Once upon a time I thought my fantasy Church calling would be to work one-on-one with ward members who truly wanted to research their family history. We’d work at adjoining microfilm readers. I’d make suggestions when the ward member got stuck, and the ward member would learn practical research skills that were only discussed theoretically in Sunday School. I did have a lot of fun doing just about that with a 12-year-old boy a few years ago; mostly, though, when ward members have asked for help, what they really want is for me to teach them how to use a computer, as if that were even remotely the same as doing family history research.

Then – and still – I thought it would be wonderful to be a history resource for general authorities working on Conference talks. General authorities do call on staff at the Church History Library once in a while, but mostly those requests seem to be along the lines of tracking down some story or quotation that the leader half remembers having heard somebody tell sometime. My fantasy would be to provide absolutely new stories to speakers: A speaker would say “I’m planning to talk about tithing,” or “I need a story that makes such-and-such a point,” and I would poke around the archives and offer three potential stories – one from, say, the pioneer era, one from some little-mentioned region of the Church, one from the life of a particular category wanted by the speaker (a woman, or a bishop, or a deaf member, or whatever), in hopes that one story would be exactly what the speaker hoped for. That fantasy calling would be of service to the whole Church, and would allow me to exercise my particular gifts in a rewarding way.

These days, inspired by ideas shared by brilliant Facebook and blogging friends, and suited to newfound interests and talents of my own, my fantasy is to organize and lead a scripture seminar for a group of ward or stake members who truly wanted to learn, and who would be comfortable with something quite different from Sunday School. I’ve thought about it for months now, and this is what I fantasize:

1. The seminar would be scripture based, with the scripture determined by participants: Old Testament, New Testament or Book of Mormon, or some subdivision of one of those books. Neither the Doctrine and Covenants nor the Pearl of Great Price would work well for the kind of discussion I envision.

2. The seminar would be highly faith-based, in that class members would need to believe that these scriptures represent in some fashion (which fashion might differ according to specific book) the word of God – it would not be a neutral study of text, divorced from faith. But while testimony would underlie our study, testimony-bearing would not be a major part of the seminar. We would take it for granted that the better we understood scripture, the better we would understand and practice the gospel, but “How can we apply this in our lives?” would play no part in the seminar.

3. It follows from (2), then, that class members would need to be open to new ways of learning the scriptures, trusting that discussing the documentary hypothesis does not imply a lack of belief in the historicity of Moses, or that finding parallels to post-600 A.D. writings does not discredit the Book of Mormon’s account of Lehi’s flight from Jerusalem. Participants would have to trust that those with varying views of this or that (especially when “this or that” was new to them) were also faithful members of the Church, and would not attempt, as Elder Ballard recently described,  to shut down discussion by bearing testimony. Participants would have to be patient with each other, especially with those who might struggle with looking at scriptures in other than a purely and obviously devotional way.

4. The seminar would be limited to no more than 12-15 participants, necessary for the intimate discussions we’d hope to have, and also because of time restraints (more on that below). This means we’d probably have to start with twice that many candidates, expecting many to drop out because it was more work than they had anticipated or because the seminar wasn’t what they had thought it would be. Every remaining participant would have to be committed to full participation, coming prepared to teach and to learn, and not missing meetings for anything avoidable.

5. I would like to meet weekly (hey, it’s my fantasy), but I realize most others would probably not be quite that committed. I do not think, however, it would work to meet only monthly, so we might have to compromise on once-in-two-week gatherings. Weekly really is preferable. We would meet in the early evening for 60-90 minutes. For reasons I have spelled out to myself but won’t list here, we would meet at the stake center, in a room with a long table, not in anyone’s home or in the social room of the large condo in our ward.

6. I would be the seminar leader, at first – not because I want to be “in charge” and certainly not because I have all the answers or know the scriptures best, but only because I have been thinking about this for a long time, considering and revising or eliminating ideas. Anyone else coming to the seminar with only a short time to consider would almost certainly take the seminar in a very different direction than the one I have in mind – and again, it’s my fantasy. The seminar leader’s task is merely to steer the discussion of the group and keep us on task. After a few months, the seminar’s leadership could begin to rotate, if the group decided that was best.

7. In addition to the seminar leader, the group also needs a time keeper and a recorder, which should be two different people and which could rotate as often as desired. More about their tasks later.

