Critical Thinking in

Religious Education
s hayne and e r son

Shayne Anderson ([email protected]) is an instructor at South Ogden Junior

Seminary.

A common argument in an increasingly secular world today is that religion

poses a threat to world peace and human well-being. Concerning the
field of religious education, Andrew Davis, an honorary research fellow at
Durham University, argues that religious adherents tend to treat others who
do not agree with them with disrespect and hostility and states that efforts
to persuade them to behave otherwise would be “profoundly difficult to
realize.”1 Consequently, he believes that religious education should consist
only of a moderate form of pluralism. Religious education classes, in his view,
should not make claims of one religion having exclusive access to the truth.
Others argue that religious education should consist only of teaching
about religion in order to promote more democratic ways of being.2 Their
Photo by betochagas, 123rf.com.

perception is that religion is yet another distinguishing and divisive tool used
by those who seek to discriminate against others, thus impeding the progress
of pluralistic democracies. Further, those perceived as religious zealots, so the
argument goes, are the least apt to give critical thought to either their own
This personal experience may be compared to a baseball player who has mastered the art of batting. beliefs or the beliefs of others.3 This reasoning, in which religion and critical
Intellectually, the player may understand perfectly what must be done . . . but when asked to explain
it to someone else the player is unable to do so.

RE · VOL. 18 NO. 3 · 2017 · 69–81 69

70 Religious Educator · VOL. 18 NO. 3 · 2017 Critical Thinking in Religious Education 71

thinking are viewed as antithetical, is especially prevalent in popular culture, anything that is “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy.” The
outside the measured confines of peer-reviewed publishing. Prophet Joseph Smith borrows terminology here from what he calls the
Reasons for why religion and critical thinking might be viewed as incom- “admonition of Paul”—from the book of Philippians, where Paul lists many
patible are as varied as the authors who generate the theories. They include of the same qualities and then suggests, “Think on these things” (Philippians
the following: religions often claim to contain some amount of absolute truth, 4:8).
an idea in itself that critical theorists oppose; individual religions generally Common scriptural words that suggest active, skillful, and disciplined
do not teach alternate views, a requisite for critical thinking; and, in critical thinking include inquiring, pondering, reasoning, and asking. Additional
theory, truth is comprised of “premises all parties accept.”4 Theorist Oduntan scriptures suggest such things as “study it out in your mind” (D&C 9:8) or
Jawoniyi reduces the argument down to the fact that religious claims of “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). Assuredly, the
truth “are empirically unverified, unverifiable, and unfalsifiable metaphysical portion of the definition of critical thinking pertaining to intellectual disci-
truths.”5 pline fits well within the objectives of the Church’s education program.
One explanation for variations in opinions concerning the place of criti- The next part of the definition given by Scriven and Paul includes
cal thinking in religious education may be that no consistent definition exists “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating infor-
for critical thinking, a concept that stretches across several fields of study. For mation.” The Gospel Teaching and Learning handbook, used by teachers and
instance, the field of philosophy has its own nuanced definition of critical leaders in the Seminaries and Institutes of Religion program of the Church,
thinking, as does the field of psychology. My first aim in this article is to sur- sets forth the “fundamentals of gospel teaching and learning.”7 Included in
vey a range of definitions in order to settle upon a functional definition that these fundamentals are (a) identifying doctrines and principles, (b) under-
will allow for faith while still fulfilling the objectives of critical thinking, and standing the meaning of those doctrines and principles, (c) feeling the truth
my second aim is to explore how this definition can apply to religious educa- and importance of those doctrines and principles, and (d) applying doctrines
tion in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. and principles. Comparing the definition for critical thinking to the funda-
mentals of gospel teaching and learning, one can argue that conceptualizing
Defining Critical Thinking is akin to identifying and analyzing, both of which require the understand-
The first definition under consideration comes from a frequently cited web- ing sought for by the previously mentioned fundamentals. Synthesizing and
site within the domain of critical thinking. Here critical theorists Michael evaluating can be a part of understanding and feeling the importance of a
Scriven and Richard Paul endeavor to encapsulate in one definition the wide concept. Also, application is found in both the definition and the fundamen-
expanse of critical thinking’s many definitions: “Critical thinking is the tals of gospel teaching and learning. It is an integral part of critical thinking
intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, and effective religious education within the Church.
applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered Finally, according to this definition, critical thinking assesses “infor-
from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or com- mation gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection,
munication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.” This portion
on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clar- of the definition seems equally suited for religious education. So much of
ity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, religion is based on personal experience and reflection on those experiences.
depth, breadth, and fairness.” 6 Owing to the personal nature of religious observations, experiences, reflec-
Assessing the definition in parts will allow for a thorough examination, tions, and reasoning, adherents often find them difficult to fully explain. This
beginning with a look at critical thinking as being active and intellectu- personal experience may be compared to a baseball player who has mastered
ally disciplined. Such admonitions are repeated often in the scriptures. The the art of batting. Intellectually, the player may understand perfectly what
thirteenth article of faith teaches that members of the Church “seek after” must be done, as he or she may have practiced it innumerable times, but when
72 Religious Educator · VOL. 18 NO. 3 · 2017 Critical Thinking in Religious Education 73

