Depending on Non-LDS Sources for Gospel Doctrine


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been a Gospel Doctrine Instructor for about 9 months now.  I tag-team with another brother in the ward.  This means that I have a full month to study and prepare for my lesson.  Due to the extra study time that I have, I've come to realize that there is a LOT about the details of the Bible and Ancient Jews that simply don't exist on the Church website.  I'm aware that there are some non-Church related LDS "scholars" who have their websites and blogs.  But they either don't have the breadth and depth of work that I need for the questions I have, or they have shown themselves to be "less than scholarly" about what they put on their websites.

So, I'm left with looking up things on sectarian websites.  For the most part, I get the impression that they are at least well researched.  On more than one occasion, I notice that different positions exist among the sectarian world on any given topic.  So, I try reading a variety of opinions and try my best to verify through other means, and to pray about what I've read.

I began wondering about how I would know when I'm getting strung along on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything.  After all, if the very passage of scripture that I'm wondering about doesn't really have much commentary on the Church website, how will I know if any of it is true doctrine?  I've done my best to try to walk that line.

Then I began listening to Jordan Peterson's Genesis lecture series.  I found it to be truly engaging.  It really began to open my mind to a LOT of scholarship on literature, societal symbolism, an understanding of the human condition that I'd never thought about or read about.  I was really fulfilled with understanding... for a while.

At some point, I began to recognize the effects of his disclaimer which he made at the beginning of the lecture series.   He was approaching it from a purely rational analysis perspective and was staying away from the metaphysical aspects of the study.  He was looking at the "stories" from the perspective of how it informs psychology or what insights we may find in the narrative from the perspective of using known psychological phenomena as a basis of analysis.

While I agree that it is a perfectly reasonable way to go about a secular/scholarly analysis of the Bible, I found myself teetering for a bit.  He was so completely engaging and persuasive in the evidence and arguments he makes, that part of me was wondering about Bill Maher's words.  "The Bible was a book written by poets and philosophers who thought it would be a good idea to write down some good principles of life.  It wasn't written by God."

I found that this is a dangerous road to only look at it from one perspective.  We have two eyes for a reason.  They give us slightly different views of the same object.  Neither eye gives us a "correct" view.  But when the two are put together, it is much closer to the reality.

Quote

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith

 -- D&C 88:118  ; 109:7

Looking at it through the eye of rationale alone is dangerous when we recognize just how flawed man's logic tends to be.   Looking at it through faith alone can also be dangerous if we are not counseled/practiced in how to properly listen to the Spirit.

I'm hoping that I'm doing right by my class and my calling to only teach what is true doctrine.  But a lot of the time, with the resources from the official Church channels, I can't teach some things that have been glaring questions for me (and I'm finding a lot of other people as well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try to focus from top down.  Levels of Evidence.  The Holy Ghost does all the important work (not the teacher).  And the Holy Ghost can testify of all truth.  I just find that it is easiest if we use the scriptures.

Level I: Scripture (the Standard Works), and Modern-Day Revelation as recorded in the Liahona
from the most recent General Conference talks.
Level II: Official Proclamations, Statements, and Doctrinal Expositions from the First Presidency 
and Quorum of the Twelve, prior General Conference talks, and the Church Hymnal
Level III: Church Manuals written and published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day 
Saints
Level IV: Commentary by General Authorities not published by the Church, e.g. Mormon
Doctrine
Level V: Commentary by non-general authority members in good standing
Level VI: Research and commentary by scholars / non-LDS members
Level VII: Online discussion groups like LDSBlogs.org - Mormon Archipelago: Gateway to the 
Bloggernacle
Level VIII: Research or commentary by apostate or disillusioned members

 

That being said, last time I taught Gospel Doctrine I did some internet searches and found the following. It gave new important (to me at least) insight to the situation.  I shared it in class.

 

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I try to focus from top down.  Levels of Evidence.  The Holy Ghost does all the important work (not the teacher).  And the Holy Ghost can testify of all truth.  I just find that it is easiest if we use the scriptures.

