Should I Or Shouldn't I . . .

[SlackTime]

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. 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.

Having been in leadership positions both in Church and at work, may I suggest that it doesn't hurt to ask? As a leader I may hesitate to mention something if it isn't really important because by bringing it up to you I am in fact implying a level of importance. However if you ask for counsel, then I can share thoughts that I wouldn't bring up otherwise, since, now that you ask, I may have some suggestions. Sunday school presidents don't really have the same feedback structure we have in Priesthood, i.e. personal priesthood interviews, where in discussion, something can come up. The only way you have to get feedback is often to ask. Just a suggestion.

-SlackTime

[simply_disappear]

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.

***I am not asking to rely upon the leaders so much as relying upon what the Lord has for us to do according to their counsel. I feel that the Lord has a hand in all we will allow Him to. I don't advocate going to the Bishop or SS pres just to justify petty things but when we are struggling with things, I feel this would be the best place to start after prayer.

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.

***See, I would do the same with the exception of the thesis perhaps,,,,depending.....I was speaking more to the idea of presenting the story of the harlot as fiction.....which is speculative.

[consiglieri]

***See, I would do the same with the exception of the thesis perhaps,,,,depending.....I was speaking more to the idea of presenting the story of the harlot as fiction.....which is speculative.

But the historical and textual evidence indicates that to present the story of the woman taken in adultery as fact is speculative.

Or does this work only one way?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[SolarPowered]

I seem to be getting a lot of milage out the Dr. Bart Erhman lecture I went to last night...

He actually spoke for a good while about this exact passage. Beyond the points already mentioned in this thread, he said that the Greek of this passage is very different from the rest of John. So it is quite unlikely that John wrote this, it got separated, and it later got pasted back into the correct Gospel.

[Paul Ray]

I seem to be getting a lot of milage out the Dr. Bart Erhman lecture I went to last night...

He actually spoke for a good while about this exact passage. Beyond the points already mentioned in this thread, he said that Greek of this passage is very different from the rest of John. So it is quite unlikely that John wrote this, it got separated, and it later got pasted back into the correct Gospel.

Achh, see. Whact did I telld you.

All words can be understood better when you speak Greek.

Achh, see. I told you.

So there you go.

edited: in an attempt to show you my language is in Greek.

[consiglieri]

I seem to be getting a lot of milage out the Dr. Bart Erhman lecture I went to last night...

He actually spoke for a good while about this exact passage. Beyond the points already mentioned in this thread, he said that Greek of this passage is very different from the rest of John. So it is quite unlikely that John wrote this, it got separated, and it later got pasted back into the correct Gospel.

So it sounds as if it would be more speculative to teach the story as fact than to teach it as fiction.

Interesting!

[Paul Ray]

So it sounds as if it would be more speculative to teach the story as fact than to teach it as fiction.

Interesting!

I think you are speculating on that, consiglieri.

And so am I, as I now say what I'm saying.

[SlackTime]

So it sounds as if it would be more speculative to teach the story as fact than to teach it as fiction.

Interesting!

Considering that many modern prophets have quoted the story and used it to teach, I think you are safe in saying that the basic principles behind the story are true. Is the story historical? who knows, perhaps it is an inspired fiction

-SlackTime

editted to add the smiley

[consiglieri]

Considering that many modern prophets have quoted the story and used it to teach, I think you are safe in saying that the basic principles behind the story are true. Is the story historical? who knows, perhaps it is an inspired fiction

-SlackTime

editted to add the smiley

In a similar way, Bruce R. McConkie has gone on record as saying that the author of Hebrews was Paul.

Am I therefore not justified in teaching that the author of Hebrews is unknown, or has that become verboten "speculation" merely because Elder McConkie has put his views to the contrary in writing?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Paul Ray]

In a similar way, Bruce R. McConkie has gone on record as saying that the author of Hebrews was Paul.

Am I therefore not justified in teaching that the author of Hebrews is unknown, or has that become verboten "speculation" merely because Elder McConkie has put his views to the contrary in writing?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You can say whatever you want to say, consiglieri, but an apostle of our Lord has spoken.

