Should I Or Shouldn't I . . .

[jadams_4242]

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

hey buddie! if ya dont know excatly what yer talking about, the brethren will tear you up!

my advice would strongly be for you to teach something you know for sure about!

good luck!

[poulsenll]

And I am interested in your suggestion that we teach "not too far above and especially not below the level of the least of the students." Why do you put more emphasis on not teaching below that level than not teaching too high above that level?

Respectfully yours,

--Consiglieri

When we teach at a level below the capacity of the student we not only bore them we actually insult them. If we teach at a level that stretches them just a bit we help them to grow and possibly instill in them a desire to learn more on their own. If we teach at too high a level, again we bore them. I think it is possible to engage all the class levels if we stay some where in between and let the more knowledgable help to instruct everyone including the teacher. Surprizingly, I have often found that the knowledge level of some members of the class is actually much higher than I would have guessed.

The availability of information in the scriptures, the Church magazines and conference messages is so vast that one should have little trouble finding something new or a new perspective on a given topic that there should be little need to bring in unsubstantiated information to create interest. And of course there is your own insight based on your own experiences. I know the GA's do that all the time.

I think your question about the nature and kind of person the woman was is far more interesting as a Gospel topic for GD class than whether or not the story is true or not. We are often faced with the need to forgive someone who is not of our faith or has committed a crime against society. This is a real problem of our day and deserves discussion in view of the story in question. Give the class the opportunity to express there opinions on the meaning of the scriptures. The most successful classes I have ever taugt were when most of the new information and insight came from class members and not from me or the lesson manual. In fact that is where I have gained much of my Gospel knowledge.

Larry P

[helix]

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 taught gospel doctrine for a while, and every week ran into similar problems. I wanted to be as honest as possible in the lessons I taught, but didn't want the lesson to revolve around little issues. I found that this level of honesty meant I had to spend several more hours preparing the lesson, but the end result was almost always much better. Personally, my biggest worry came before the Word of Wisdom lesson. I wanted to teach it in context of history, and keep it spiritual, but didn't know how. But after prayerful consideration and a ton of reading, I gave what I felt was my highest quality lesson I've ever given. The class members responded likewise.

I don't have a good suggestion for your current lesson. The only thoughts that went through my head were 1) I do not think members would be offended if you discussed that this could be a problem with this text. LDS beliefs already allow for errors in the scriptures. 2) Then it can be qualified that having said that, the lesson will progress as described in the Bible, and we can use the Spirit to tell us what we need to know.

I personally find such honest lessons to be refreshing. A contrast would be a recent Job lesson, where our teacher mentioned the controversy over its historicity, but then used what I thought was very poor reasoning to explain that Job must have been a real person. That chipped away at my trust in the teachers ability to explain topics in a matter I can accept.

Also, I personally don't like Paul Ray's suggestion at all...that you only stick to the manual or "approved" church material. (Who decides what is officially approved? I never received such a list when I taught.) And if you cannot stick to approved material, then give up the calling. That whole suggestion rings to me as stern fundamentalism, which I believe drives away the Spirit. The manual is a very helpful guide, but by no means the only source you must adhere to.

[helix]

Reading through this thread further, I feel a need to respond to many of Paul Ray's strict posts. The level of orthodoxy and fundamentalism expressed is, in my opinion, bordering on destructiveness. Especially where he condescendingly lectured another teacher with "I hope you don't do that again". No Paul, you aren't in emeliza's ward, you aren't her Bishop or Sunday School president, and you definitely don't have any right to judge her ability to serve in her calling.

Luckily, others have already replied with the other points I wanted to make.

[truthseeker2]

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.

Thats a pile of horse manure. Brother Joseph would have kicked your butt out of the church for that remark in the 1800's, but the scary thing is now day's you'd be praised by the lunatic conservatives of the church.

[truthseeker2]

... 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.

Brother Ray, I know for a fact that the church authorities have very little to do with the creation or material provided in the lesson manuals of the church. Their is probably a committee that rubber stamps the material that consists of several GA's, but I've taught from these manuals myself and they even ask the teacher to RESEARCH AND PROVIDE APPROPRIATE additional material if so moved by the spirit.

[consiglieri]

Thats a pile of horse manure. Brother Joseph would have kicked your butt out of the church for that remark in the 1800's, but the scary thing is now day's you'd be praised by the lunatic conservatives of the church.

Let's see. I think we have a little clickable doohickie showing somebody beating the manure out of a horse.

Ah, here it is . . .

[consiglieri]

When in doubt, always ask yourself: What Would Brigham Young Do?