Level I: Scripture (the Standard Works), and Modern-Day Revelation as recorded in the Liahona
from the most recent General Conference talks.
Level II: Official Proclamations, Statements, and Doctrinal Expositions from the First Presidency 
and Quorum of the Twelve, prior General Conference talks, and the Church Hymnal
Level III: Church Manuals written and published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day 
Saints
Level IV: Commentary by General Authorities not published by the Church, e.g. Mormon
Doctrine
Level V: Commentary by non-general authority members in good standing
Level VI: Research and commentary by scholars / non-LDS members
Level VII: Online discussion groups like LDSBlogs.org - Mormon Archipelago: Gateway to the 
Bloggernacle
Level VIII: Research or commentary by apostate or disillusioned members

 

That being said, last time I taught Gospel Doctrine I did some internet searches and found the following. It gave new important (to me at least) insight to the situation.  I shared it in class.

 

I do the same, but omit levels VII and VIII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'm hoping that I'm doing right by my class and my calling to only teach what is true doctrine.  But a lot of the time, with the resources from the official Church channels, I can't teach some things that have been glaring questions for me (and I'm finding a lot of other people as well).

Wish I had you as our GD teacher.

We are lucky to get commentary on the assigned lesson for the week.

Im not sure how much preparation is going into our current GD & EQ lessons but it seems pretty sparse. 

It’s getting old having to listen to the teachers spiritual musings from the past week sometimes thru teary eyes and their recent hardships.  We also spend some time debating current event issues like LGBT awareness and acceptance.

/sigh

Half the time I just end up reading the scriptures on my own during class.

I usually will raise my hand and mention Jesus Christ if I haven't heard his name during the lesson in the past 15-20 min.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've been a Gospel Doctrine Instructor for about 9 months now.  I tag-team with another brother in the ward.  This means that I have a full month to study and prepare for my lesson.  Due to the extra study time that I have, I've come to realize that there is a LOT about the details of the Bible and Ancient Jews that simply don't exist on the Church website.  I'm aware that there are some non-Church related LDS "scholars" who have their websites and blogs.  But they either don't have the breadth and depth of work that I need for the questions I have, or they have shown themselves to be "less than scholarly" about what they put on their websites.

So, I'm left with looking up things on sectarian websites.  For the most part, I get the impression that they are at least well researched.  On more than one occasion, I notice that different positions exist among the sectarian world on any given topic.  So, I try reading a variety of opinions and try my best to verify through other means, and to pray about what I've read.

I began wondering about how I would know when I'm getting strung along on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything.  After all, if the very passage of scripture that I'm wondering about doesn't really have much commentary on the Church website, how will I know if any of it is true doctrine?  I've done my best to try to walk that line.

Then I began listening to Jordan Peterson's Genesis lecture series.  I found it to be truly engaging.  It really began to open my mind to a LOT of scholarship on literature, societal symbolism, an understanding of the human condition that I'd never thought about or read about.  I was really fulfilled with understanding... for a while.

At some point, I began to recognize the effects of his disclaimer which he made at the beginning of the lecture series.   He was approaching it from a purely rational analysis perspective and was staying away from the metaphysical aspects of the study.  He was looking at the "stories" from the perspective of how it informs psychology or what insights we may find in the narrative from the perspective of using known psychological phenomena as a basis of analysis.

While I agree that it is a perfectly reasonable way to go about a secular/scholarly analysis of the Bible, I found myself teetering for a bit.  He was so completely engaging and persuasive in the evidence and arguments he makes, that part of me was wondering about Bill Maher's words.  "The Bible was a book written by poets and philosophers who thought it would be a good idea to write down some good principles of life.  It wasn't written by God."

I found that this is a dangerous road to only look at it from one perspective.  We have two eyes for a reason.  They give us slightly different views of the same object.  Neither eye gives us a "correct" view.  But when the two are put together, it is much closer to the reality.

Looking at it through the eye of rationale alone is dangerous when we recognize just how flawed man's logic tends to be.   Looking at it through faith alone can also be dangerous if we are not counseled/practiced in how to properly listen to the Spirit.

I'm hoping that I'm doing right by my class and my calling to only teach what is true doctrine.  But a lot of the time, with the resources from the official Church channels, I can't teach some things that have been glaring questions for me (and I'm finding a lot of other people as well).

