Should I Or Shouldn't I . . .

[Paul Ray]

Shortly before I moved from California I was released as EQ instructor (actually, fired is the more appropriate word) for departing from the lesson manual one too many times. He was a nice guy, and actually liked my lessons but was rather button down about what should be taught. Ex-Airforce, if that adds perspective. My attitude was, "Fine.. no one has to call me as a teacher. But if you do, I teach the way I teach. I want to give my best. If I don't teach, I'll listen to who ever does. And comment when moved upon by the spirit." Shortly after I arrived in California, I was called as EQ instructor. In all the time I lived in Kansas, I got no complaints from the Elders there. Indeed, I was called as HP instructor expressly because the quorum leader wanted interesting lessons. Then when I moved to Pittsburgh, I was very quickly called as the HP instructor and as a Sunday School teacher here. I still teach the HP quorum, after 2.5 years.

I'd have no qualms about mentioning that the woman taken in adultery story is not in the oldest manuscripts we have, but I also think that it would be dicy to claim that the story does not belong there. I think it does. Somewhere, Orson Scott Card wrote something illustrating what different kinds of answers might have been given, and just what those alternate narratives might imply. That was an interesting way of demonstrating the Christ-like power of the story. I do not personally care much for the speculations about what Jesus was writing, but that is just me.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Yes, if you go to different wards, and talk to different people, you are likely to hear what different people think about things.

But we have General Authorities to guide us and we should be following what they tell us.

... and I believe the Holy Spirit will sustain what the General Authorities tell us (the other members).

[Severian]

A Gospel Doctrine teacher, in our Church, should teach from the approved lesson materials of our Church.

You should avoid giving information from any other materials, and simply focus on the materials you have to work with.

If you can't do that, you should ask to be released from that calling.

It's as simple as that.

So once the Correlation Committee has written, the thinking has been done? What if the audience was university educated folk who yearned for more than a surface look at the subject matter?

[emeliza]

I never completely stick with the manual when teaching. I generally read it over a lot and pray about it. Then I outline what the spirit moves me towards. So far it has never failed that I am reading something on my own that has to do with whatever lesson I have been assigned. Generally I then go and suppliment whatever I am reading that had something in common with the lesson. I use this for a basis to jump into discussion. I personally prefer the class to be more discussion than me reading. Course I also teach in RS so it is a different storyline.

Neither of my Gospel Essential teachers stick with the manual either. I admit it drove me nuts when I first joined the Church, but I quickly realized that I needed to read the lesson on my own as well. They were both members for a long time and were more indepth than I did. I now try and read all the lessons prior to both classes and have found that class has greatly improved.

[Paul Ray]

FYI, just in case you don't know, I'm not suggesting that people only read or quote from the manual.

The manuals only give an outline, and we can expand on it, but only with the use of approved Church materials... which includes scriptures (the standard works) as well as Church magazine articles... that focus on that specific lesson.

And we don't have to teach every point that is presented in the lesson. We can pick only one or two points and focus on them... depending on the needs of the individual class members... as the Holy Spirit helps us know what to focus on.

What is NOT allowed, however, is to stray from the topic, or to stray from the approved materials.

... at least not without consent of the Sunday School presidency, the bishopric, and the GA's.

It's not like... oh, I'd like to talk about [whatever I want].

We have certain guidelines to guide us.

[emeliza]

I have used Believe Christ by Stephen Robinson. I have also used The Holy Temple by Boyd K. Packer. Neither of these are Church approved. I could go on with other things I have used that are usually LDS, but not Church approved. Ocassionally it isn't even LDS......

[Olavarria]

I am in a bit of a quandry regarding the lesson material for Sunday school this week.

I teach gospel doctrine class and a substantial portion of this week's material deals with the story in John of the woman taken in adultery.

This is a highly cherished story among Mormons as well as non-LDS Christians. It is frequently quoted in General Conference.

The problem is that I know the story probably never happened at all, as it is not found in the earliest manuscripts of John; and when it does start showing up in manuscripts, it is inserted in different locations.

