Should I Or Shouldn't I . . .

[consiglieri]

I observe that this thread has grown far beyond my expectations when I made the original post.

I think this indicates the subject is one of intense interest to those on both sides of the argument.

Perhaps it would be useful, after all, to try to investigate why, within the LDS Church, there are people on both sides of this issue who are deeply and passionately entrenched in their respective beliefs.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

One would be wise to use the manual. But I've never felt constrained to limit the discussion to JUST the Manual.

[simply_disappear]

I fully agree with that. First, look at the available material. Then, if you want extra supplemental material, use it. I personally make sure to follow the manuals introductory guidelines, and let those take up at least 90% of my lessons. This means for most of my lessons, I'm using scriptures, quotes from church leaders, church curriculum, church history, general conference, questions to help the class discuss, comments from class members, letting class members answer other peoples questions, etc. I never want to replace that. But, I do reach outside that and use supplemental material quite often. As the quote hints, it is ok to use supplemental material. Supplemental material is most definitely is not banned or exced. And I have found that most (if not all), are very pleased with the supplemental material used.

***I'm afraid that we agree. I agree with the above statement completely. I have always thought this. I suppose that my main line of thinking is that we shouldn't use speculative materials. This is what my original post was about, if you recall. The OP mentioned as one of his bullet points that he was considering telling the story as if it were not true.....to me,,,,that screamed speculation.

ETA: I suppose that what I was trying to get down to is that while some would go out on a limb and use extra material not specifically outlined I have never had an ounce of trouble creating entertaining, informative and interesting lessons for any age group whilst using what are considered approved Church materials. I

[Paul Ray]

Dear Paul Ray,

At least we have stake conference this weekend, so my class won't be in jeopardy for another 11-days . . . and counting.

All the Best!

--Consgilieri

I don't think "your" class, or the students who attend "your" class, are in jeopardy no matter what you do, consiglieri.

... or at least I sincerely hope they are not, and won't be.

If your class looks to you as one of their "spiritual" leaders, however, your leaders would have a lot of other problems to deal with.

I hope you sincerely enjoy your stake conference.

[simply_disappear]

SD wrote:

We so often think of the "1" as the weak and the failing. What if the "1" is the bored and the drooling? Should we not go after that "1" as well?

Consiglieri wrote:

To which SD responded:

Read closer my dear SD. I don't know what "admittedly assinine comments about the good woman" you may have made on another thread (though you've got my interest up!), but my comment was directed specifically toward "such people, who . . . go and complain to the bishop about it." If you do not complain to the bishop about such things, this comment is not about you.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Yes, we should go after that "bored and the drooling" as well. I get your point. Thank you for making it. I'll have to consider this as I prepare lessons in the future.

[emeliza]

11. This is one of my pet peeves, though "peeves" may be too small a word. Why is it that some members feel so strongly that 100% of the class must be things they have heard a thousand times before, and they are so dogged in their insistence that they know what is best for the entire class that they then go and complain to the bishop and the stake presidency in order to enforce their rigid view of what is appropriately taught in Sunday school? And invariably when they complain, they are not complaining for themselves but for some assumed and unnamed "others" who might have their testimony shaken by what is being taught.

***The Lord taught we ought to leave the 99 to retrieve the 1. I find your statement above to be lacking in compassion. I was once an "other". I needed the same lesson over and over until I grew and I now attend my GD class and I am able to see beyond the basic lesson because I have studied and sought to understand and partake of the meat. When the lesson is taught, I glean more by what I know in my heart and in my brain based on that scholarship as will others as they grow. It is the Spirit which teaches us.....our teachers are merely the vehicle.....

I think if someone is struggling in GD class, they should be lead back to GE class. I personally am not sure I am ready to move up from GE to GD because the basics are so important I believe we should know them almost inside out. I think too often people go for the meat before the milk. The milk is more the GE class. It is a great book and beautiful gospel. If GD is too much.....why can't people just go back rather than have the GD class made to their understanding?