The first lesson in CFM this year was about taking responsibility for your own learning (including framing good questions). These questions should be asked in Sunday School. They are in my class. When there are no pat answers within the 50 minutes, some class member(s) might be inclined to follow up. I've had some good conversations with classmates as a result. I find the different academic/scholarly commentaries to be helpful for translation and context, but only Church resources have the correct doctrine. We all have the gift of the Holy Ghost and can decide on how to handle non-Church sources. Another perspective, even doctrinally speaking arising from translation and context, can lead to good questions and inspired answers that only support the Restored Gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mikbone said:

Wish I had you as our GD teacher.

 

I second this comment by @mikbone I foresee the day, not far off in the future, when @Carborendum's Come Follow Me podcasts will exceed the popularity of the current offerings. (Slightly tongue in cheek, but not too much)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the challenge of discerning truth from error is another challenge summarized by Elder Maxwell when he said: "all knowledge is not of equal significance. There is no democracy of facts! They are not of equal importance."

I recently started attending a new ward and after a few Sunday School classes it seems that a number of people in the class are taking to the internet each week to further their understanding of the lesson material and appear eager to share what they find. While some of what is shared is truly insightful much of what is shared, while perhaps interesting, seems to lack the spiritually nutritional value that I'm looking for. Fortunately the teacher has done a good job of quickly shifting the focus back to the salvation essential doctrines. This is kind of why I always enjoyed the gospel principles class back when because the lesson was always on those truths that mattered most, even though they were taught in their simplicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

The first lesson in CFM this year was about taking responsibility for your own learning (including framing good questions). These questions should be asked in Sunday School. They are in my class. When there are no pat answers within the 50 minutes, some class member(s) might be inclined to follow up. I've had some good conversations with classmates as a result. I find the different academic/scholarly commentaries to be helpful for translation and context, but only Church resources have the correct doctrine. We all have the gift of the Holy Ghost and can decide on how to handle non-Church sources. Another perspective, even doctrinally speaking arising from translation and context, can lead to good questions and inspired answers that only support the Restored Gospel.

A big part of the reason why I chose to stay with a YSA branch even after aging out is because of this right here. 

I'll wait in the back of the class each Sunday school / priesthood, see if people are able to grasp the topic on their own, and if there's a lull or if people are dancing around I'll speak up. 

At 39 I'm old enough to be the father of some of the members of the branch, and so they know to listen if I do say something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

A big part of the reason why I chose to stay with a YSA branch even after aging out is because of this right here. 

I'll wait in the back of the class each Sunday school / priesthood, see if people are able to grasp the topic on their own, and if there's a lull or if people are dancing around I'll speak up. 

At 39 I'm old enough to be the father of some of the members of the branch, and so they know to listen if I do say something. 

Can you go to a ward that you aren’t geographically “in”? I was told I can’t do this when I asked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Can you go to a ward that you aren’t geographically “in”? I was told I can’t do this when I asked. 

I was in the branch when I aged out, but because the branch was perpetually short-handed when it came to priesthood holders I was allowed to just stay where I was. 

Basically, I have just enough of a reputation to where I'm allowed to do what I want regarding certain things. 

Most Sundays actually see me enter the building with at least one earphone in because I'm listening to American Top 40 w/ Casey Kasem on my phone, and the branch presidency don't even say anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2023 at 11:25 AM, Carborendum said:

I've been a Gospel Doctrine Instructor for about 9 months now.  I tag-team with another brother in the ward.  This means that I have a full month to study and prepare for my lesson.  Due to the extra study time that I have, I've come to realize that there is a LOT about the details of the Bible and Ancient Jews that simply don't exist on the Church website.  I'm aware that there are some non-Church related LDS "scholars" who have their websites and blogs.  But they either don't have the breadth and depth of work that I need for the questions I have, or they have shown themselves to be "less than scholarly" about what they put on their websites.

So, I'm left with looking up things on sectarian websites.  For the most part, I get the impression that they are at least well researched.  On more than one occasion, I notice that different positions exist among the sectarian world on any given topic.  So, I try reading a variety of opinions and try my best to verify through other means, and to pray about what I've read.