Even as we have it in John, it is clearly an addition to the text.

Here is my dilemma:

1. Should I teach about it as if it really happened?

2. Should I teach the truth that it probably never happened?

3. Should I avoid the subject altogether?

I haven't made a decision on this yet, and would appreciate the input of board members, whose opinions I respect.

Thanks in advance.

--Consiglieri

I think you should teach the story and have the class discuss what eternal principles can be gained from it:

1)"chekc yourself before you wrek yourself"

2)repentance

3)helping sinners instead of walloing inself righteousness

4) etc.

Whether this episode happend in real life or not can only be assertained by those who were there. I believe it reallly happend, maybe John left it out and a disciple or someone who knew Jesus personally preserved it and had it inserted in his book?

Sunday School is not the Jesus Seminar. It is for teaching people how to get to heaven,and make heaven on earth.

[Paul Ray]

I have used Believe Christ by Stephen Robinson. I have also used The Holy Temple by Boyd K. Packer. Neither of these are Church approved. I could go on with other things I have used that are usually LDS, but not Church approved. Ocassionally it isn't even LDS......

Well, then, if you didn't have the consent of the Sunday School presidency, the bishopric, and/or the GA's, you were straying from guidelines you should have been following.

I hope you won't do that again.

[charity]

What would teaching this add to the lesson? How would it help the purpose of the lesson as it would impact the lives of the students in your class?

Stick to the manual. This is not a college course in the history of the Bible.

My opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

There is no way of knowing whether this story was in or not in the original texts of the gospels. We do not have any originals, only copies. It may have been present and the early copies we have may have left it out, possibly because there was a period of time when an adulteress was thought to be unforgivable. Later copiers may have had acess to an earlier text and then put it back in. It may not have been in the actual original document but in another document which we have no knowledge of or as suggested may have been oral tradition. There is no reason to believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the only written histories of Jesus's ministry, in fact there are several others mentioned and there is some discussion of whether they are true history or fabrications designed to falsefy the true history of Jesus's ministry.

If it were me, I would teach it just as it is presented in the manual. I seldom introduce extraneous material into a GD lesson unless it enhances the intended message. The Gospel Doctrine class is not a place to try to enlighten the masses about possible faults in the historical record. These are topics for firesides, personal study or private discussions.

Larry P

To me, this is the most sensible reply on the thread. If no one has access to the original autographs, how do we know whether this was, indeed, a later addition, or whether it had been present from the first but left out of the earliest extant copies? And if there is no way to determine, the whole matter seems speculative — a good reason, in my view, not to occupy scarce class time with a discussion of it.

[Lachoneus]

There is no way of knowing whether this story was in or not in the original texts of the gospels. We do not have any originals, only copies. It may have been present and the early copies we have may have left it out, possibly because there was a period of time when an adulteress was thought to be unforgivable. Later copiers may have had acess to an earlier text and then put it back in. It may not have been in the actual original document but in another document which we have no knowledge of or as suggested may have been oral tradition. There is no reason to believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the only written histories of Jesus's ministry, in fact there are several others mentioned and there is some discussion of whether they are true history or fabrications designed to falsefy the true history of Jesus's ministry.

If it were me, I would teach it just as it is presented in the manual. I seldom introduce extraneous material into a GD lesson unless it enhances the intended message. The Gospel Doctrine class is not a place to try to enlighten the masses about possible faults in the historical record. These are topics for firesides, personal study or private discussions.

My thoughts exactly.

BTW, the current teacher's manual contains the following two sentences in the "Helps for the Teacher" section:

During class, keep discussions focused on the scriptures. Be judicious in your use of commentaries and other nonscriptural sources of information.

Be judicious.

[peeps]

It's 30 pieces of silver. Although I saw some slightly used apostacy selling on Ebay for a little less.

Yeah, but once you figure in shipping costs, it's about the same.

[Tsuzuki]

When you're in the Mormon paradigm stick with Mormon orthodoxy.