I fully agree with that. First, look at the available material. Then, if you want extra supplemental material, use it. I personally make sure to follow the manuals introductory guidelines, and let those take up at least 90% of my lessons. This means for most of my lessons, I'm using scriptures, quotes from church leaders, church curriculum, church history, general conference, questions to help the class discuss, comments from class members, letting class members answer other peoples questions, etc. I never want to replace that. But, I do reach outside that and use supplemental material quite often. As the quote hints, it is ok to use supplemental material. Supplemental material is most definitely is not banned or exced. And I have found that most (if not all), are very pleased with the supplemental material used.

***I'm afraid that we agree. I agree with the above statement completely. I have always thought this. I suppose that my main line of thinking is that we shouldn't use speculative materials. This is what my original post was about, if you recall. The OP mentioned as one of his bullet points that he was considering telling the story as if it were not true.....to me,,,,that screamed speculation.

This is exactly how I teach my lessons. Although the order in which I present it might be different, the manual or discussion of something in the manual is where 90% of my presentation comes from.

[Paul Ray]

I feel that the bishop is a busy man, and that we are our own agents, especially for our callings. As I mentioned before, when my bishop goes to the stake president with questions, the most frequent response he gets is "Well, you're the bishop of your ward. This is for you to figure out".

I agree that a bishop would be a very a busy man if everybody in the ward went to him for counsel, or whatever, but a bishop appoints other people to help him share the load... such as a Sunday School presidency for Gospel Doctrine teachers.

It's not just: ask the bishopric or figure it out on your own.

If we can find a solution by asking friends, and the answer our friends would give is just as good as what the bishop would give, then I'm happy. If I'm particularly troubled, and I feel it goes beyond asking friends and requires bishops counsel, I would go in that direction.

Why ask friends? What do they have to do with how a person fulfills a calling?

I'm suggesting talking to our leaders when we have questions about our calling, instead of just talking to Tom, **** and Harry... unless Tom, **** and Harry are your leaders, of course.

[Paul Ray]

I observe that this thread has grown far beyond my expectations when I made the original post.

I think this indicates the subject is one of intense interest to those on both sides of the argument.

Perhaps it would be useful, after all, to try to investigate why, within the LDS Church, there are people on both sides of this issue who are deeply and passionately entrenched in their respective beliefs.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I guess I just feel passionately about asking our leaders when we have questions concerning how we should fulfill our callings... instead of relying only on what we believe is the Holy Spirit giving us personal counsel and encouragement to do what we feel is right... and instead of going to our friends and relatives to see if they have an opinion concerning how we should fulfill our callings.

A calling in the Church is between me and my Church leaders, and nobody else. I will sometimes ask what my wife thinks about things, though, because she are I are both in this together. But even my wife knows I should counsel with my Church leaders... concerning any calling I may have in the Church.

[helix]

It's not just: ask the bishopric or figure it out on your own.

Two options? I never said it was two options. I mentioned friends as another example.

Why ask friends? What do they have to do with how a person fulfills a calling?

Why not? We've been given great flexibility in determining how best to succeed in that calling. Asking friends or those who have been in a similar situation can help.

I'm suggesting talking to our leaders when we have questions about our calling

In all honesty, it was the Sunday School president who I felt breaks the rules more than anyone else. I started a thread about this about two years ago. I asked him to teach for me one week. When I walked into his class, there on the board was a lesson about Adam, Eve, the garden, the Milky Way Galaxy, Kolob, the Earth, space-time stuff, etc. (Incidentally, I learned a great humbling lesson about how to be a student in a class like that. But that's another story). While his other lessons weren't as speculative, they definitely contained plenty of speculation. So much so, that students called him out on it.

