Now that both of those eras of consensus are gone, we are back to a thin canon. There is no LDS theology on such a broad scope of issues that little “doctrinal” can be said about the average chapter of the scriptures beyond the handful of endorsed takeaway points in the manuals and the dimly recalled folklore of conference talks decades in the past.

I understand there are reasons why the Church is anti-theological. However, the consequence is that in Gospel Doctrine, there is not enough doctrine to teach. Factual and historical trivia is not doctrine. Talks given more than a decade ago are not doctrine.

A teacher could trivially cover everything there is to be known about current LDS doctrine in six months of Sunday School classes. Everything beyond that is historical trivia, group discussions, and rhetorical flourishes.

I used to joke that some Christians may be rejecting the Book of Mormon simply because they had yet to really read the Bible, and felt the added homework was not desirable. I think in some ways this mentality can appear among LDS who don’t read JMH, Dialogue, the FARMS Review, BYU Studies, etc. People feel like they can barely find the time to scrape 15 minutes of Book of Mormon reading in each day.

When it all boils down to it, I cannot force anyone to take interest in learning, though I can try.

So many thoughts on this, so many directions. I don’t even know where I am going with this, but my mind is reeling.

Another example is embodied in computerized “LMS” or Learning Management Systems. Right now, they are underutilized (in every case I know of) but the concept is that modules and examples can be dynamically loaded (think one module to introduce some concept, then a dynamically loaded module with examples relevant to the learner.)

In addition, there are fields like Game development that are building better models of “boredom” and “fun” with associated approaches to integrate feedback from the learner to modify the approach in real time to try to minimize boredom and maximize fun.

So, at some point, it may not be a matter of replacing a curriculum. Rather, it may be a matter of updating or replacing a particular module or particular path through thousands of modules.

The real challenge is our own creativity in creating these systems of learning. It may require a community similar to those in blogs or wikis to create these next generation learning systems.

As far as the church goes, I imagine the slow changes in church curriculum and scripture have something to do with economics, but just as much to do with cultural stability, another purpose of the canon. If we change our central texts constantly, then we all loose the thread of mormonism.

Let’s think for a moment about where pre-Internet children get their reading material. One source is school. The other source is in the home. Kids see books on their parents shelves, books that their parents typically inherited from their parents and their schools, and so when they are browsing for books those are the ones they are most likely to read. If you think about all houses in aggregate, then children tend to have access to and to read the kinds of books we pass on – The Little Engine that Could, Narnia, Jane Eyre, Homer – and so these classics books continue to have a certain currency. But not necessarily because they are “better” than contemporary books. We are less likely to buy any given contemporary book, because it takes work to learn about them and because they have a much higher price tag. For a number of institutional and economic reasons, we are far more likely to have access to certain “classics” that thereby get perpetuated. I think this applies to Mormon culture, too. Parents tend to have scriptures, Mormon Doctrine, The Work and the Glory, etc., lying around for their kids. We have incentives – ease of access, cost – to return to old material.

That said, I think that this dynamic changes with free access to material on the Internet. When kids don’t have to ask their parents for money to buy books or make their parents drive them to a library or bookstore, then they are more likely to start developing niche reading practices on the web. They are also more likely to get reading suggestions from peers rather than parents/teachers. GoodReads is a great example of peer-oriented book suggestions.

So, to some extent, I really do think that the idea of a canon and the current existence of a common body of literature that we teach from has been kept in place by an economics of access and opportunity. As we go more digital, I think that will likely change.

Interestingly, book publishers now see a much wider market for non-fiction than fiction. I think fiction is in general easier to remember than facts. So, I do wonder if the dying off of the fiction market is in part due to the fact that the ease of searching for information has now made memory a less vauable quality.

Final point: I agree that a good teacher makes learning come alive. But, a good teacher can make most subjects come alive. I think it is the teacher’s ability to stimulate thought, not the book they are teaching, that matters. I fail to be convinced that all classics are really “applicable” to our lives. I can’t honestly say that Homer has ever meant much to me, although I do enjoy the critical thinking skills I developed through studying it. Can classics illuminate history – yes. Can they teach us to see cultures differently – yes. Are they always relevant – I doubt it.

What causes some people to love Shakespeare and Austen, and others to hate them? It invariably comes down to whether the parents instilled in the student a love and desire to know more.

Fixed.

What we really need to do is have our teachers study the televangelists. See how much emotion, care, and consideration they put into each and every sermon. As Elder Holland noted in his Gen Conf talk “Teacher called of God”, we must set our pulpits on fire again.

We all know who we love to listen to in our wards and stakes. And we also know which High Counselors we dread to hear. Again. You know the one, when he begins talking, you either spend the time counting the number of times he says “ummm”, or wish you had an electric drill to push through your ears, so you wouldn’t have to hear anymore?

A good teacher can make old material seem fresh and new. Shakespeare is centuries old, yet still has an audience BECAUSE someone has shown how relevant and inspiring his works still are.

Last year, I spent a fair amount of time reading about the history of book publishing. When mass literacy spread and early circulating libraries demanded books, publishers responded by creating sets of books that these libraries would buy. Often libraries and schools only had these publisher’s books, so they became the ones that were widely read. These sets – and the kinds of anthologies used in schools that also hit the market – tended to include what at that time were older works (our eventual classics). The biggest reason was that these books were out of copyright and therefore could be reprinted more cheaply. So, canon formation does have a lot to do with market incentives, about what people can afford to buy and pass on, even if we also place other kinds of value on this literature.