asked to explain it to someone else the player is unable to do so. Such a sit- the evidence or answers we seek. Such is the case in the scientific method:
uation does not detract from the fact that the batter has mastered the art, a tested hypothesis leads to a theory, and confirmed theories lead to laws.
yet the explanation remains difficult. Additionally, religious experiences are Fortunately, neither hypotheses nor theories are abandoned for lack of proof
often very personal in nature. Due to the value attributed to those experi- or the existence of doubt concerning them.
ences, a person may not choose to share them frequently because of a fear that Some within a religious community may be hesitant to apply critical
others will not understand or may even attempt to degrade and minimize thinking to their own religious beliefs, believing that doing so could weaken
those experiences and the feelings associated with them. Thus, even on the their faith. Psychologist Diane Halpern, however, suggests that critical think-
occasion when someone attempts to articulate such experiences, they remain ing need not carry with it such negative connotations. “In critical thinking,
unexplained. the word critical is not meant to imply ‘finding fault,’ as it might be used in a
In a religious setting, information derived from observation, experience, pejorative way to describe someone who is always making negative comments.
and communication may come from meeting with others who share religious It is used instead in the sense of ‘critical’ that involves evaluation or judgement,
beliefs. Moroni 6:5 touches on this idea. “And the church [members] did ideally with the goal of providing useful and accurate feedback that serves to
meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak with one another concern- improve the thinking process.”12 Applying critical thinking need not indicate
ing the welfare of their souls.” Congregating has long been a cornerstone of a lack of faith by a believer—an important point to consider when apply-
religious experience. Doing so provides members opportunities for observa- ing critical thinking to religious education. Critically thinking Christian
tion, experience, reflection, and communication, all of which make up the believers are adhering to the Savior’s commandment to “ask, and it shall be
delicate tapestry of religious belief and behavior. given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you”
Adding to the definition given by Scriven and Paul, college professor and (Matthew 7:7).
author Tim John Moore asserts that another quality important in critical Religious believers may be concerned that other critical thinkers have
thought is skepticism, verging on agnosticism, toward knowledge—calling reached an opinion different than theirs. This concern can be addressed by
into question whether reality can be known for certain.8 This skepticism car- the way critical thinking is defined. Professor of philosophy Jennifer Mulnix
ries with it immediate doubt prior to being presented with knowledge. Others writes that “critical thinking, as an intellectual virtue, is not directed at any
have termed it as a “doubtful mentality.”9 This definition does not seem able specific moral ends.”13 She further explains that critical thinkers do not have a
to coexist with faith-motivated critical thinking. Many scriptures teach about set of beliefs that invariably lead to specific ends, suggesting that two critical
the importance of faith trumping doubt, the most recognizable among them thinkers who correctly apply the skills and attitudes of critical thinking to
likely being James 1:5–6: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that the same subject could hold opposing beliefs. Such critical thinking requires
giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But a sort of mental flexibility, a willingness to acknowledge that a person may
let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of not be in possession of all the facts. Including such flexibility when defining
the sea driven with the wind and tossed.” critical thinking does not disqualify its application to religious education. A
Concerning the type of doubt that arises even before learning facts, religious person can hold beliefs and knowledge while remaining flexible, just
Dieter F. Uchtdorf of the Church’s First Presidency said, “Doubt your as a mathematician holds firm beliefs and knowledge but is willing to accept
doubts before you doubt your faith.”10 This admonition indicates that there more and consider alternatives in the light of additional information. In other
is an ultimate source of truth, and when our doubts loom large it is better to words, being in possession of facts that a person is unwilling to relinquish
doubt those doubts instead of doubting God. The Doctrinal Mastery: Core does not mean that he or she is unwilling to accept additional facts.
Document, a part of the S&I curriculum introduced in the summer of 2016, Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke about the idea of differing conclusions when
states that “God . . . is the source of all truth. . . . He has not yet revealed all addressing religious educators. “Because of our knowledge of [the] Plan and
truth.”11 Thus, doubt should be curbed at the point when we do not have all other truths that God has revealed, we start with different assumptions than
74 Religious Educator · VOL. 18 NO. 3 · 2017 Critical Thinking in Religious Education 75

