Thanks for putting this together, Ben. I know I've enjoyed being a student in your classes you've taught where I've seen you implement many of these tactics. Always productive and I've stolen a few of them for my own teaching.
Thanks Brett. That means a whole lot coming from you: the feeling is more than mutual. There's nothing quite as humbling or enlivening as a really good conversation. Thanks for so many of them over the years!
Thank you for sharing this, Benjamin. I find it both useful and thought-provoking. I am especially dedicated to the idea of getting better at reading and commenting on scripture together, and I’ve been looking for tools that support my determination to frame the change as an opportunity. This helps tremendously.
Thanks so much, Dan! That's wonderful to hear. I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on teaching and modeling how to learn how to read scriptures and texts someday. This piece misses a lot, I'm sure! Any favorite thoughts?
I’m an especially big fan of the bridging questions you pose. Whatever we can do to learn to see the bigger picture of Scripture… I sometimes get bogged down and just looking for a single thought or idea, and end up missing the field for the flowers.
Also, I am excited to learn that the“… made harder” series is available online. It’s been a few years since I’ve seen it, and I’m pretty excited to take advantage of it now.
At some point, it would be cool to talk a little bit more about my own approach to teaching. I’m a language and social studies teacher of over two decades, and have often thought about what I’ve learned about best teaching practices and how they could inform good gospel teaching.
I’d love to see an article about what a “good” SS/RS/EQ lesson is like. I think we all know it when we see it, but I have troubles distilling it down.
Along the same route, what even is the point of 2nd hour, and even reading the scriptures? I can read what the handbook says about that and listen to conference and hear what the church says about what it’s supposed to be, but that always seems shallow and rather vague. What exactly is it about gathering with people in our ward that is important? What is it that makes 2nd hour such a drag and surface level for most people?
As often as I wonder about how to teach a good lesson, I also wonder if I need a guide to being a good class member.
Lovely comments. Thanks! (Primary author of the piece here.) I hope we can have articles about both of those things too: what does good teaching and learning mean? How do they work?
Quick thought: I think the piece above answers your second question--what is the point of second hour anyway--with the prompt to "teach open questions anchored in text," which is to say, aside from the obvious fellowship and maybe friendship time together, I take the purpose of open questions to create faith-lit spaces that lead with genuine inquiry, that offer no purely pat answer, and that model our search for inspiration and revelation; and I take the purpose of anchoring those questions in scriptural text as a practical grounding of that open faithful inquiry in evidence that can, and should, be read together collectively. Between the two, openness and evidence, we can (re)discover many true things, I hope. Anyway, while often only a modest weekly step in that direction, my hope is that second hour can be, with a nod to Royce, a community of interpretation that learns to read well by reading together. At least a bit!
I think you began to answer the question, but I don’t come away from the article with a great understanding that I know what Sunday School is doing for us. Sure, I absolutely think focusing on the text of the scriptures is very important, and figuring out a way to teach people how to read closely and slow down and say “oh hey, maybe there’s more here than initially meets the eye” is something I’ve been wondering about for so long. But I still am left with lingering questions about the purpose and effectiveness of the “group study” atmosphere approach to scripture.
I wonder what we are doing when we study scriptures, point blank. Why does it feel so different than studying a nonfiction text, or reading fiction? We assign it an almost magical role in our daily life, as if simply reading scriptures will magically solve temptations, complicated questions, and prevent us leaving the church. Is that true?
Is that a good framework for scripture?
Why is it that we even have the “Sunday school answers”, and what is it about “[non]excellent teaching” that causes us to return to that rut, even when we’re examining a variety of texts?
Is the framework of “trying to find Jesus in the OT”, like the CFM manual suggests, even a valid approach? It seems like it presupposes His existence a bit, so we’re playing a confirmation bias game.
I also think that the “open questions in the text” method as taught by Jim Faulconer is at odds with our common devotional readings and interpretations. For example, there’s a multitude of conference talks talking about how the baptismal covenant is to “mourn with those that mourn” but a close reading of Mosiah does not support that interpretation. How do you handle contradiction between the text on the page and apostles’ talks in a 25 minute Sunday school class if it happens to come up? I think most people would say that they’re not even allowed to think something like that.
Finally, if we take this method to RS and EQ, I feel like it begins to break down a bit with conference talks. Conference talks, to me, tend to lack the depth necessary to support extended textual analysis. The answer is probably just go to the scriptures referenced, but I’m still frustrated by the surface level nature of conference talks.