That is a good idea. And here I have been asking myself: "What would Porter Rockwell do?"

Let's see, "What would Brigham Young do?" Okay, I am scrapping the idea of talking about textual criticism and instead will focus on blood atonement and the conception of Jesus.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

... while knowing that I and God, and some other people, love you, a lot more than you know?

Okay, Paul Ray. Now you're starting to scare me.

[consiglieri]

I think there are many ideas we can introduce about a topic while using only the approved lesson materials.

Go ahead and pick any topic, and then I will add my thoughts on that issue from the approved lesson materials.

Okay, I will take the Paul Ray Challenge.

Tithing.

Please tell me something about tithing from the approved lesson materials that I haven't already heard 100 times.

I dare ya!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Consiglieri:

I would at least indicate the situation, and bring the minority up a notch in their knowledge, and then go on and teach the meaning of the lesson......... I know I certainly don't let even the majority of my Elder's Quorum (literally 99.9% of them, because I am the only one who knows Hebrew, German, and Greek, little though it is!) stop me from translating from German, Hebrew, and Greek, when these bring out items of signial interest and education. And they LOVE IT when I do so....... I stick with the lesson, more or less, but I have never hesitated to bring in further light and knowledge. My attitude stems from Joseph Smith's hints and example of studying Hebrew and saying the German is the closest translation. Therefore, if its good enough for Joseph, by dang its good enough for the rest of us. I have had nothing but compliments and overflowing attendance when I teach.

Best,

Kerry

Thanks for dropping by the thread, Kerry! It is always nice to hear from you, and I appreciate your work on ancient texts and Mormonism, many of which I have read.

In spite of it being good enough for Joseph Smith, and regardless of the compliments you receive and the overflowing attendance when you teach, I am afraid that you will need to ask your bishop to be released from your calling.

Isn't that right, Paul Ray?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Brother...I am also a gospel doctrine teacher.

What I did was teach the object of the lesson...(As an example of the Savior's love for all) then explained that sometimes scribes would insert stories accidently omitted it other books into those that they were working on at the time. Or write a story to illistate a compsite idea taught throuhout the scriptures. That does not set well with the EV's who live and die by the "perfect word". By the way if I am not mistaken the parable of the "ten virgins" is missing from some text also.

Hope that helps...

Pa Pa

Good thoughts, O My Pa Pa! Thanks.

I will say that, if I never heard the parable of the ten virgins again, it will be too soon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I guess it all depends on who the woman actually is. Was she a "member"? Maybe, maybe not. For me this episode in the Savior's life teaches 3 main things.

1)The Savior is an original. He didnt follow the religuious crowd, even if there opinion seemed more "biblical". Unlike the rest He loved this woman. He was without sin, yet he didnt throw a stone at her. He the Ultimate and True Judge has the right to judge, for he alone is perfect.

2)He said, "go and sin no more". The major rub of repentance.

3) Mosaic law may not have actually recquired the life of the adulteror. I spoke with an ortho jew who said that a bunch of requirments(about 6) have to be met before such a penalty is exacted for stoning a child for dispespecting a parent.

One of which being that the mom has to agree(like that will ever happen) .

It could be that Moses penned that law to show us that adultery is worthy of death but that doesnt mean that we should actually carry out the penalty. It could be that the Saviors contemporaries had lost there humanity in trying to actually kill someone who Moses, or God, had never intended to have killed. In other words, Christ understood the true meaning of the law(setting a standard), whereas his contemporaries were caught up in a inhuman carrying out of the letter. Perhaps, the Jews in the time of Christ were not just apostate for merely rejecting the Messiah, but for episodes like this and the later death of Steven.

Thanks for your comments, Her Amun.

I think that Jesus was, indeed, sui generis, in his fight against the strict and corrupt orthodoxy of his day. That is one of the things that makes him so heroic, I think.

I have heard before the idea that the Mosaic Law in its death penalties was only illustrative and not meant to be carried out literally. I really don't know. But it seems to me like a modern-day attempt to make it seem less harsh. In the context of the Old Testament, it seems that death penalties for certain offenses fits right in with the mise en scene.

But to the point that interests me, it is true that Jesus told the lady to "go and sin no more." But I think that is not "repentance" as we tend to define it today. Imagine a church court where a lady does not go in and confess to the bishop, but rather is brought in by offended parties who tell the bishop that she was caught in the act of adultery. She does not confess her sin; she does not ask for forgiveness; she does not express a belief in Jesus; she makes no commitment to not do it again.