I don't think this thread is getting anywhere. One one side, are those two of you who lean in the fundamentalist direction. (Always follow the manual. Stick to the basics and curriculum even though manual doesn't exclude supplemental material. We should teach the basics hundreds of times over and over until the members get it. If you have a question, ask your leaders first, etc.) On the other side, are those who are a little more relaxed. (The manual does not set things in stone, but gives guidelines to follow. Supplemental material can brings in the Spirit better than rehashing the same lesson. If you have concerns, you can research it more yourself, or ask friends, or ask people here, or ask your family members, or ask your leaders, etc. If the situation or questions gets really serious, turn to your Sunday School president, or even your Bishop.)

A thread like this reminds me of the Word of Wisdom debates "It doesn't state caffeine, but we should play it safe and avoid anything with caffeine in it." Or keeping the Sabbath Day holy "It doesn't state anything about watching TV, but we should play it safe and avoid it." Or paying tithing "The church is careful to get into specifics, but really, I think people are cheating the Lord if they don't tithe their gross pay." I'm not stating that you believe similarly on those points. I'm just saying that's how this church teaching topic feels to me. Stating too many details when our leaders never have.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: I do not see any church statements that insist I must follow the tighter first approach. And I take that to mean that they don't want us to follow that approach. Our leaders are very good about stating explicity something they want done, if they want it done. So until our leaders change their policy on what can be taught and how, I'm going to continue to teach according to what I feel I've seen best results with.

I guess I just feel passionately about asking our leaders when we have questions concerning how we should fulfill our callings... instead of relying only on what we believe is the Holy Spirit giving us personal counsel and encouragement to do what we feel is right... and instead of going to our friends and relatives to see if they have an opinion concerning how we should fulfill our callings.

I fully respect this. I've seen this work very well for many members. I fully support it. I don't think that every member needs to rely on their leaders to the same degree. But we shouldn't ignore them either.

[simply_disappear]

I guess I just feel passionately about asking our leaders when we have questions concerning how we should fulfill our callings... instead of relying only on what we believe is the Holy Spirit giving us personal counsel and encouragement to do what we feel is right... and instead of going to our friends and relatives to see if they have an opinion concerning how we should fulfill our callings.

A calling in the Church is between me and my Church leaders, and nobody else. I will sometimes ask what my wife thinks about things, though, because she are I are both in this together. But even my wife knows I should counsel with my Church leaders... concerning any calling I may have in the Church.

I agree with what you have contributed. I feel that the Bishop and our SS presidency are there to aid us in magnifying our callings. I feel that all too often, we limit ourselves by thinking we have to figure it out on our own and I also feel that contributes to the individual teacher person holding the calling having feelings of being overwhelmed and inadequate.

[simply_disappear]

Two options? I never said it was two options. I mentioned friends as another example.

Why not? We've been given great flexibility in determining how best to succeed in that calling. Asking friends or those who have been in a similar situation can help.

***I can see this working in some situations. I guess though when I was mentioning going to the Bishop to the OP it was because he seems to be saying that the curriculum as outlined by the Church is inadequate and to me that spells the beginning of questioning our leaders and for me, that would be a blinding light telling me to seek the counsel of my Bishop for something I was struggling with.

I don't think this thread is getting anywhere.

***That's interesting because I feel it is a good thread which has brought some things to light for me.

A thread like this reminds me of the Word of Wisdom debates "It doesn't state caffeine, but we should play it safe and avoid anything with caffeine in it." Or keeping the Sabbath Day holy "It doesn't state anything about watching TV, but we should play it safe and avoid it."

***I don't subscribe to that type of thought process when it comes to all things least of all the two mentioned above. My family probably looks less LDS in the WoW and Sabbath Day keeping aspects of things than others. I can see what you mean about the Church teaching topic.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: I do not see any church statements that insist I must follow the tighter first approach.

***The one I quoted from yesterday is one I take to heart.....it says if we can't find something within the approved Church materials to carefully seek elsewhere. I suppose it is my nature to feel that all can be found within the texts of what is provided for us within the gospel while understanding there are worthwhile and interesting things without it.

