Matthew
joespencer
Robert C.
robf
BrianJ
douglashunter
Kevin Barney
Jim F.
nhilton
cherylem
Clark Goble
NathanG
jennywebb
janetlisonbee
kirkcaudle
Karl D.
KarenKnow Your Student Lesson 1: bitten by the Bible dictionary
Posted by BrianJ on January 28, 2007
The Story
Last week in Gospel Doctrine class we were discussing the wise men. A student asked, “Do we even know anything about who these guys were?” No one in the class wanted to take up the discussion, so I offered my ideas:
“The Greek word used here is magi, which refers to men who were astrologers. Why would God use this type of person to testify of his Son?”
In the discussion that followed, one of the class members quoted from the LDS Bible Dictionary:
“Who these men were we are not told, but it is certain they were not ordinary men. That they were privileged to search out the Son of God and give him gifts, and that they were spiritually sensitive and knowledgeable, suggests that they were actually prophets on a divine errand. The customary identification of them as astrologers is a gross misrepresentation. They evidently were holy men from a land east of Palestine.” (emphasis added)
I had not looked at the Bible Dictionary in my preparation–I rarely use it, preferring other dictionaries and concordances–but I was familiar with this idea. I responded:
“Thank you for bringing in that other point of view. I am disagreeing with the Bible Dictionary. I want to be clear on that. But this is a good topic for each of you to study on your own to decide what you believe. Regardless of how we view their identity, let’s talk about how Matthew uses them in his Gospel….”
We had a nice discussion for the remainder of class.
The Fallout
I didn’t hear any comments at church, nor did I receive any email, but I ran into a few of my friends during the week who brought up what I had said. Each of them had had a discussion with his wife about whether my attitude/stance was appropriate/correct. And I am certain there were more people talking about it than were talking to me about it.
The Response
I chose to start today’s lesson with a clarification:
“I said last week that I disagreed with the Bible Dictionary. I did disagree with it, and I will from time to time.”
I then related a brief history of the dictionary (as found in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and a 1983 talk by Elder Boyd K. Packer), and ended by reading the preface of the Bible Dictionary itself so as to give it “the last word”:
“This dictionary…is based primarily upon the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other books of scripture…. It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth. Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to reevaluation based on new research and discoveries or on new revelation. The topics have been carefully selected and are treated briefly. If an elaborate discussion is desired, the student should consult a more exhaustive dictionary.”
The Lesson
I learned a valuable lesson: know your student! As I said above, I rarely use the LDS Bible Dictionary, but I should have realized that my students frequently look there for explanations (that many of them view as authoritative). I should have studied the entry before class. Had I done this, I would have been able to present the identity of the wise men in a different way, mentioning the different views, etc., without creating a potentially very bad situation.
A Question
Are there other sources that, like the Bible Dictionary, members are wont to refer to as authoritative (but that are not) and that create this same type of problem, namely, you don’t agree with it but you can’t disagree with it? (A few come to mind, but I’d like to see what others think.) How do you deal with those in class?
Like this:
This entry was posted on January 28, 2007 at 12:21 pm and is filed under On studying, On teaching. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Brett said
1. Doctrines of Salvation
2. Mormon Doctrine
3. Journal of Discourses
I just ignore it when people use those books as sources. I guess I should grow a backbone and speak up that they’re not official doctrine. We had one guy in Elder’s quorum talking about how Adam was taken from another planet and flown to earth ala Journal of Discourses. I didn’t say anything. I know it’s not official doctrine, but if you say it’s not then people get uptight. Man, I wish we could disagree at Church without it being called “contention.”
Matthew said
I know the point of your post isn’t to talk about the wise men per se. But, anyway…
I like the idea that at this critical point God uses people outside his church to testify of the truth. I assume that these men were respected at the time–hence the translation “wise men.” I wonder if the bible dictionary is worried that people will think of the wise men as the type of people who in our age would start up a 900 number and advertise on late night television. In fact, if that is what you mean by astrologer, then really they weren’t. (But it is interesting to contrast these wise men with those in the early latter-day church. Though Joseph Smith and the other early members weren’t the 900 number type, you can see why many people perceived them as such. They were not the wise and well-respected, but rather the weak.)