Thanks for probing deeper! I haven’t actually taken the time to put these thoughts into writing before, so these are rough and maybe they have easier answers than what I’m thinking haha. There’s also probably more questions floating around in my head. I’ve spent the last 6 years since my mission becoming more and more frustrated with 2nd hour, so thanks for giving me the chance and impetus to explore why.
Thanks for the substance here! Please improve my quick responses, but it seems to me that the general direction of your thoughts leans in favor of encouraging, not discouraging, the “open questions in text” method. Namely, if and when we find contradictions in the scriptures, as we must, what else should, or rather can, we do except stand with dignity in the uncertainty and proceed with a faithful reading that does good work? If and when we find conference talks less than super substantive, what else should, or rather can, we do except to ask harder questions that invite us to proceed with a faithful reading together? I’m not trying to reduce your concerns but to serve them: as far as I can tell, the best antidote to less than satisfying reading is to offer more, often different readings. In other words, your lingering concerns are not lingering at all: they are the substance of a typical second hour experience. While milage may vary wildly by unit, I’d hazard there’s much room for improvement on average. We should dignify those concerns, look them straight in the eye, and ask, How are we going to make things better? As best as I can tell, the method will involve asking members more questions that inspire them to read faithfully together. That’s going to be a real challenge in a time-abbreviated session, so I think it’s doubly on the teacher to (1) learn to care for the students and know and adjust their teaching to them and then (2) focus narrowly on asking a few questions that inspire the members to provide their own growth spiritually. Anyway, if you have objections to or thoughts on the open questions in text method, I’d love to hear more about them
Well, I’m a big fan of the idea that you get to say three things—and sometimes only one so play your trump card first. Whether that is in a full length book, a one hour university lecture, or an informal 25 minute Sunday school discussion. I think that all of your ideas are good. Just maybe not try to juggle them all at once. Every week. In 25 minutes. I’d prefer to think of your post as offering a tool kit of ideas rather than some grand game plan Statue of Liberty play to use every down.
Right on. Your preference is definitely my purpose for the article too: a grab bag of ideas about how to do more in less time. (If there's anything in the piece that suggests the one grand game plan reading, I'd love to edit that out: any suggestions?)
Thanks for putting this together, Ben. I know I've enjoyed being a student in your classes you've taught where I've seen you implement many of these tactics. Always productive and I've stolen a few of them for my own teaching.
Thanks Brett. That means a whole lot coming from you: the feeling is more than mutual. There's nothing quite as humbling or enlivening as a really good conversation. Thanks for so many of them over the years!
Thank you for sharing this, Benjamin. I find it both useful and thought-provoking. I am especially dedicated to the idea of getting better at reading and commenting on scripture together, and I’ve been looking for tools that support my determination to frame the change as an opportunity. This helps tremendously.
Thanks so much, Dan! That's wonderful to hear. I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on teaching and modeling how to learn how to read scriptures and texts someday. This piece misses a lot, I'm sure! Any favorite thoughts?
I’m an especially big fan of the bridging questions you pose. Whatever we can do to learn to see the bigger picture of Scripture… I sometimes get bogged down and just looking for a single thought or idea, and end up missing the field for the flowers.
Also, I am excited to learn that the“… made harder” series is available online. It’s been a few years since I’ve seen it, and I’m pretty excited to take advantage of it now.
At some point, it would be cool to talk a little bit more about my own approach to teaching. I’m a language and social studies teacher of over two decades, and have often thought about what I’ve learned about best teaching practices and how they could inform good gospel teaching.
Awesome. The /Made Harder/ series is superb. Feel free to share more if and when you'd like to: meanwhile I've sent you a DM...
I’d love to see an article about what a “good” SS/RS/EQ lesson is like. I think we all know it when we see it, but I have troubles distilling it down.
Along the same route, what even is the point of 2nd hour, and even reading the scriptures? I can read what the handbook says about that and listen to conference and hear what the church says about what it’s supposed to be, but that always seems shallow and rather vague. What exactly is it about gathering with people in our ward that is important? What is it that makes 2nd hour such a drag and surface level for most people?
As often as I wonder about how to teach a good lesson, I also wonder if I need a guide to being a good class member.
Lovely comments. Thanks! (Primary author of the piece here.) I hope we can have articles about both of those things too: what does good teaching and learning mean? How do they work?
Quick thought: I think the piece above answers your second question--what is the point of second hour anyway--with the prompt to "teach open questions anchored in text," which is to say, aside from the obvious fellowship and maybe friendship time together, I take the purpose of open questions to create faith-lit spaces that lead with genuine inquiry, that offer no purely pat answer, and that model our search for inspiration and revelation; and I take the purpose of anchoring those questions in scriptural text as a practical grounding of that open faithful inquiry in evidence that can, and should, be read together collectively. Between the two, openness and evidence, we can (re)discover many true things, I hope. Anyway, while often only a modest weekly step in that direction, my hope is that second hour can be, with a nod to Royce, a community of interpretation that learns to read well by reading together. At least a bit!