[SlackTime]

This thread reminds me of another gripe I have been having lately. My Bishop has instituted a "theme" based sacrament meeting schedule that has all talks for a month covering a certain topic. Every talk all month long is on that topic! Although from week to week, there does seem to be a little change, there seems to be no effort made to subdivide the topic so that different speakers actually cover different material. In addition, the speakers are given a multisheet "help" sheet to prepare their talks (identical to each speaker) that practically precludes them from "straying" off the topic. By the end of the month, it gets pretty old. *SIGH*

Is this happening more generally? Or is it just my ward?

-SlackTime

[emeliza]

This thread reminds me of another gripe I have been having lately. My Bishop has instituted a "theme" based sacrament meeting schedule that has all talks for a month covering a certain topic. Every talk all month long is on that topic! Although from week to week, there does seem to be a little change, there seems to be no effort made to subdivide the topic so that different speakers actually cover different material. In addition, the speakers are given a multisheet "help" sheet to prepare their talks (identical to each speaker) that practically precludes them from "straying" off the topic. By the end of the month, it gets pretty old. *SIGH*

Is this happening more generally? Or is it just my ward?

-SlackTime

We tend to have themes each month, but we are given specific areas within the theme to cover so the topics don't say the same things.....and no sheets for help.

[SlackTime]

We tend to have themes each month, but we are given specific areas within the theme to cover so the topics don't say the same things.....and no sheets for help.

Ah, thank you, you give me hope

-SlackTime

[Paul Ray]

Ultimately, it comes down to this: I do not see any church statements that insist I must follow the tighter first approach.

I think it's hard to find any church statement insisting that we follow any specific approach.

I think the Church generally teaches us general principles, like Joseph did, and then lets us govern ourselves.

And I take that to mean that they don't want us to follow that approach.

Okay, please clarify exactly what it is you are referring to as the "tighter first approach".

Do you think the leaders of the Church don't counsel you to discuss how to fulfill and magnify your calling when you have a question concerning how to fulfill and magnify your calling?

Please state exactly what you believe the Church is telling you on this specific issue.

Our leaders are very good about stating explicity something they want done, if they want it done. So until our leaders change their policy on what can be taught and how, I'm going to continue to teach according to what I feel I've seen best results with.

Are you saying that if your leaders gave you some explicit instructions concerning how they wanted you to fulfill your calling, you would then follow their instructions explicitly?

Why don't you just ask them if there is anything they want you to avoid using, or doing?

That is all I am suggesting. Is that so hard?

I fully respect this. I've seen this work very well for many members. I fully support it. I don't think that every member needs to rely on their leaders to the same degree. But we shouldn't ignore them either.

So, in your opinion, what or who determines how much we should rely on what our leaders tell us?

How do you know when you should follow or not your leaders?

Who would ever tell you to not ask for and follow your leaders counsel?

[Paul Ray]

Ah, thank you, you give me hope

-SlackTime

We do that in my/our ward, too.

And each time I am surprised by how much I am learning about the speakers, and by how they each share what they think.

[consiglieri]

consiglieri:

One would be wise to use the manual. But I've never felt constrained to limit the discussion to JUST the Manual.

You will be glad to know that, in preparing my lessons, the first extra-scriptural source I review is the manual, and then I go from there.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

When I was called to be the gospel doctrine teacher several months ago, the bishop's counsellor who extended the call suggested to me that I stick to the KJV of the Bible, as there had been some complaints from class members about my using the New International Version on occasion when substituting.

I told him that if he wanted me to use the KJV from 400 years ago, instead of the better translations available that are based on newly discovered manuscripts much older than those used for the KJV, I would do so. He had to laugh at that.

I also said that if he wanted me to use the KJV which is couched in Elizabethan language difficult for us to understand today, instead of a version that is easier to understand, I would do that, too. After all, we wouldn't want people to actually understand the scriptures, would we?

I will add that I think there is value in using a non-KJV Bible in class. The value is that it is my experience that, when I read from the KJV, most members of the class won't even bother looking it up. But when I quote from a non-KJV version, a lot more class members look it up in their own bibles to see how it is different. So using a non-KJV bible seems to have the effect of more members reading the scriptures. Now, that can't be all bad, can it?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[helix]

I think the Church generally teaches us general principles, like Joseph did, and then lets us govern ourselves.