In this scenario, it would strike me as strange for the bishop to simply tell her that he does not condemn her, and to see her to the door with the simple words not to do it again.

I think that this story is trying to teach us something . . . but I am not sure what it is.

It is interesting to consider what political situation in the real world might account for the sudden appearance of this story in the 4th century. Was some prominent political/religious figure in need of forgiveness for a similar act?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

hey buddie! if ya dont know excatly what yer talking about, the brethren will tear you up!

my advice would strongly be for you to teach something you know for sure about!

good luck!

Ha!

Even when I don't know what I'm talking about, I know what I'm talking about!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

When we teach at a level below the capacity of the student we not only bore them we actually insult them. If we teach at a level that stretches them just a bit we help them to grow and possibly instill in them a desire to learn more on their own. If we teach at too high a level, again we bore them. I think it is possible to engage all the class levels if we stay some where in between and let the more knowledgable help to instruct everyone including the teacher. Surprizingly, I have often found that the knowledge level of some members of the class is actually much higher than I would have guessed.

The availability of information in the scriptures, the Church magazines and conference messages is so vast that one should have little trouble finding something new or a new perspective on a given topic that there should be little need to bring in unsubstantiated information to create interest. And of course there is your own insight based on your own experiences. I know the GA's do that all the time.

I think your question about the nature and kind of person the woman was is far more interesting as a Gospel topic for GD class than whether or not the story is true or not. We are often faced with the need to forgive someone who is not of our faith or has committed a crime against society. This is a real problem of our day and deserves discussion in view of the story in question. Give the class the opportunity to express there opinions on the meaning of the scriptures. The most successful classes I have ever taugt were when most of the new information and insight came from class members and not from me or the lesson manual. In fact that is where I have gained much of my Gospel knowledge.

Larry P

Dear Larry P,

Thanks for your suggestions. With your help, and the help of others on this thread, I think the form of Sunday's lesson is beginning to take shape.

Though I must confess that I may have to go to the bishop beforehand and ask to be released from my calling. I think I'll do that right before class and see if he wants to find somebody else to teach the class on 3-minutes' notice.

All the Best to you and yours!

--Consiglieri

[Irondukesteve]

I have been the Gospel Doctrine teacher in four wards. I never seek opportunities to stir up controversy, but I do make reference to issues like this in a contextual way.

However, in regard to this passage, I'm not sure how big a deal this is. We need to remember that the KJV as we have it now is formal and official canon of the LDS Church. As such, I think we ought to be very comfortable teaching from the KJV as it is written. The fact that there is an academic dispute over the authenticity of this passage is not really relevent to the lesson to be learned.

Gospel Doctrine classes are made up of a wide spectrum of Saints. There are Gospel scholars, the

I'm-here-bacause-I-have-to-be" attendees, new members, newly activated members, casual/occasional visitors. I tend to teach to a level that is more about the spirit of the lesson...and the inspirational aspects of the scriptures rather than doing a hard core scriptrual analytics class.

That is how I'd approach it, your milage may vary.

Regards,

Six

You raise very good points. It is so difficult...I always find myself wanting to go into the more controversial and intellectual areas but I have to remind myself...WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLASS/WHY ARE PEOPLE HERE...and that brings me back to the idea of trying to uplift people spiritually.

I also find that if you get people to express their views they seem to enjoy the class more...one must strike a balance.

This is an interesting suggestion, which I will have to give some thought.

I am wondering how many others think that, if I cannot avoid teaching anything other than what is in the "approved lesson materials of our Church," I should ask to be released from my calling.

My perception is that the only time the class is enjoying the lesson is when I am not teaching the "approved lesson materials."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

lol...the elders quorum always love the anecdote i give, when discussing a lesson on testimony,about how testimony is derived from the latin testimonium,â?made up of testis â??witnessâ? and, possibly, a noun from monere â??to remind.â?

The funniest theory of how the word testimony came about is that the Romans placed their right hands on their testicles and swore by them before giving testimony in court. Although its historicity is unlikely.

NOW THAT IS DEFINITELY NOT IN A PRIESTHOOD MANUAL....but try it...the brethren always have a good chuckle

I have been a GD teacher for many years (we don't have SS in my Branch now). I have always taught this from the perspective that it happened, that we can learn a great deal from it and even though it wasn't in the earliest texts, other sources relate the same occurance. I also teach the way it was related in the Gospel of Phillip (or was it Thomas I can't remember). Christ didn't just draw on the ground, he wrote the sins of each of her accusers on the ground. I love this touch. The accusers didn't just walk away, they cringed and then slunk away. If one were as prideful as the Pharisees of the day, wouldn't this make more sense and demonstrate the divinity of Christ?