those who do not share our knowledge. As a result, we reach different con- Many authors who offer definitions of critical thinking discuss how criti-
clusions on many important subjects that others judge only in terms of their cal thinking leads to action; one author states, “Criticality requires that one
opinions about mortal life.”14 Each person brings different life experience and be moved to do something.”20 President Thomas S. Monson, while a member
knowledge, which they call upon to engage in critical thinking. While both of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said, “The goal of gospel teaching . . .
are employing critical-thinking skills, they may be doing so with different is not to ‘pour information’ into the minds of class members. . . . The aim is
facts and differing amounts of facts. All of the facts in consideration may be to inspire the individual to think about, feel about, and then do something
true, but because of the way those facts are understood, different conclusions about living gospel principles.”21 This application is the foundation of the
are reached. Still, the thinking taking place can be correctly defined as critical. teachings of Jesus Christ, the very purpose of his Atonement, to allow for
Another belief included by some in a definition of critical thinking, individuals to change. This change does not solely consist of stopping some
though at odds with the edifying instruction presented in LDS religious behavior but also includes starting new behaviors. Elder Neal A. Maxwell, for
education, is addressed by Rajeswari Mohan, who suggests that to teach example, suggested that many of us could make more spiritual progress “in
using critical thinking would require “a re-understanding of the classroom.”15 the realm of the sins of omission . . . than in any other place.”22
Generally, the understanding that currently exists of the classroom, both
inside and outside of religious education, consists of creating an atmosphere Critical Thinking Exaggerated
of respect and trust, a safe place to learn and grow—something that Mohan President Boyd K. Packer taught that “tolerance is a virtue, but like all vir-
calls “cosmopolitan instruction.”16 In its place Mohan advocates that the tues, when exaggerated, it transforms itself into a vice.”23 This facet of critical
classroom become “a site of contestation,”17 which connotes controversy, thinking whereby critical thinking prompts action must be explained care-
argument, and divisiveness. Of course, it is possible to contest a belief, debate, fully, as it can be exaggerated and transformed into a vice. Mohan described
and even disagree while still maintaining trust and respect, but such a teach- this aspect of critical thinking that moves individuals to action outside of the
ing atmosphere is what Mohan considers cosmopolitan and, as such, it would classroom as having a “goal of transformative political action” aimed at chal-
require no re-understanding to accomplish it. lenging, interrupting, and undercutting “regimes of knowledge.”24 Pedagogy
Elizabeth Ellsworth described her experience when attempting to employ of the Oppressed author and political activist Paulo Freire taught that this
the type of approach Mohan suggests in her own classroom.18 In reflecting on action brought about the “conquest”25 of an oppressed class in a society over
the experience, she noted that it exacerbated disagreements between students its oppressors. Some would argue that if it does not lead to this kind of con-
rather than resolving or solving anything. She summarized what took place tending, transformative action, critical thinking is incomplete.26
by saying, “Rational argument has operated in ways that set up as its opposite Transformative action taken by individuals to change themselves is neces-
an irrational Other.”19 Rather than having her class engage in discussion and sary. Yet the idea that one can effect change within the Church, for individuals
learning, Ellsworth witnessed students who refused to talk because of the fear or the organization itself, by compulsion or coercion in a spirit of conquest
of retaliation or fear of embarrassment. can lead to “the heavens [withdrawing] themselves; the Spirit of the Lord
Such a situation does not align with D&C 42:14, “If ye receive not the [being] grieved” (D&C 121:37). Critical thinking defined to include this
Spirit ye shall not teach.” Additionally, this confrontational atmosphere in contention does not have a place in religious education within the Church.
the learning environment seems to run counter to the doctrines taught by the A balanced definition of critical thinking that allows for faith in
Savior. Consider the words of Christ in 3 Nephi 11:29: “I say unto you, he things which are hoped for and yet unseen (see Alma 32:21) may look some-
that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the thing like this: Critical thinking consists of persistent, effortful, ponderous,
father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with and reflective thought devoted to concepts held and introduced through
anger, one with another.” various ways, including experience, inquiry, and reflection. That person then
analyzes, evaluates, and attempts to understand how those concepts coincide
76 Religious Educator · VOL. 18 NO. 3 · 2017 Critical Thinking in Religious Education 77