And then later

Do you think the leaders of the Church don't counsel you to discuss how to fulfill and magnify your calling when you have a question concerning how to fulfill and magnify your calling?

Are you saying that if your leaders gave you some explicit instructions concerning how they wanted you to fulfill your calling, you would then follow their instructions explicitly?

Why don't you just ask them if there is anything they want you to avoid using, or doing?

That is all I am suggesting. Is that so hard?

So, in your opinion, what or who determines how much we should rely on what our leaders tell us?

How do you know when you should follow or not your leaders?

Who would ever tell you to not ask for and follow your leaders counsel?

You already provided the answer I would have given. "I think the Church generally teaches us general principles, like Joseph did, and then lets us govern ourselves."

[Paul Ray]

You already provided the answer I would have given. "I think the Church generally teaches us general principles, like Joseph did, and then lets us govern ourselves."

Then it seems that we now agree on this issue.

Hmm. Or do we?

[helix]

I don't think this thread is getting anywhere.

***That's interesting because I feel it is a good thread which has brought some things to light for me.

Ya, I was going to edit that out...but I had to drive somewhere. missed my window of opportunity. I think the thread has been helpful, at least to help me understand the points of view of members who want us to rely more tightly on our leaders than I normally would. Not that I ignore their counsel, I just don't feel I need to seek it as much as others would.

***The one I quoted from yesterday is one I take to heart.....it says if we can't find something within the approved Church materials to carefully seek elsewhere.

I agree with that as well. I do stick with the main material most of the time. But it seems natural to use some supplemental material every now and then. Often they are just object lessons. Sometimes they are church history books. For the WoW lesson, I used a BYU student's Masters thesis quite a bit (I still feel that lesson was most effective lesson I've ever taught). One time I used an AP news article talking about food storage after Hurricane Katriana. These are little things that I have found help a lesson.

[Paul Ray]

... it seems natural to use some supplemental material every now and then. Often they are just object lessons. Sometimes they are church history books. For the WoW lesson, I used a BYU student's Masters thesis quite a bit (I still feel that lesson was most effective lesson I've ever taught). One time I used an AP news article talking about food storage after Hurricane Katriana. These are little things that I have found help a lesson.

Do you now understand that I really have no problem with those "supplemental materials" as long as your leaders approve your use of them?

I am curious: When you were a Gospel Doctrine teacher, as your calling in the ward you were in, did you ever counsel with your Sunday School presidency, to see what they thought about what you were doing?

... before you actually did what you're going to do?

Did you ever just talk with members of your Sunday School presidency?

... in their official capacity as your leaders in your calling?

I think a ward is a better ward when members counsel with their leaders, because they are then working together.

[consiglieri]

But that would actually require that the Sunday school presidency do something.

What are you? Some kind of apostate?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Paul Ray]

But that would actually require that the Sunday school presidency do something.

What are you? Some kind of apostate?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Yeah, I think a lot of members really think the Sunday School presidency doesn't really do anything.

... and even a lot of Sunday School teachers don't really know what they do.

[helix]

Do you now understand that I really have no problem with those "supplemental materials" as long as your leaders approve your use of them?

I am curious: When you were a Gospel Doctrine teacher, as your calling in the ward you were in, did you ever counsel with your Sunday School presidency, to see what they thought about what you were doing?

... before you actually did what you're going to do?

Did you ever just talk with members of your Sunday School presidency?

... in their official capacity as your leaders in your calling?

I think a ward is a better ward when members counsel with their leaders, because they are then working together.

No. I didn't feel the need to. And looking back, I still don't think I needed to. I've mentioned I've had the bishopric and stake presidency sit my classes, and they mentioned they enjoyed my lessons. Also, the sunday school president sat in my class every week. They never hinted that I was doing anything wrong, so I never felt the need to ask if I was doing things right.