Your thoughts?
Hey thanks for the response!
I think you began to answer the question, but I don’t come away from the article with a great understanding that I know what Sunday School is doing for us. Sure, I absolutely think focusing on the text of the scriptures is very important, and figuring out a way to teach people how to read closely and slow down and say “oh hey, maybe there’s more here than initially meets the eye” is something I’ve been wondering about for so long. But I still am left with lingering questions about the purpose and effectiveness of the “group study” atmosphere approach to scripture.
I wonder what we are doing when we study scriptures, point blank. Why does it feel so different than studying a nonfiction text, or reading fiction? We assign it an almost magical role in our daily life, as if simply reading scriptures will magically solve temptations, complicated questions, and prevent us leaving the church. Is that true?
Is that a good framework for scripture?
Why is it that we even have the “Sunday school answers”, and what is it about “[non]excellent teaching” that causes us to return to that rut, even when we’re examining a variety of texts?
Is the framework of “trying to find Jesus in the OT”, like the CFM manual suggests, even a valid approach? It seems like it presupposes His existence a bit, so we’re playing a confirmation bias game.
I also think that the “open questions in the text” method as taught by Jim Faulconer is at odds with our common devotional readings and interpretations. For example, there’s a multitude of conference talks talking about how the baptismal covenant is to “mourn with those that mourn” but a close reading of Mosiah does not support that interpretation. How do you handle contradiction between the text on the page and apostles’ talks in a 25 minute Sunday school class if it happens to come up? I think most people would say that they’re not even allowed to think something like that.
Finally, if we take this method to RS and EQ, I feel like it begins to break down a bit with conference talks. Conference talks, to me, tend to lack the depth necessary to support extended textual analysis. The answer is probably just go to the scriptures referenced, but I’m still frustrated by the surface level nature of conference talks.
Thanks for probing deeper! I haven’t actually taken the time to put these thoughts into writing before, so these are rough and maybe they have easier answers than what I’m thinking haha. There’s also probably more questions floating around in my head. I’ve spent the last 6 years since my mission becoming more and more frustrated with 2nd hour, so thanks for giving me the chance and impetus to explore why.
Thanks for the substance here! Please improve my quick responses, but it seems to me that the general direction of your thoughts leans in favor of encouraging, not discouraging, the “open questions in text” method. Namely, if and when we find contradictions in the scriptures, as we must, what else should, or rather can, we do except stand with dignity in the uncertainty and proceed with a faithful reading that does good work? If and when we find conference talks less than super substantive, what else should, or rather can, we do except to ask harder questions that invite us to proceed with a faithful reading together? I’m not trying to reduce your concerns but to serve them: as far as I can tell, the best antidote to less than satisfying reading is to offer more, often different readings. In other words, your lingering concerns are not lingering at all: they are the substance of a typical second hour experience. While milage may vary wildly by unit, I’d hazard there’s much room for improvement on average. We should dignify those concerns, look them straight in the eye, and ask, How are we going to make things better? As best as I can tell, the method will involve asking members more questions that inspire them to read faithfully together. That’s going to be a real challenge in a time-abbreviated session, so I think it’s doubly on the teacher to (1) learn to care for the students and know and adjust their teaching to them and then (2) focus narrowly on asking a few questions that inspire the members to provide their own growth spiritually. Anyway, if you have objections to or thoughts on the open questions in text method, I’d love to hear more about them
Well, I’m a big fan of the idea that you get to say three things—and sometimes only one so play your trump card first. Whether that is in a full length book, a one hour university lecture, or an informal 25 minute Sunday school discussion. I think that all of your ideas are good. Just maybe not try to juggle them all at once. Every week. In 25 minutes. I’d prefer to think of your post as offering a tool kit of ideas rather than some grand game plan Statue of Liberty play to use every down.
Right on. Your preference is definitely my purpose for the article too: a grab bag of ideas about how to do more in less time. (If there's anything in the piece that suggests the one grand game plan reading, I'd love to edit that out: any suggestions?)
Thank you!
Are you people nuts? This strikes me as obfuscation for obscurity’s sake. Seems a little overthought if you ask me.
Hi Robert! Primary author of the piece here. I'm sure you're right. Sorry about that!
Short version: teach one thing each week.
Your thoughts?