to attend GD class, because I teach SS to the 13 yr olds, but way back when I did attend, I was always frustrated by the short lessons which seemed to be so inadequate to address the topic. I think this is inevitable, however, especially where the topic touches on both historical and doctrinal issues. We’re never going to have enough time to discuss an issue at the length it deserves in a 40 minute SS class (that’s what the nacle is for!).

I think we have to do history in these classes. Here’s why: It matters. Our history impacts the way we perceive ourselves and the way the world sees us. Nearly every anti-Mormon site you visit has information about our history that they perceive to be damning. We need to educate ourselves as a church and as individuals to be able to respond to that, even if the response is only to ourselves.

Also, our history is sometimes the only way we have to explain why we believe a certain way or do certain things. A good example is our means of prophetic succession.

I agree that we need to do a more complete job of this. It’s sad that anyone would leave the church over a feeling that the church has not told them the whole story or has misled them in some way. We need to guard against this better than we currently do. I do think that we are doing better now than we have in the past (I like a lot of what is in the new JS manual), but there is still a lot of room to improve.

9. Herb

Tue, Sep 8, 2009 @ 10:14pm

I’ll throw out my 2 cents: I think that if you’re looking for the Church to teach you what you need to know and understand to become a God in any class in any Church program, you’ll be sadly disappointed.

Your exaltation is up to you. The Church provides some great tools, but then puts those tools in our hands and basically says, “If it’s to be, it’s up to thee.”

Seeking to gain the “knowledge of God,” which Joseph explained is necessary for us to become Gods, is a lonely road. Few members are determined to travel that road, which is why they’re perfectly happy with milk.

Based on my observation, most people don’t want to have to think, really think…and diligently search for answers. Even fewer are willing to go directly to God to be taught by the Spirit, which again Joseph taught we have to do in order to exalted.

Most are perfectly happy showing up to Church every week and sitting back while the teacher “teaches.”

My experience is that far more is taught about how to become Gods outside the Church than in it. In John 16, Christ explained that at that time He taught in parables, but that the day would come when He would teach openly of the Father. I believe that is literally happening today, but it’s not happening in the Church. Why?

I can only surmise that the vast majority of members don’t want it, so it’s coming through other sources.

If you really desire to become a God, go directly to God and ask Him to teach you what He wants you to know. Ask questions. Tough questions. Follow the promptings you get. Search. Contemplate.

If you’re truly sincere in that desire, you’ll begin an amazing journey. But I caution you: unless you’re willing to accept and live whatever He teaches you, you won’t get the truth. Instead, you’ll get what you want to fulfill your agenda.

On the other hand, if you don’t desire to be a God with your whole soul, just keep going to GD and PH and RS and whatever Church class is available and put the monkey on the teacher’s back. You’ll get what you ask for.

One other thought: if you really want to understand the scriptures, consider this: (1) everything that God has given us has one purpose–to teach us who we really are; and (2) very little of what God has given us is literal. Father teaches in symbols. Break the code and you’ll gain the knowledge of God.

Just my perspective.

Herb

10. DKL

Tue, Sep 8, 2009 @ 11:25pm

History is what makes me excited to be Mormon. I never feel more comfortable in my religion or at ease with my beliefs or excited about my faith than after I’ve attended a Mormon historical conference like the MHA or JWHA conference. Talking there with Mormons who share my interest, with ex-Mormons and with members of other restorationist traditions really gives me a profound feeling that I’m participating in something significant. I couldn’t be happier with the historical approach the D&C.