Category: Writings of John Crane

Excerpts from a talk given by Scott Ferguson, Dept. of Religion, BYU-Idaho

The quality of our instruction can be measured by the level of inquiry it produces in our students. One way to measure the quality of inquiry is to observe the depth of the questions that flow from our teaching and assigned work. Knowledge gained through our own inquiry is more likely to facilitate understanding than learning not preceded with similar effort. Understanding born of inquiry generally produces longer-term growth. Learning that results from inquiry is not necessarily measured by having access to the right answer.

What is the value of knowing the right answers to the wrong questions? Rather it is recognizing the correct question to ask at the right time.

Richard Paul notes: “Every intellectual field is born out of a cluster of questions to which answers are either needed or highly desirable. Furthermore, every field of study stays alive only to the extent that fresh questions are generated and taken seriously.”

Instructional models designed to inspire inquiry and questions are dependent on the exercise of students’ agency. Agency coupled with inquiry will always produce greater understanding. In inquiry-based instruction, a student’s inspired question becomes a summation of understanding as well as an invitation to expand understanding. I cannot expand that which I don’t understand in the first place.

All too often we want new knowledge without any effort on our part. This seems to be a universal characteristic of too many of our students. Perhaps we should share in the lesson Oliver Cowdery received from the Lord: “Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right … Now, if you had known this you could have translated” (Doctrine and Covenants 9:8-10).

Oftentimes our present knowledge is biased with self-deceit, and challenging it can be difficult. I cannot even ask an inspired question until I possess enough information or willingness to challenge this safe, inside boundary. A person’s bias might be as simple as: “This information isn’t that important.” Or it might be more complex: “If idea x is true, then I must be wrong about y.” This, I believe, is one of the major duties I have as an instructor of the scriptures—motivate students to ponder and search the scriptures sincerely enough to willingly make adjustments as a result of inquiry.

At the moment my inquiry produces new and exciting questions — inspired questions — I am inviting new knowledge; I am willingly expanding When inquiring, we must discern the right questions. Learning how to ask and answer inspired questions at truly inspired moments enhances our students’ ability to become inquirers.

To the prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord said, “As often as you have inquired, I have given you knowledge.” (Doctrine and Covenants 6:14). If we are not actively seeking all knowledge, we become careless and casual in the inquiry process. Over time we become too much like the individual Winston Churchill spoke of when he said: “Occasionally he stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.”5 Too many of our students have become casual truth seekers. I am fearful that Latter-day Saint culture has become one of talking, talking, and still more talking, but little or no inquiry.

An Impostor to Inquiry

The Book of Mormon provides a wonderful key to recognizing instruction born of the spirit (see also 1 Corinthians 2:10-14). The ideal teacher/learner relationship was described in this manner: “The priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal” (Alma 1:26). That is, equal in the process of inquiry, each is able to expand or stretch the boundaries of his or her learning according to the several abilities and desires for learning.

Let me suggest a workable approach that I have found.

• First, define what “true” means. What do you mean when you ask “is the church true?” or “is the Book of Mormon true”? You have to be more specific and have a definite question in mind. For example, is the story of the Book of Mormon factually true from a historical standpoint? Is the story of the translation of the Book of Mormon (Gold Plates, Urim & Thummim) true from a historical standpoint? Are the principles taught in the Book of Mormon really going to bring a person closer to God? Are there unique principles taught in the Book of Mormon that are not taught elsewhere, or same principles with a fresh perspective, or nothing new?
• Second, you have to study out the question to the best of your ability in your own mind and form a conclusion, a proposition, or a hypothesis.
• Third, you are now ready to take that proposition to the Lord: “Lord, I have asked this question, studied it out, and this is the best answer I can come up with. Is this answer correct?”
• Fourth, listen for the answer. It may come immediately. It make take a couple of tries. Sometimes, the Lord answers you before you even form the words in your mind. I sometimes get this, and by this, I know that I am really on to something.
• Fifth, the Spirit only bears witness to TRUTH. The Spirit testifies if something is true. The Spirit does not testify that something is false. If you bring a up a proposition that it false, you may receive a stupor of thought, which means you won’t be able to hold a clear thought in your mind, or you might even forget what you asked for. Or you might receive nothing. It is only if the proposition is true that you receive a confirmation.
• Sixth, what kind of confirmation? The burning in the bosom, or something stronger. This is not an emotion. This is a higher tone or vibration than an emotion. It is more like intuition. Joseph Smith said that you will feel intelligence flow into you. This has happened to me on occasion. I start getting all sorts of new ideas I never thought of before. I get different insights into my original question. I sometimes get the feeling that I could ask God any question at that particular moment and receive an answer.
• Seventh, God told Oliver Cowdery this same process, essentially. He said it was how the Spirit of Revelation works. He said this was the spirit by which Moses led the children of Israel. You may even feel the urge to write down your impressions, while you are feeling the spirit. If you do, then that’s the same process by which Joseph Smith, and other church leaders received revelation. Save what you receive. If it contains predictions, you may notice them being fulfilled in course of time.
• Eight, commit yourself to follow whatever answer you receive. You may ask a second time for confirmation, but don’t keep second-guessing your answer, and don’t ignore it. If you make a practice of non-commitment, the Spirit is grieved and will withdraw from you.
• Nine, if you receive a positive answer, probe a little to see whether the Spirit is confirming all of your answer, or just part of your answer. Sometimes, the Spirit may just tell you that you are getting warmer.
• Ten, in some traditions, the Holy Ghost is considered to be a female. I find it is helpful to consider her a female, and to court her as you would a female. You are on a date with her and you want to bring your best self and treat her with respect. In one Hebrew tradition, God is saying that he has to leave, but he will leave his (female) companion (the Spirit) behind, to remain with us, as an assurance that he will return.