... and I'm not referring to the apostle Paul, in this instance.

[consiglieri]

You can say whatever you want to say, consiglieri, but an apostle of our Lord has spoken.

... and I'm not referring to the apostle Paul, in this instance.

So because an apostle passes on an incorrect but widely held notion, it somehow attains the status of divine fiat?

I really do hope you are kidding me on this one!

Say you're kidding. Please.

Geez, just when I thought the fire in this thread was going out!

[Paul Ray]

So because an apostle passes on an incorrect but widely held notion, it somehow attains the status of divine fiat?

Where do you suppose you are getting the idea that what he was saying was incorrect?

Has God or one of his leaders corrected what he was saying? If so, I don't know that.

I believe Paul was the author of the letter to the Hebrews, either personally or through one of his scribes.

Some other people may have revised or added to the words that were written, with Paul's authority, but I believe what was originally written was written with Paul's authority... and that authority was the authority our Lord and His other apostles gave Paul to do that.

I really do hope you are kidding me on this one!

Why? Because we might not agree on this issue? Do you really care if you and I agree on all things?

Say you're kidding. Please.

No, I'm not kidding. I believe what I've told you. If you choose to not believe, that is your choice.

Geez, just when I thought the fire in this thread was going out!

I can blow my fire out, if you want me to, consiglieri. I can stop posting in this thread.

Do you want me to?

[consiglieri]

Maybe this would be a good place to start a new thread. I don't know.

On what basis to you think that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews?

I expect you are aware there is absolutely no evidence that he did.

It is not even signed by Paul.

It is anonymous.

It is also not a letter, but a sermon.

Or does Elder McConkie's calling it an "epistle" change that fact, too?

Do you think this would be better on a new thread?

I know that when threads start to get long, it can tend to discourage new participants.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Paul Ray]

Maybe this would be a good place to start a new thread. I don't know.

On what basis to you think that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews?

I expect you are aware there is absolutely no evidence that he did.

It is not even signed by Paul.

It is anonymous.

It is also not a letter, but a sermon.

Or does Elder McConkie's calling it an "epistle" change that fact, too?

Do you think this would be better on a new thread?

I know that when threads start to get long, it can tend to discourage new participants.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I don't know what good it would do to start another thread about this, unless you just want to know what other people think regarding this issue. I've already told you what I believe.

And I consider an "epistle" to be pretty much the same thing as a "letter".

[consiglieri]

I don't know what good it would do to start another thread about this, unless you just want to know what other people think regarding this issue. I've already told you what I believe.

And I consider an "epistle" to be pretty much the same thing as a "letter".

"It is also not a letter, but a sermon."

[SlackTime]

I think I detect an inerrantist, fundamentalist mindset among some in this thread. I am no early manuscript expert nor do I claim to be, but I have read enough to know that there are very few of the books in the new testament to which we can actually fix authorship. But all of them have some traditional author to which the work has been attributed. None of our apostles has ever claimed that they are manuscript experts, nor have they declared revelation regarding authorship. The closest you can get is the question and answer session recorded in D&C 77 which seems to confirm the authorship of John for Revelations. And the questions were about content not authorship since Joseph never questioned the authorship. Our leadership leaves alone the question of authorship and concerns themselves with content, for it is the content that offers understanding of salvation and exaltation not the authorship. I would not assume that just because an apostle or prophet quotes something from the Bible and because he gives it traditionally accepted authorship that he is doing so in a manner meant to confirm and establish that authorship.

Hebrews, I think, is one of the most beautiful works attributed to Paul. For that reason alone I wonder about its provenance and authorship. But that doesn't stop me from accepting it as scripture and pondering its message.

-SlackTime

[consiglieri]

I appreciate your nicely expressed sentiments, SlackTime, and would invite you to post the same on the thread I just started on this very same subject.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[SolarPowered]

A point that occurs to me is that, as far as I know, there are no points of doctrine that hinge on the story of the Woman Taken in Adultry. From that point of view, it doesn't really matter whether the story is true or not.