and interact with existing knowledge, ready to abandon or employ ideas 28, 34 Swelling motions, enlarge my soul, “Enhances rationality,”30 “serves to
based upon their truthfulness. This contemplation then leads the person to enlighten my understanding, mind improve the thinking process”31
doth begin to expand
consistent and appropriate actions.
Because of the benefits of critical thinking, some have taken its appli- 34 Your knowledge is perfect in that thing Employ any idea depending on its
truthfulness
cation to an extreme, allowing it to undermine faith. Addressing a group of
36 Neither must ye lay aside your faith Persistent
college students in 1996, President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “This is such a
37–38 Nourish it Persistent, interact with existing
marvelous season of your lives. It is a time not only of positive thinking but
knowledge
sometimes of critical thinking. Let me urge you to not let your critical think-
41–42 Diligence, patience Persistent, ponderous
ing override your faith.”27
Figure 1. Alma and Critical Thinking.
Examples in Doctrine
Despite a potential to undermine faith when applied incorrectly, critical The necessity of exercising faith is a major component of all religion. “For
thinking holds too much promise to be abandoned. This is particularly the my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the
case for religious education in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher
Saints. Not only do questions and critical thought have an appropriate place than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8–9). “Now
in the Church, but as President Dieter F. Uchtdorf has pointed out, the faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”
Church would not exist without it.28 He explains that the doctrinally loaded (Hebrews 11:1). “I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things
and foundational experience of the First Vision came as the result of Joseph which I should do” (1 Nephi 4:6). “Look unto me in every thought; doubt
Smith’s critical thought toward existing churches and a desire to know which not, fear not” (D&C 6:36). The skeptical critic of religion could assert that
he should join. Knowing for ourselves if the church that was restored through these statements amount to blind faith or towing the line without a rational
Joseph Smith’s efforts is truly the “only true and living church” (D&C 1:30) or logical reason to do so. Applying critical thinking to such assertions may
can be done only by following his lead and “ask[ing] of God” ( James 1:5). disclose, ironically, that such approaches are no different than using rational
“Asking questions,” President Uchtdorf said, “isn’t a sign of weakness; it’s a thought.
precursor of growth.”29 In Educating Reason, author Harvey Siegel responds to a criticism some-
This concept of critically thinking while still acting in faith is illustrated times waged against critical thinking called the indoctrination objection.
in Alma 32:27–43, when Alma teaches a group of nonbelievers who nonethe- His argument provides a means for reconciling faith with logic. In short he
less want to know the truth. Table 1 compares Alma’s words with concepts of observed that critical thinkers have traditionally been opposed to indoctrina-
critical thinking. tion of any kind. Over time much has been applied to the perception of, and
even the definition of, indoctrination, which now carries with it highly nega-
Verse Scriptural Phrase Critical-Thinking Counterpart tive connotations of teaching content that is either not true or is taught in
27 Awake and arouse your faculties Effortful thinking
such a way that the learner is not provided a way to measure the truthfulness
of what is being taught. Yet the fundamental definition of indoctrination is
27 Experiment upon my words Analyze, evaluate, attempt to
understand simply to teach.
28 Give place for Understand how concepts coincide and The indoctrination objection is based on the idea that critical think-
interact with existing knowledge ers want to reject all indoctrination, but they cannot do so because critical
28 Do not cast it out by your unbelief Ready to abandon or employ any idea thinking itself must be taught (indoctrinated). The definition he gives to
indoctrination is when students “are led to hold beliefs in such a way that they
78 Religious Educator · VOL. 18 NO. 3 · 2017 Critical Thinking in Religious Education 79