God and man exist upon the same principles. There never was a father without there first being a son, meaning that the being that we consider God the father, was first a son to another father, just as Christ showed us how we could become sons to him as our father.

One thing the endowment teaches so plainly and so up front that most miss it. The players in the drama are playing ROLES. They are acting in certain offices, just as the patrons are to consider themselves in the roles of Adam and Eve. The art of the drama imitates the life of the reality.

God is our god and our father, not only because he demonstrated a superior intelligence, but because we all sustained him/her as such. Satan demanded God’s honor, which is his power. God’s power comes as much from our faith and support as from his/her ability to marshal, command, and channel that faith and support.

We are really much more powerful beings than we give ourselves credit for. And the path to full godhood is as much learning how to become a god as it is to unlearn that which us prevents us from being a god.

Joseph Smith said that “man will be punished for his own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”.

93:38 Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.

93:39 And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.

If we find ourselves out of the presence of God, as Adam and Eve were, we have nobody to blame but ourselves. We have an awful lot to unlearn, and churches do us no favor by forcing us to conform and avoid sin, rather than taking responsibility for it, learning from it, as we are supposed to do. Your church that preaches against damnation is actually damning or condemning you by holding back your progress.

But the course of God is one eternal round, and I don’t mean “God” in the sense that most religious people think of it. In fact, I can’t find an English word or words the corresponds to what I mean. I guess the closest I could come is the concept of god, not as a being, but as a principle, a pattern, or an order which is repeated throughout eternity.

We we say “in the beginning”, or we talk about God surrounded by intelligences, we are taking the ring of eternity that Joseph Smith spoke of, and cutting it at an arbitrary point, for the same of explaining an eternal principle to finite minds. In the book Dune, Herbert had in mind a huge back story leading up to the Saga of Paul. This is why he said, and why the historian Irulan said “beginnings are such delicate times”. Where to begin? Where to begin?

Just think about it and see if it doesn’t make more sense to you.

Here is a recent conversation on Facebook

Comment 1: I Know that, but i still believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints still moving and no one can stop it.

John Crane: The fundamental ideas (like eternal progression, knowing the truth, seeking wisdom through study and faith, direct human experience with God, building a society where each person esteems his brother as himself, a person is saved no faster than they gain knowledge, etc.) behind the church will keep moving and no one can stop them. These are ideas that appeal to everybody, once they hear them explained. However, it seems to many people that the church, as now constituted, is no longer the vehicle for spreading and supporting these ideas, but has degenerated into a conservative, reactionary relic of the 19th century.

Read this quote from Joseph Smith. He doesn’t say a thing about the church:

“The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.”

Rob Lauer said: “The truth of God will go forth boldly…” As soon as anyone reduces the truth of God to nothing more than an organization, or one particular creed or nation or program or group of people–then amen to the priesthood of that person. The Spirit–the Light of Truth that is in ALL things and through ALL things; the same Light that is in ALL people, that quickens the understanding of ALL people–this Spirit is grieved and withdraws.

She’s exercising Priesthood right now. She’s speaking. She’s teaching. She’s writing. She’s organizing. She’s serving others as she sees it. Those are all Priesthood functions. They are just not in the church.

It’s easy to stand on the outside and look at the men in the church and think they have so much power. But, that is not true. Any male who has ever held the priesthood and tried to exercise it within the LDS church knows how little power he really has.

As a local leader, he has very independent latitude to make decisions, because all the thinking has already been done for him and placed in the handbook. Teaching by the Spirit? Not likely. Teachers have to strictly follow the manual. Speaking by the Spirit? That used to be one of my delights in the church. But, I understand now that topics for Sacrament Meeting talks are now assigned.

Even if a general authority says something in General Conference that is not in line with the current thinking of the authorities. Google “Ronald Poelman” and find out what happened to him when he dared stand up and say that members ought to follow their free agency.

We all hold the priesthood. The church never gave it to us, and the church cannot take it away from us. The power of God is a gift we all have from God, simply because it is one of the attributes we inherited by virtue of being children of God. The question is whether a person can develop power in their Priesthood and whether or not he or she can function in their priesthood within the LDS church, or any other church that believes in the Priesthood.

If we have desires to serve God, we are called to the work, but sometimes God calls us to do requires that we serve OUTSIDE the church. This is a shame, because the Priesthood is best exercised in concert with other Priesthood holders, as Joseph Smith and John Taylor taught. But it can be done, if God wills it, and if we have the faith to do it, He will provide all the assistance and support we can use.

If nothing else this Kate Kelly thing has got me thinking. I don’t agree with her methods, but I agree that women should be ordained. I have been scratching my head trying to figure out with scriptural justification for denying women the opportunity to serve. In the Bible, there were female prophets, judges, deacons, and priests. I just saw a problem on Islam today. It explained that the way they treat their women came from a misinterpretation of the Koran and a long-standing cultural norm that predates Islam. In other words, there’s no reason other than “we say so”.

However, lets not get the cart before the horse.

• First, priesthood leaders must be open to the IDEA that God has Priesthood callings for women as men, and that a women could fulfill the office as well if not better than a man could.
• Second, ordination to the Priesthood for ANYBODY should be by inspiration, and not done because a person has reached a certain age, or they are related to a high church official, and certainly not done because a person demands it. (Remember the story of Simon in the Book of Acts. Remember also, the story of Mozart’s Magic Flute.)
• Third, women as well as men must be trained in their duties as priesthood holders.
• Fourth, women as well as men must be held accountable for how they use their priesthood.
• Fifth, women as well as men must be unleashed and unmuzzled from the constraints of the church handbooks and encouraged to follow the promptings of the Spirit, which always accompany who answers the call to serve and humbly seeks guidance.

There, ladies, still want to be ordained? The field is white already for harvest.