[emeliza]

Well, then, if you didn't have the consent of the Sunday School presidency, the bishopric, and/or the GA's, you were straying from guidelines you should have been following.

I hope you won't do that again.

Actually since I pray on everything prior to using it, I think I will be following the spirit on this one. No one has said it was wrong to do. And since the below is in the manual, I would guess I am okay. I don't focus on the other material, but I use it to emphasis a point. I even used the movie "The Best Two Years" to show the different body positions of praying.....

During class, keep discussions focused on the scriptures. Be judicious in your use of commentaries and other nonscriptural sources of information.

[Paul Ray]

To me, this is the most sensible reply on the thread. If no one has access to the original autographs, how do we know whether this was, indeed, a later addition, or whether it had been present from the first but left out of the earliest extant copies? And if there is no way to determine, the whole matter seems speculative â?? a good reason, in my view, not to occupy scarce class time with a discussion of it.

Okay, let's say for a moment that I agree with you and what you said, about that post being the best response to consiglieri's specific question, asking whether or not he should introduce that information during his Sunday School Gospel Doctrine class.

Try looking at that the thoughts in that post and imagine them being presented during Sunday School.

Do you see how that would detract from the lesson?

I think part of the reason we shouldn't stray from the topic of a lesson is to avoid having comments like that one.

Some people hardly study at all and all they get in Sunday School is what the teacher and other students have to say.

What is the value of this point compared to the subject of the lesson?

I think there are better things to talk about during Sunday School.

... and btw, if you don't know it, I just agreed with the last comment you made.

[Paul Ray]

Actually since I pray on everything prior to using it, I think I will be following the spirit on this one. No one has said it was wrong to do. And since the below is in the manual, I would guess I am okay. I don't focus on the other material, but I use it to emphasis a point. I even used the movie "The Best Two Years" to show the different body positions of praying.....

So are you saying that you believe the Holy Spirit is or was telling you that it's okay to stray from the approved lesson materials?

The comment you quoted at the end of your thread is merely suggesting that you pray to know what you should include from the approved lesson materials... not that you should pray to find out if it's okay to stray from the approved lesson materials.

You don't have to agree with me on this issue, but I am teling you what I believe.

... and I believe I am in agreement with the General Authorities of the Church.

[SolarPowered]

My opinion, and I repeat that this is just my opinion, is that my gut tells me that the story is authentic. It just feels right.

On an intellectual level, while it is possible, I don't really think that some medieval copiest invented the story out of whole cloth. I think, rather, that an authentic story had been passed down through some other documentary path, and then was inserted into the "official" cannonized Gospels at a late date.

I doubt that John actually wrote this story. I highly doubt that John wrote it, and placed it at that point in his Gospel. (So, I'd be extremely wary about drawing conclusions based on the "broader context.") But I am very much of the opinion that the story is authentic.

[Jan]

Ray,

I think I see where you are with this and it brings to mind that this works "both ways."

It drives me NUTS when material is presented by the teacher in a way that it is assumed to be official doctrine when it isn't.

For example:

Inerrancy of scriptures -- very fact presented in the scriptures must have literally happened or be accurate - not official doctrine

Evolution - has been presented as if it is false and faithful discard it. FALSE

So, I agree, that the point of the lesson should be followed, the lesson guide followed. I agree that the teach can expand on it as they think necessary or helpful but must be careful in the way that they do it, what material and sources they use, and assumptions that they are making.

I agree that GD class isn't necessarily the time to teach all the extraneous stuff even tho it would make it a heck f a lot more interesting. :-)

I think that seminary might be a good place to better "inoculate" our children with the more controversial parts of church history and beliefs (but I don't know where that would leave adult converts to learn about it).

[Paul Ray]

I think that seminary might be a good place to better "inoculate" our children with the more controversial parts of church history and beliefs (but I don't know where that would leave adult converts to learn about it).

... on their/our own, I believe.

At Church meetings we should learn what the leaders of the Church want us to learn.