are prevented from critically inquiring into their legitimacy and the power of to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the
the evidence offered in their support; if they hold beliefs in such a way that the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people
beliefs are not open to rational evaluation or assessment.”32 Siegel delicately to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the
defines an indoctrinated belief as “a belief [that] is held non-evidentially.”33 spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.”36 More than solely
It must be acknowledged that children are not born valuing ratio- a statement of doctrine on a newsroom website, this concept is bolstered by
nal thought and evidence; those values must be taught, or indoctrinated. the words of canonized scripture: “Seek learning, even by study and also by
According to Siegel, “If an educational process enhances rationality, on this faith” (D&C 88:118). “You have not understood; you have supposed that I
view, that process is justified.”34 He later adds that such teaching is not only would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But
defensible, but necessary. “We are agreed that such belief-inculcation is desir- you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me” (D&C 9:7–8).
able and justifiable, and that some of it might have the effect of enhancing the And finally, from the admonition of Paul, who, after speaking of doctrines,
child’s rationality. Should we call it indoctrination? This seems partly, at least, counseled believers to “think on these things” (Philippians 4:8).
a verbal quibble.”35 The Prophet Joseph Smith addressed the relationship between faith and
A teacher is justified in teaching students and a learner is justified in intellect. “We consider,” he said, “that God has created man with a mind
studying if doing so will eventually enhance rationality and if students are capable of instruction, and a faculty which may be enlarged in proportion to
allowed to evaluate for themselves what is being taught. the heed and diligence given to the light communicated from heaven to the
There may even be a period when rationality is put on hold, or the lack intellect; and that the nearer man approaches perfection, the clearer are his
of rationality perpetuated, temporarily for the sake of increasing critical views.”37 In other words, acting in faith, or giving heed and diligence to light
thought in the end. This concept of proceeding with learning without first communicated from heaven, can enlarge the intellectual faculty and clarify
having an established rationale for doing so is the very concept of faith. Just as views. Diligence and heed are required in religious education, in which the
“faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things” (Alma 32:21), reasons may content being taught is considered irrational by secular society. Amid ridi-
not always be understood at first, just as a rational understanding for accept- cule by the irreligious, when the intellect is enlarged, the faithful recognize
ing a teaching is not always given at first. The moment when a learner must enhanced rationality and clearer views that are never realized by those who
accept a teaching without first having a sufficient reason for doing so is faith. are ridiculing. This process continues until full rationality is achieved and the
Students who continue to engage in the learning process are acting in faith. If promise of God is fulfilled: “Nothing is secret, that shall not be made mani-
the things being taught are true, those things will eventually lead those stu- fest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known” (Luke 8:17). What a
dents to increased rationality and expanded intellect. Such teaching should promise for a critical thinker!
not detour the student from seeking his or her own personal confirmation.
Teaching in a manner that discourages students from establishing their own Conclusion
roots deep into the ground is antithetical to both critical thinking and the Critical thinking has the potential to be a powerful tool for educators; that
purposes of LDS religious education. potential does not exclude its use by teachers within the Church. When used
Teaching in a way that encourages and invites students to think critically appropriately, critical thinking can help students more deeply understand and
about doctrines reflects not only teaching practices encouraged in today’s rely upon the teachings and Atonement of Jesus Christ. The testimony that
religious education within the Church but also doctrines of the Church. comes as a result of critical thought can carry students through difficult times
The culture and doctrine of the Church seeks to avoid indoctrinating mem- and serve as an anchor through crises of faith. As Elder M. Russell Ballard
bers in the negative or pejorative sense. On the Church’s official Newsroom teaches,
website is an article explaining what constitutes the doctrines of the Church.
Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded,
Included in that list is this statement: “Individual members are encouraged
“Don’t worry about it!” Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern
80 Religious Educator · VOL. 18 NO. 3 · 2017 Critical Thinking in Religious Education 81

