Hi Tomato1236;
Though I am not a scholar, I sometimes attend meetings with scholars on certain subjects and find it interesting that, even when the subject is very, very specialized, the degree of disagreement throughout the room is significant sometimes. Still, they most often allow the speaker to present his data because they realize that much of the important progress is made outside in the halls, as they discuss the implications of what was said; what value it has to current models of thought; why some of it was wrong (thus strengthening prior conclusion) or why some of it was correct (thus modifying prior conclusion).
Having this as a background, If I can, could I just throw out a few thoughts I had about this issue of teaching historical issues in general.
1) Not all types of doctrines are of equal value.
Truths upon which salvation is based need to be as correct as possible and I think in these doctrines one can go terribly wrong if one is not grounded in the best facts one can obtain. However, there are many non-salvational “doctrines” and speculations we make that are untrue, especially regarding history.
Many errors of historical data
do us little salvational harm if we get them wrong and do us little salvational good if we get them right. Historical doctrines ARE important to the extent that the affect Salvational doctrines.
If your teacher speculates incorrectly regarding Isaiah sometimes, well, so does everybody else, including the best world class scholars. If the teacher gets faith in God and baptism and the holy Ghost correct, then he’s worth a great deal. We all are specialists and do well in some areas of knowledge and struggle in other areas.
I’ve come to the conclusion that there are very
few specific things we really know (that we
REALLY KNOW). There are
many things we believe in strongly, but we do not know if these beliefs are true. And there are
thousands of things we merely speculate on as we consider the nature of this existence. Most very ancient historical data in general (and Isaiah specifically) tend to fall into the speculative area. Thus, if the teacher is speculating, then he’s merely doing what 99% of others are doing AND, importantly, the TYPE of doctrine he is teaching, may not BE salvational and important but simply a model of what might have been going on. If you analyze forum arguments, most of them involve speculative issues, and are argued with incomplete and poor data. Often arguments arise from the mixing of speculation with bits of belief with bits of knowledge.
2) Engaging the mind.
Regarding
Orontes statement that lessons should “
engage the mind” (post #4), I think
Orontes has, once again, cut to the chase. I attended a (non-LDS) church lecture where the minister spoke on “
Why God created man”. His theory was that “
God was lonely” and needed companionship just as old people want pets. Though the underlying presumption was incorrect, the content of his lecture, contained firm data y that I could pick through for bits and piece of what was important. My mind was engaged in the analysis of WHY some churches could teach this as doctrine and how such a presumption would drive their speculations and doctrines that would result from this specific belief. For me, the doctrine taught was incorrect, but my mind still fascinated by the implications of the doctrine being taught.
3) Allowing teachers to take a provisional positions on non-salvational speculations
Another philosophical consideration is that the teacher seems, to at least be TAKING a position and discussing a tangible model of what might be correct. There are teachers that water down the issues so much that there is nothing left to consider doctrinally.
If a teacher offers a position, then one can mull it over and consider the theory in multiple ways and then modify it, culling the error and retaining what is fine, in such a way, come closer to a coherent model as to what the truth is.
One of the early Christian prayers described some of the principles early christian converts were to learn :
“1 Let the one who is to be instructed in piety be taught before baptism: knowledge concerning the unbegotten God, understanding concerning the only begotten son, and full assurance concerning the Holy spirit. 2 Let him learn the order of a distinguished creation, the sequence of providence, the judgment seats of different legislation, why the world came to be and why man was appointed a world citizen. 3 Let him understand his own nature, of what sort it is. Let him be educated in how God punished the wicked...5 And how God, though he foresaw, did not abandon the race of men, but summoned them at various times from error and folly into the understanding of truth....6 Let the one who offers himself learn during his instruction these things and those that are related to them. (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - # 8 Instruction for the Catechumens (AposCon 7.39.2-4)
I once belonged to a non-denominational Church where the minister could not deviate from the very simple but important principles such as : Jesus died to save us; we should love one another; we should have faith in God, etc.
He could not discuss most of these other principles issues since the congregation was so very mixed in their beliefs that to deviate from the few things the members DID agree on meant certain dissension and argument.
You also did not say if the teacher was correct or not in his doctrine, but you seem to be taking exception to HOW the teacher taught Isaiah.
4) All provisional models are based on our varying (and constantly changing) levels of understanding
My 3 yr old son once asked about the nature of nuclear reactions (a subject I know only a minuscule amount about). If we were going to have a "Father-Son" discussion, then I had to offer an explanation that I thought a three-year old could understand. My "explanation" involved atoms “getting angry at each other” and colliding in violent ways. My explanation on magnetic attraction might have involved two magnets “have ends that like each other and want to be together like mommy and me, and the other ends “don’t like” each other and “want” to be as far apart as possible.
The explanations were, for chemists and physicists, pure rubbish, but they were a models that a three year old could understand. That model would, of course, have to change as my son aged and increased in knowledge and understanding. IF he was unable to let go of the original models, then he could never modify his thinking so as to advance to the more correct models.
Now, that he is older and I have to ask HIM to explain nuclear reactions to me since his understanding has surpassed mine.
I enjoy early Judao-christian history and the doctrinal themes described their sacred texts and diaries and hymns, etc. However,
almost all the early models one makes about history are somewhat erroneous and provisional and, (if one is true to themselves), must be altered as one gains better information. For example, both early and the more modern biblical pictures portray an incorrect and incomplete version of history. One can see this visually in the early pictoral models of bible stories. Consider a picture of “Jacobs ladder” taken from a 1557 Luther translation :
The picture has the stock story elements : Jacob, whose head is on a stone, angels with wings upon the ladder; God the Father is up in heaven; allwith a very quaint and very incorrect middle ages and very european village in the background. The point is that the mental historical picture we make (and we all must speculate if we are to consider history in any depth), is incorrect. Consider another picture from (I think) the 1534 Luther translation (the version that caused such a furor when Luther intentionally changed the ten commandments in exodus ...) :
Again, it is a stock mental picture. We see the priest anointing David, however, all of the men are dressed in very fine and very european clothes. If you study such pictures, almost all of them contain multiple anachronisms and mistakes. Still, however contaminated the model is, with non-factual data, it attempts to represented an authentic historical fact.
part two of two follows