I began wondering about how I would know when I'm getting strung along on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything.  After all, if the very passage of scripture that I'm wondering about doesn't really have much commentary on the Church website, how will I know if any of it is true doctrine?  I've done my best to try to walk that line.

Then I began listening to Jordan Peterson's Genesis lecture series.  I found it to be truly engaging.  It really began to open my mind to a LOT of scholarship on literature, societal symbolism, an understanding of the human condition that I'd never thought about or read about.  I was really fulfilled with understanding... for a while.

At some point, I began to recognize the effects of his disclaimer which he made at the beginning of the lecture series.   He was approaching it from a purely rational analysis perspective and was staying away from the metaphysical aspects of the study.  He was looking at the "stories" from the perspective of how it informs psychology or what insights we may find in the narrative from the perspective of using known psychological phenomena as a basis of analysis.

While I agree that it is a perfectly reasonable way to go about a secular/scholarly analysis of the Bible, I found myself teetering for a bit.  He was so completely engaging and persuasive in the evidence and arguments he makes, that part of me was wondering about Bill Maher's words.  "The Bible was a book written by poets and philosophers who thought it would be a good idea to write down some good principles of life.  It wasn't written by God."

I found that this is a dangerous road to only look at it from one perspective.  We have two eyes for a reason.  They give us slightly different views of the same object.  Neither eye gives us a "correct" view.  But when the two are put together, it is much closer to the reality.

Looking at it through the eye of rationale alone is dangerous when we recognize just how flawed man's logic tends to be.   Looking at it through faith alone can also be dangerous if we are not counseled/practiced in how to properly listen to the Spirit.

I'm hoping that I'm doing right by my class and my calling to only teach what is true doctrine.  But a lot of the time, with the resources from the official Church channels, I can't teach some things that have been glaring questions for me (and I'm finding a lot of other people as well).

FWIW, I recommend reading (or re-reading) Teaching in the Savior's Way and following the council therein prayerfully. In point of fact, I suggest everyone and anyone add a bit of reading from it to their daily scripture study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Didn’t he die years ago?

 

and thanks for the explanation. 

Premier Radio Networks has been remastering the episodes he did of the original series (July 1970 - August 1987) and making them available for syndication, typically through iHeart-owned stations. 

For example, KBGO-FM (Waco, Texas) runs an episode from the 70s from 7 AM to 10 AM US Central time on Sunday mornings, followed by an episode from the 80s from 10 AM to 2 PM local. However, if an episode of the 70s is from the latter part where the show was four hours they'll cut off the first hour, and during November and December they'll air Christmas episodes to go with KBGO's all-Christmas stunting (primarily the shows he did in the 2000s where he was audibly sick) instead of actual vintage countdowns. KBGO is an iHeart station, however, so you can pick them up on the iHeart app.

That being said, new episodes of American Top 40 are still being broadcast with Ryan Seacrest as the host, and Rick Dees' Top 40 is still on the air as well *with* classic episodes from the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s being syndicated for stations that air older music. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Wow the disco duck is still quacking after all these years?? 😉 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KQNG-FM

I was listening to his current Adult Contemporary top 40 coutndown on Sunday nights via Hawaii-based radio station KQNG (listening to him through the TuneIn radio app) up until a year or so back, when KQNG kept having recurring issues with its live stream. 

But yes, he's still doing both a Hot Hits top 40 and an Adult Contemporary top 40 each week, in addition to rebroadcasts of classic shows from the 80s, 90s, and 2000s.

Back when I was feeling out whether or not there was local demand for a radio station in my town, I joked with a few people about how Saturdays could be "Satur-Dees". Run the 80s episode from 6 AM to 10 AM, run the 90s episode from 10 AM to 2 PM, run the 2000s episode from 2 PM to 6 PM, and then run the modern Adult Contemporary chart from 6 PM to 10 PM. Maybe do the Hot Hits from 10 PM to 2 AM if we could get a discount by having all five. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KQNG-FM

I was listening to his current Adult Contemporary top 40 coutndown on Sunday nights via Hawaii-based radio station KQNG (listening to him through the TuneIn radio app) up until a year or so back, when KQNG kept having recurring issues with its live stream. 