Now to the real question. I rarely find myself having a position that goes against the Bible Dictionary or a church manual, but not too infrequently I don’t agree with a statement in them. I’m not explaining well what I mean. Let me try with your example. I don’t know enough to take the position that the wise men were astrologers, but I am reluctant to agree to the proposition that they weren’t–as if somehow I know enough about God to know that he wouldn’t have allowed astrologers to know about the truth and react accordingly. I find it very plausible that they were astrologers.
On a related subject, I think there is a difficult question about when to openly disagree and when not to. Some people are very easily offended. People who think every word of the bible dictionary is doctrine (or, for that matter, think that every word ever spoken by any prophet is doctrine) are still little children in the gospel. As they learn more about the scriptures and the bible dictionary and the prophets they will learn the truth. In the meantime we can help them on the path but we have to be very careful not to offend them. See Matt 18:6. I think this scripture applies to little children in the gospel and some wards have plenty of them in Gospel Doctrine classes.
Matthew said
PS I think it is especially bad to offend the innocent and people who think every word of the bible dictionary is doctrine are, in this sense, innocent. But, I don’t think Matt 18:6 is talking about little children as innocent, but rather little children as something else, maybe humble? Nevertheless, I think it is sometimes okay to use the scriptures to make a point they don’t make on close reading. Maybe this relates to our discussion about applying the scriptures.
Matthew said
The Institute Manuals
BrianJ said
Brett, thanks for the comment. I am uncomfortable with ignoring comments that I think are blatantly incorrect, but at the same time I worry about creating contention (as you describe). I worry that false doctrines become ingrained because they are not challenged.
Matthew: Wow! I didn’t ever think anyone would pull Matt 18:6 on me! Ha ha! I think your use of the scripture is very appropriate, though, and helpful to this discussion. I didn’t think in those terms, but it really gets to the heart of my question. If I didn’t care how people would react then I would just say, “Thanks, but the book you quoted is bogus!” Alternatively, I could just think to myself, “You are totally wrong, dude, but I’m not going to be the one to tell you.” But of course I do care.
Regarding the Wise Men: I would actually love to discuss them further, so I will create a separate post for that.
nhilton said
The Internet…blogs like this one. : )
Kevin Barney said
brianj, FWIW I agree with you and would have handled this much as you did.
Joe Spencer said
Brian, I love the title of this post. I was at a lecture Stephen Robinson was giving once and someone quoted the Bible Dictionary to counter something he said. He responded, “I helped write that dictionary, so you know you can’t trust a word it says!”
I also like the way you handled the situation. I have handled it this way as well (with youth, a few other good options are open to you).
I think you also raise the most important point of all: know your students! If you can be prepared for these things in advance, you can preempt these sorts of things (“Now, I know the Bible Dictionary says that this is not a viable interpretive option, but here are the reasons scholars have generally adopted this point of view…”).
Anyway, great post.
douglashunter said
How about Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie?
brianj said
Nhilton, #6: very funny!
Kevin: thanks for the vote of confidence.
Joe: that’s a great story. I also like the way you would introduce this kind of problem.
Al said
Meridian had a good article on possible sources of who the wise men may have originated from and why they knew of the star and birth of Christ. They posibilly were part of the Israelite diaspora, who Lehi and his family had met with and taught as they journeyed through the Arabian peninsula.:
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/031222bofm.html
This article is in harmony with the Bible Dictionary, in that the wise men were not “un-inspired” astrologers who made up charts for the daily newspaer,but were holy men. In other words they were Jews or of the House of Israel. Remember Moses was taught and ordained by Jethro, his father in law, a Midianite who was not with the main body of Israelites in Egypt. The existence of small groups of Israelites throughtout the region and who had the priesthood is well established.
Also, there is an interesting article on the magi traditions by John A. Tvedtnes that I am sure you will find helpful. http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/021216wisemen.html
The Bible Dictionary is just that a dictionary, it is not a up-to-date “final” dissertation on the topic, and is included only as a help and guide based on what scholars, or at least those who write it, understand at the time of publishing. Scholars, and other plain people just like us, are learning line upon line as new information is revealed.
When I have taught a Gosple Doctrine class, I have rarely used the Bible Dictionary, although it is amazingly accurate and well written. However, when I have, I make sure, as I do with anything I read or quote in class, that I have read it beforehand and understand it myself.
As a endnote I recall Elder McConkie always had a terrific response to some very hard gospel doctrine questions he would answer: “We have not received revelation on that yet.” This would only but show what makes lds christians different from all other christian denominations – the heavens are not closed and God will one day reveal everything.