In comparison, consider the Comma Johanneum. A great deal about the trinitarian beliefs hang on whether Jesus ever spoke those exact words.

From that point of view, it matters whether the Comma Johanneum is true or not. But, it doesn't matter at all whether the story of the Woman Taken in Adultry is true. It's just a nice story.

[Paul Ray]

All truth matters to me. I want to gather it up from whereever I can find it.

I also know that story is true, and that that message matters.

If you don't want to know it is true, you don't have to, so no worries.

[consiglieri]

Am I starting to feel how evangelicals feel when Mormons bear their testimony in response to sincere questions?

[structurecop]

Am I starting to feel how evangelicals feel when Mormons bear their testimony in response to sincere questions?

I think it's called an epiphany of empathy.

[SlackTime]

Am I starting to feel how evangelicals feel when Mormons bear their testimony in response to sincere questions?

I don't know about you, and I don't mean to cast dirt on anyone's testimony of anything. But for me this thing is sorta like that paper by Davis Bitton. He said "I don't have a testimony of the history of the Church". Well in this case it would be more like "I don't have a testimony of the history and provenance of the scriptures"

I have a strong testimony of the scriptures, but the truth of the message of the scriptures does not depend on their provenance or authorship. While I am very interested in the history and provenance of the scriptures as an intellectual curiosity, my testimony of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not dependent upon it and learning about a reform at the time of Josiah or modifications made to combat heresy in the 3rd century CE doesn't shake my faith in Christ or in the value of what has survived of the scriptures. At least it doesn't for me. But then I don't hold them as inerrant either...

-SlackTime

[Calm]

Well in this case it would be more like "I don't have a testimony of the history and provenance of the scriptures"

LDS (well, most anyway) already accept the concept that the Bible has some translation errors. Yet I don't believe I have ever heard a GA use that as an excuse for not taking some part of the Bible seriously.

Instead I think the church leadership has chosen to emphasize the need to read the scriptures with the Spirit.

Even if the scriptures were inerrant, there is no guarantee that our understanding of them would be the same and indeed, I think the wide variation of belief structures in Christianity makes that obvious. What we do have is being interpretated differently.

The only way to know what the Scriptures are supposed to say to yourself, imo, is to read with the Spirit. If we do that, whether or not something has been an addition or something is missing, we can still benefit as much as we are open to because the Spirit will provide for our need, whatever that may be.

In my personal experience, my experience with a particular scripture has occurred at times in completely different ways, sometimes influencing me in areas of my life that are almost completely separated. The scripture verse isn't different, but the Spirit is answering my current need or interest.

[SlackTime]

LDS (well, most anyway) already accept the concept that the Bible has some translation errors. Yet I don't believe I have ever heard a GA use that as an excuse for not taking some part of the Bible seriously.

Instead I think the church leadership has chosen to emphasize the need to read the scriptures with the Spirit.

Even if the scriptures were inerrant, there is no guarantee that our understanding of them would be the same and indeed, I think the wide variation of belief structures in Christianity makes that obvious. What we do have is being interpretated differently.

The only way to know what the Scriptures are supposed to say to yourself, imo, is to read with the Spirit. If we do that, whether or not something has been an addition or something is missing, we can still benefit as much as we are open to because the Spirit will provide for our need, whatever that may be.

In my personal experience, my experience with a particular scripture has occurred at times in completely different ways, sometimes influencing me in areas of my life that are almost completely separated. The scripture verse isn't different, but the Spirit is answering my current need or interest.

Precisely, thank you Calmoriah.

[Helmuth]

All the fuss about teaching the lesson, how to teach the lesson, what's forbidden to include in the lesson, getting approval for the lesson....

What about the student?

I think the Church teaches, and it is a true principle, that the focus properly ought to be more on the OBJECT of instruction rather than the SUBJECT of instruction. We should focus on caring about and helping the STUDENTS and not on covering the MATERIAL.