But yes, he's still doing both a Hot Hits top 40 and an Adult Contemporary top 40 each week, in addition to rebroadcasts of classic shows from the 80s, 90s, and 2000s.

Back when I was feeling out whether or not there was local demand for a radio station in my town, I joked with a few people about how Saturdays could be "Satur-Dees". Run the 80s episode from 6 AM to 10 AM, run the 90s episode from 10 AM to 2 PM, run the 2000s episode from 2 PM to 6 PM, and then run the modern Adult Contemporary chart from 6 PM to 10 PM. Maybe do the Hot Hits from 10 PM to 2 AM if we could get a discount by having all five. 

That’s awesome my friend. Though I wonder about the wisdom of starting a radio station in 2023….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

That’s awesome my friend. Though I wonder about the wisdom of starting a radio station in 2023….

The city I live in is partially surrounded by a ring of hills. 

The hills help protect us from severe weather, but they also disrupt over-the-air broadcast communications. It's all but impossible to get TV now over-the-air after the digital transition unless you have a 1950s-style outdoor aerial antenna, and radio reception is hit-or-miss depending upon what part of town you're in and what radio you're using. 

The one radio station we had in town *skipped town* a few years ago, moving their actual operations several cities over. 

A few years ago we had a tornado strike the outer edge of town, and the storm that brought it took out cable TV and internet service from the main provider. That left us with over-the-air radio and internet from secondary suppliers as well as cell service from other providers. Hence why I was feeling out a local radio or even TV station. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

The city I live in is partially surrounded by a ring of hills. 

The hills help protect us from severe weather, but they also disrupt over-the-air broadcast communications. It's all but impossible to get TV now over-the-air after the digital transition unless you have a 1950s-style outdoor aerial antenna, and radio reception is hit-or-miss depending upon what part of town you're in and what radio you're using. 

The one radio station we had in town *skipped town* a few years ago, moving their actual operations several cities over. 

A few years ago we had a tornado strike the outer edge of town, and the storm that brought it took out cable TV and internet service from the main provider. That left us with over-the-air radio and internet from secondary suppliers as well as cell service from other providers. Hence why I was feeling out a local radio or even TV station. 

It’s not my money, so knock yourself out.
 

The only red flag I see is that if one radio station “skipped town” it’s probably due to a lack of demand. When something is a good idea and works like it says it does, people flock to it and you can’t keep them away.
 

If it made money, it probably would have stayed. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2023 at 1:25 PM, Carborendum said:

I began wondering about how I would know when I'm getting strung along on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything. 

The direction this thread took within four replies is so wonderfully ironic.

I do a lot of external-to-LDS research when I do my own study, and a lot of it will seep into lessons when I teach (because I tend to teach what I find interesting). I will often try to use the various resources in an attempt to highlight different viewpoints, or different aspects of a story that may have an impact. You can look at a lot of the stories from viewpoints such as

  • If this story was literally dictated from the mouth of God, what is the message he was trying to convey?
  • If this story was included because an ancient Hebrew scholar thought it was important to the theological culture, why was it deemed so?
  • If we posit that the story was included by a well meaning historian trying his best to pass on wisdom, why would this have been important to him?

This is not an exhaustive list. But, more to the point, looking at different viewpoints like this can highlight different strengths and weaknesses of various stories, and can offer comfort and insight to different people at different phases in life. 

I personally don't subscribe to the philosophy that there is one singularly correct interpretation of scripture (at least not most of it). They are vague, imprecise, and they aren't going to give me a lot of specific direction on how to manage a lot of aspects in my life in the modern world.  They will, however, provide concepts, principles, and priorities that can help me make decisions around the unique circumstances in which I live. 

There's also a lot of value in being able to reinterpret scripture in a way that keeps you engaged, learning, and expanding your knowledge. Will that lead you down a rabbit hole sometimes? Absolutely! That's not such a bad thing. Now that you've gone down this rabbit hole of exploring they psychological/social aspects of biblical stories, you're now in a position to act as a guide and/or bridge for people who think this way and struggle to relate to the metaphysical side of the stories. 