Dr Fatguy

I use this to teach forgiveness more than non-judgement. He would have forgiven the Pharisees as frankly and as quickly as he forgave the woman had they but asked.

Brilliant use of extra-canonical texts....

I think we should have section on the forum where GD teachers can discuss the lesson they are preparing each week and share ideas. MODERATORS????

[consiglieri]

I personally find such honest lessons to be refreshing. A contrast would be a recent Job lesson, where our teacher mentioned the controversy over its historicity, but then used what I thought was very poor reasoning to explain that Job must have been a real person. That chipped away at my trust in the teachers ability to explain topics in a matter I can accept.

I also think honesty is an important characteristic of a good teacher . . . or a good almost anything.

If the class knows that you are being honest with them, they will tend to believe you no matter what crazy thing you teach.

Just kidding, that.

And your account of the "Job teacher" reminded me of an encounter I had just last Sunday with a sister I affectionately refer to as "Sister Stormcloud."

I had just taught the basic meaning of the parable of the Good Samaritan in which we are expected to act as the Samaritan; and then went into an alternate treatment of the parable as published by John Welch in the Feb. 2007 Ensign which places us in the position of the guy by the side of the road and Jesus as the Good Samaritan. When I was done, Sister Stormcloud said that she thought that the second interpretation provided was confusing to her because it took away from the idea of us acting as the Good Samaritan.

I mentioned that I didn't see my job as Sunday school teacher as requiring me to remove all confusion.

Of course, at least two hands went up from other students to try to "set her straight."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Irondukesteve]

Thats a pile of horse manure. Brother Joseph would have kicked your butt out of the church for that remark in the 1800's, but the scary thing is now day's you'd be praised by the lunatic conservatives of the church.

chuckle to myself...cant help but see some truth in that..thanks for making my day.

[consiglieri]

Drfatguy wrote:

I have been a GD teacher for many years (we don't have SS in my Branch now). I have always taught this from the perspective that it happened, that we can learn a great deal from it and even though it wasn't in the earliest texts, other sources relate the same occurance. I also teach the way it was related in the Gospel of Phillip (or was it Thomas I can't remember). Christ didn't just draw on the ground, he wrote the sins of each of her accusers on the ground. I love this touch. The accusers didn't just walk away, they cringed and then slunk away. If one were as prideful as the Pharisees of the day, wouldn't this make more sense and demonstrate the divinity of Christ?

To which Irondukesteve responded:

Brilliant use of extra-canonical texts....

You are probably kidding the good drfatguy on this, as this account is not mentioned in the Gospel of Phillip to the best of my knowledge; and surely is not mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas, inasmuch as there are no stories in Thomas, but rather a collection of 114 sayings of Jesus.

I believe that the concept that Jesus wrote the sins of the accusers on the ground is probably a case of a modern-day midrash. (I think Tinactin can help with that.)

But you know, nobody in the class has likely ever read the Gospels of Phillip or Thomas, so it is usually a safe tactic to cite any non-Biblical story or teaching to one or the other (or preferably both just in case somebody actually has read one of them).

It reminds me of Homer Simpson quoting something ridiculous and attributing it to the Bible. When challenged on where in the Bible it says that, he responds, "Oh, it's in the back there somewhere."

Testicularly yours!

--Consiglieri

I think we should have section on the forum where GD teachers can discuss the lesson they are preparing each week and share ideas. MODERATORS????

I think this would be an excellent idea.

If Paul Ray is one of the moderators, however, I expect your suggestion is DOA.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[dude]

Hi, Her Amun!

Thanks for weighing in here. Maybe you could tell me what no one else has responded to yet.

What exactly does this story teach about forgiveness? It seems to teach that an adulterer can be forgiven without even confessing a belief in Jesus, not to mention no repentance, no baptism, no gift of the Holy Ghost, no joining the church, no enduring to the end.

Is this really a lesson that should be taught in Sunday school class?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Good points.

It is my observation that this is one of those gospel stories where you will probably observe that hardliners in the class might bring up this issue, without you even mentioning it, that this story in the scriptures might not be genuine. Generally,, and I repeat generally,, these are the folks who bring up this issue because even though they won't admit it, they have a problem with "instant" forgiveness that doesn't follow the steps they think it has to follow. Generally, these are the same hardliners who have a problem with the forgiveness of the thief on the cross, and always interject the LDS speculation that Jesus said "paradise" not Celestial Kingdom. These are the same folks who try and extrapolate the prodigal son parable to say that although the bad son was forgiven, his inheritance could not be restored. These are the same folks who love the parable of the 10 virgins because 5 get left behind.