8. We would not follow any set of lessons or have any set schedule. We would begin at the beginning of whatever scripture we chose, and we would follow through as leisurely as necessary to meet the goals of the seminar.

9. Every participant would be responsible for the content and ideas of one or more specific reference book or other source. That might be a formal “gentile” commentary, some historical Mormon view, current Mormon scholarship, even the LDS footnotes and the aids bound with the scriptures. Skousen’s Analysis of Textual Variants would certainly be included if our text were the Book of Mormon; the Anchor Bible Dictionary would certainly be assigned if we were studying the Bible. There is no shortage of such resources – good, better, and best – and since my ward is in downtown Salt Lake City within walking distance of the Church History Library, we have access to most of those resources without necessarily having to purchase individual copies. By making one person responsible for each identified source, all participants would benefit from all those sources, including various points of view and development of ideas over time, without each of us having to search out and read every commentary. Incorporating a variety of sources from a variety of origins is another way to make every participant comfortable with a new way of studying scripture, because each participant could select a source that she is curious about or that he is comfortable using.

10. Likewise, we would use as wide a variety of scriptural texts as possible. Even if nearly everyone chose to do most of his reading from the same Bible translation, each participant would also be responsible for reading the text in an assigned version so that we would have the benefit of many translations. While there are, thankfully, not so many Book of Mormon versions, if that were our chosen text we would assign one person to be responsible for each major edition to be aware of textual and formatting changes, and, depending on the skills of the particular group, a non-English translation as well.

11. Meetings would begin with a reading of whatever story or passage we had reached that week – just a simple reading to have the scripture foremost in mind. Next, we would move around the table, calling on each person in turn to report on anything noteworthy from the sources he was responsible for preparing. I envision each person being given 2-1/2 minutes to make his report. That’s an arbitrary time chosen for its Mormon historical associations and might, with experience, have to be adjusted. The point of a time limit is to keep the meeting length manageable and to cause all participants to focus their remarks rather than to bloviate. The timekeeper mentioned above would be responsible for ending each person’s presentation; perhaps a silent signal could be developed to warn the speaker that he had, say, 30 seconds to conclude.

12. Everyone would be encouraged to contribute in every session, but anyone could also pass his turn for any unstated reason. If a participant were unprepared one night, being allowed to pass might save her from staying home out of embarrassment. Then, too, not every source is going to provide something of value for every discussion.

13. The recorder would take minutes, as detailed as possible, of these brief presentations. Any participant could take her own notes, as well, but having an appointed recorder would also allow non-note takers to concentrate on listening while still having a written record of the presentations (the “official” minutes would be copied and distributed the following week).

14. There would be no discussion during these short presentations. Discussion would come after all presentations had been made. With opening business and 12-15 presentations, the session would be at about the 45-minute mark before group discussion began, leaving us 20-40 minutes to compare this source to that one, to ask questions, to offer insights, to discuss and argue and reach conclusions or admit we are baffled. The point of discussion is not to force an artificial conclusion or agreement, but to examine various points of view and various emphases. Discussion would be heavy on the historical, cultural, and contextual, and light on the devotional – remember, it’s my fantasy, and I’m looking for something very different from Sunday School.

15. This is the stage where the seminar leader should shine, to urge discussion or guide debate or end a speaker’s monopoly or soothe strong feelings, not as an expert on the text but as a moderator or whip, whichever was needed. It is the group leader’s assignment to keep discussion productive and wide-ranging and fraternal.

16. The session would end with an agreement as to what scriptural portion participants should prepare for the next session. If participants wanted to stay and continue discussion, great – but everyone would be free to leave at that point.

17. Yes to opening and closing prayers; no to refreshments except for an occasional holiday or social evening.

18. From time to time, with group agreement, the format might be broken for well-prepared presentations by one or two class members on questions that have arisen in discussion. Maybe an overall review of the literary structure of the Book of Mormon, or a lesson on the documentary hypothesis (and a rebuttal, if someone were so inclined), or a review of some aspect of Biblical or Book of Mormon or 19th century history would be helpful. I’d probably insist on showing off my own note-keeping system in my digital scriptures, and would be eager to hear of others’ methods. The major focus, however, would be on the chosen text itself.

If you were invited to be a participant in my fantasy seminar, would you accept the invitation? What else would you include or exclude? Which scripture text do you think would work best for this format?