This doesn't mean everything you learn needs to, or ought to, be included in a lesson. But you should feel free to share some parts that will cause your students/peers to reflect and engage more enthusiastically with the content.

 

Personal anecdote: For a few months, now, I've been studying out of Martin Luther King's sermons published in Strength to Love. Acknowledging that there are divides between MLK's baptist faith and the LDS faith, I will make the (perhaps controversial) statement that these sermons have inspired more self reflection, desire to repent, and a thirst for a closer connection with Christ than any General Conference talk over the last ten years. 

So go ahead and explore some of those rabbit holes. Just keep asking yourself how it can benefit your, those you teach, and those you may meet in the future. If you ever feel "woah...stop here. Here be danger." listen to that. Otherwise, as long as exploring the rabbit hole is enriching you and bringing you joy, then go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2023 at 11:25 AM, Carborendum said:

I've been a Gospel Doctrine Instructor for about 9 months now.  I tag-team with another brother in the ward.  This means that I have a full month to study and prepare for my lesson.  Due to the extra study time that I have, I've come to realize that there is a LOT about the details of the Bible and Ancient Jews that simply don't exist on the Church website.  I'm aware that there are some non-Church related LDS "scholars" who have their websites and blogs.  But they either don't have the breadth and depth of work that I need for the questions I have, or they have shown themselves to be "less than scholarly" about what they put on their websites.

So, I'm left with looking up things on sectarian websites.  For the most part, I get the impression that they are at least well researched.  On more than one occasion, I notice that different positions exist among the sectarian world on any given topic.  So, I try reading a variety of opinions and try my best to verify through other means, and to pray about what I've read.

I began wondering about how I would know when I'm getting strung along on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything.  After all, if the very passage of scripture that I'm wondering about doesn't really have much commentary on the Church website, how will I know if any of it is true doctrine?  I've done my best to try to walk that line.

Then I began listening to Jordan Peterson's Genesis lecture series.  I found it to be truly engaging.  It really began to open my mind to a LOT of scholarship on literature, societal symbolism, an understanding of the human condition that I'd never thought about or read about.  I was really fulfilled with understanding... for a while.

At some point, I began to recognize the effects of his disclaimer which he made at the beginning of the lecture series.   He was approaching it from a purely rational analysis perspective and was staying away from the metaphysical aspects of the study.  He was looking at the "stories" from the perspective of how it informs psychology or what insights we may find in the narrative from the perspective of using known psychological phenomena as a basis of analysis.

While I agree that it is a perfectly reasonable way to go about a secular/scholarly analysis of the Bible, I found myself teetering for a bit.  He was so completely engaging and persuasive in the evidence and arguments he makes, that part of me was wondering about Bill Maher's words.  "The Bible was a book written by poets and philosophers who thought it would be a good idea to write down some good principles of life.  It wasn't written by God."

I found that this is a dangerous road to only look at it from one perspective.  We have two eyes for a reason.  They give us slightly different views of the same object.  Neither eye gives us a "correct" view.  But when the two are put together, it is much closer to the reality.

Looking at it through the eye of rationale alone is dangerous when we recognize just how flawed man's logic tends to be.   Looking at it through faith alone can also be dangerous if we are not counseled/practiced in how to properly listen to the Spirit.

I'm hoping that I'm doing right by my class and my calling to only teach what is true doctrine.  But a lot of the time, with the resources from the official Church channels, I can't teach some things that have been glaring questions for me (and I'm finding a lot of other people as well).

If I recall, even Joseph Smith used materials by those who were not church members.  I think one of those he used was Clarke's Bible Commentary (not the official title) when studying the scriptures.  Some claim that you can see parallels or similarities between the JST and Clarke, which would not be all the unusual if he utilized it in conjunction with his own studies and seeking for revelation on the what the actual meaning of the passages should be. 

Just as you  mention at the end there,

I think the important thing is to make sure you pray and have the spirit with you to guide you in your studies to help you discern what is truth and what is not.

We are taught to study from good books (which could also translate to good materials in the instance of you listening to Jordan Petersen's Genesis lectures).  Just like reading the apocraphya, there may be good things to learn, but we need the spirit with us to help us discern the good and bad, the truth and what is not, from each other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share