At home, and everywhere else, we can learn what we want to learn.

I think it is fine for a teacher to mention that he/she read a book he/she likes, and even recommend it, but I don't believe he/she should talk about it during Sunday School unless it among the approved lesson materials.

I think there needs to be some place where we can learn what the Church wants to teach us.

When we teach a Gospel Doctrine class we are acting as a representative of the Church... and should be following Church guidelines.

... just like a professional teacher in a public school must follow the approved curriculum, and teach what he/she wants to his/her own children when not doing their job.

[Smith]

If I know that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by putting the seer stone into a hat and looking into the hat, should I teach the truth, or should I pass the truth by because it is not in the "approved manual"?

At what point is truth expendable? What place does truth have in a class on gospel doctrine?

Well, I don't see any problem with teaching about that. As I recall Elder Nelson spoke about this in Gen Conf not too long ago so why can't you in SS? The more members get to know the better. I'm with the poster that mentioned getting members interest piqued so that they go home and do a bit more in depth study instead of those who sit there with blank faces who never even bothered to look at the little study never mind read the scriptures.

[phaedrus ut]

Consiglieri,

The Pericope Adulterae is one of the most popular stories about Jesus even though it's probably not in the original. The evidence suggest that the pericope didn't start showing up in Johanine gospel until sometime in the 4th century. We do know that Jerome reported that he found in in both Greek and Latin manuscripts and subsequently included it in the Vulgate in 384ce.

We also know it's not in the oldest layer of John because it's absent from the Signs Gospel. However that doesn't mean the story isn't useful and is not authentic. It's possible that it's a authentic story from the life of Jesus that had been excluded from the Synoptic Gospels and John but was later incorporated into the Johanine narrative. I like what John Calvin wrote for his Commentary on John:

It seems that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here. But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage.

Phaedrus

[T-Shirt]

The story in Luke about the Savior bleeding from His pores falls in the same category as the verse that you are in a quandary about, yet the Doctrine and Covenants as well as the Book of Mormon confirm that the story is authentic. So, my conclusion is similar to other's in that the story is very likely legitimate, but was passed down in some other way and inserted later. I don't see a problem teaching it.

Regards,

T-Shirt

[poulsenll]

consiglieri

Since you know me personally, you know I am no stranger to speculative discussion of the Gospel in private discussions where it is easier to establish the difference between opinion and doctrine. Our personal growth is always benefitted by such discussions. However, the purpose of the Gospel Doctrine class is, as the name implies, to teach the doctine of the Gospel. Even when we explain that what we are saying is speculative, there will be those who do not hear our caveat, maybe they are looking for their favorite scripture on the topic, and therefore go away thinking that what was taught was doctine. This is why I always try to make the material I introduce serve to enhance the purpose of the lesson and not to detract or sideline that purpose.

I have always found the tecnique of preevaluation of class interest useful. This can be implemented by several pointed questions at the beginning of the class or by use of the suggested or an alternative thought provoking activity. We should always take care to evaluate the level of the least of our students and try not to teach too far above and especially not below that level. This does not mean that we can not teach new concepts, but they must be taught based on what the class members already understand.

Larry P

[drfatguy]

We are forgetting one thing. What is the text of the lesson? Is it the approved lesson materials or is it the scriptures. I believe it is stressed in the message to the instructor to use the scriptures as the text of the lesson and the manual as a guide. I haven't read it recently because we are on a two hour block. It sucks. I miss Sunday School.

Dr Fatguy

[structurecop]

I miss Sunday School.

Dr Fatguy

I can't imagine... where do you live? Certainly no Sunday School is the beginning of Apostasy.

[MJNSW]

Well, then, if you didn't have the consent of the Sunday School presidency, the bishopric, and/or the GA's, you were straying from guidelines you should have been following.

I hope you won't do that again.

It is good I am not a sunday school teacher then! I once used the childrens book - I love you forever, I love you for always.

I did not seek the permission of my elders either... Hell must have a room all set for me now!