and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. 16. Mohan, “Dodging the Crossfire,” 30.
Gone are the days when students were protected from people who attacked the 17. Mohan, “Dodging the Crossfire,” 30.
Church. Fortunately, the Lord provided this timely and timeless counsel to you 18. Elizabeth Ellsworth, “Why Doesn’t This Feel Empowering? Working through the
teachers: “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy,” Harvard Educational Review 59, no. 3 (September
of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even 1989): 297–325.
by study and also by faith.”38 19. Ellsworth, “Why Doesn’t This Feel Empowering?,” 301.
20. Nicholas C. Burbules and Rupert Berk, “Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy:
Critical thought does not consist of setting aside faith, but rather faith is Relations, Differences, and Limits,” in Critical Theories in Education, ed. Thomas S.
using critical thought to come to know truth for oneself. Popkewitz and Lynn Fendler (New York: Routledge, 1999), 45–66.
21. Thomas S. Monson, in Conference Report, October 1970, 107.
22. Neal A. Maxwell, “The Precious Promise,” Ensign, April 2004, 45, https://www.lds
Notes .org/ensign/2004/04/the-precious-promise?lang=eng.
23. Boyd K. Packer, “These Things I Know,” Ensign, May 2013, 8, https://www.lds.org
1. Andrew Davis, “Defending Religious Pluralism for Religious Education,” Ethics and
/ensign/2013/05/these-things-i-know?lang=eng.
Education 3, no. 5 (November 2010): 190.
24. Mohan, “Dodging the Crossfire,” 30.
2. Oduntan Jawoniyi, “Religious Education, Critical Thinking, Rational Autonomy,
25. Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, trans. Myra Bergman Ramos (New York:
and the Child’s Right to an Open Future,” Religion and Education 39, no. 1 ( January 2015):
Continuum International, 1970).
34–53; and Michael D. Waggoner, “Religion, Education, and Critical Thinking,” Religion and
26. Donaldo Macedo, introduction to Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 11–26.
Education 39, no. 3 (September 2012): 233–34.
27. Gordon B. Hinckley, “Excerpts from Recent Addresses of President Gordon B.
3. Waggoner, “Religion, Education, and Critical Thinking,” 233–34.
Hinckley,” Ensign, October 1996, https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/10
4. Duck-Joo Kwak, “Re-Conceptualizing Critical Thinking for Moral Education in
/excerpts-from-recent-addresses-of-president-gordon-b-hinckley?lang=eng.
Culturally Plural Societies,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 39, no. 4 (August 2007): 464.
28. Uchtdorf, “The Reflection in the Water.”
5. Jawoniyi, “Religious Education,” 46.
29. Uchtdorf, “The Reflection in the Water.”
6. Michael Scriven and Richard Paul, quoted in “Defining Critical Thinking,”
30. Harvey Siegel, “Indoctrination Objection,” in Educating Reason: Rationality,
Foundation for Critical Thinking, http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages
Critical Thinking, and Education (New York: Routledge, 1988), 78–90.
/defining-critical-thinking/766.
31. Halpern, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer across Domains,” 451.
7. Gospel Teaching and Learning Handbook: A Handbook for Teachers and Leaders in
32. Siegel, Educating Reason, 80.
Seminaries and Institutes of Religion (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
33. Siegel, Educating Reason, 80.
Saints, 2012), 39.
34. Siegel, Educating Reason, 81.
8. Tim John Moore, “Critical Thinking and Disciplinary Thinking: A Continuing
35. Siegel, Educating Reason, 82.
Debate,” Higher Education Research & Development 30, no. 3 ( June 2011): 261–74.
36. “Approaching Mormon Doctrine,” 4 May 2007, http://www.mormonnewsroom
9. Ali Mohammad Siahi Atabaki, Narges Keshtiaray, Mohammad Yarmohammadian,
.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine.
“Scrutiny of Critical Thinking Concept,” International Education Studies 8, no. 3 (February
37. B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
2015): 100.
Saints, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 2:8.
10. Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “The Reflection in the Water” (CES fireside for young adults at
38. M. Russell Ballard, “The Opportunities and Responsibilities of CES Teachers in the
Brigham Young University, 1 November 2009), https://www.lds.org/media-library
21st Century” (address to CES religious educators, 26 February 2016), https://www.lds.org/
/video/2009-11-0050-the-reflection-in-the-water?lang=eng#d.
broadcasts/article/evening-with-a-general-authority/2016/02/the-opportunities-and
11. Seminaries and Institutes of Religion, Doctrinal Mastery: Core Document (Salt Lake
-responsibilities-of-ces-teachers-in-the-21st-century?lang=eng&_r=1.
City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2016), 2.
12. Diane F. Halpern, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer across Domains,” The
American Psychologist 53, no. 4 (April 1998): 451.
13. Jennifer Wilson Mulnix, “Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking,” Educational
Philosophy and Theory 44, no. 5 ( July 2012): 466.
14. Dallin H. Oaks, “As He Thinketh in His Heart” (evening with a General Authority,
8 February 2013), https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world
/as-he-thinketh-in-his-heart-?lang=eng.
15. Rajeswari Mohan, “Dodging the Crossfire: Questions for Postcolonial Pedagogy,”
College Literature 19/20, vol. 3/1 (October 1992–February 1993): 30.