We sometimes have a problem with "instant" forgiveness, thinking the person has gotten away with something.

Be careful in your lesson, and realize there are probably more people than you know who have been the woman in this story, and that this scripture story is dear to their heart. It gives them hope. Those who try and shoot it down have never been on the other side. The Lord forgives who He chooses to forgive. I personally believe forgiveness from the Lord can be instant, even for adultery, and it doesn't have to follow the perfect "R's" of repentance we all learned in primary. There's forgiveness from the Lord, and then there's the process the modern church has in place to restore people to full fellowship. These aren't necessarily the same thing.

[consiglieri]

Good points.

It is my observation that this is one of those gospel stories where you will probably observe that hardliners in the class might bring up this issue, without you even mentioning it, that this story in the scriptures might not be genuine. Generally,, and I repeat generally,, these are the folks who bring up this issue because even though they won't admit it, they have a problem with "instant" forgiveness that doesn't follow the steps they think it has to follow. Generally, these are the same hardliners who have a problem with the forgiveness of the thief on the cross, and always interject the LDS speculation that Jesus said "paradise" not Celestial Kingdom. These are the same folks who try and extrapolate the prodigal son parable to say that although the bad son was forgiven, his inheritance could not be restored. These are the same folks who love the parable of the 10 virgins because 5 get left behind.

We sometimes have a problem with "instant" forgiveness, thinking the person has gotten away with something.

Be careful in your lesson, and realize there are probably more people than you know who have been the woman in this story, and that this scripture story is dear to their heart. It gives them hope. Those who try and shoot it down have never been on the other side. The Lord forgives who He chooses to forgive. I personally believe forgiveness from the Lord can be instant, even for adultery, and it doesn't have to follow the perfect "R's" of repentance we all learned in primary. There's forgiveness from the Lord, and then there's the process the modern church has in place to restore people to full fellowship. These aren't necessarily the same thing.

Good points, dude.

I think the story of the woman taken in adultery is even more stark in expressing this idea of "instant" forgiveness, in that the thief on the cross stood up for Jesus; and the prodigal son decided to leave off his sinful ways and return home; here the woman does absolutely nothing except "get caught."

I think this makes the story unique in the New Testament.

And probably the fact that it was a "woman" makes it even more unusual; I mean, Jesus' audience could probably understand if Jesus did it for a "man," but for a "woman"? Now that's totally radical, dude!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ERMD]

My $0.02:

Consider your motivation.

Seek and obey the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Follow the Brethren.

All should be congruent.

I'm sure it will be a fascinating lesson; sure beats having everyone in class take turns reading from the manual.

[Smith]

I stick with the lesson, more or less, but I have never hesitated to bring in further light and knowledge. My attitude stems from Joseph Smith's hints and example of studying Hebrew and saying the German is the closest translation. Therefore, if its good enough for Joseph, by dang its good enough for the rest of us. I have had nothing but compliments and overflowing attendance when I teach.

Dang, I wish I were in you're sunday school class!

[dude]

I think the story of the woman taken in adultery is even more stark in expressing this idea of "instant" forgiveness, in that the thief on the cross stood up for Jesus; and the prodigal son decided to leave off his sinful ways and return home; here the woman does absolutely nothing except "get caught."

I think this makes the story unique in the New Testament.

That's thought-provoking. This was probably not an example of how easy it might be to be forgiven (like the evangelicals use), but rather it's a demonstration against judging others.

Also, one could say Jesus knows all our hearts, therefore He does different things for different people.

But that brings up the dilemma that most willfull sinners, even while in the depths of their sinning, sometimes use that as an excuse ("He knows my heart is good") to stay in transgression and never change. Maybe He knew this is all it would take to change her life.

[emeliza]

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.

Well, He doesn't use that wording. But yep. He tells me to suppliment. I don't really think it is straying from the lesson, maybe the manual, but not the lesson. When I got asked to teach for the first time, the manual lesson was on the Temple. I had never seen a Temple. I was a new member and didn't know almost anything about the Temple and had absolutely no personal experience. However, the week I was asked to do this, I had just finished "The Holy Temple". I never mentioned I was reading it either. I definitely think this was all inspired. It was an awesome class. There were some stories on Wilford Woodruff in "The Holy Temple" that weren't in his manual that went exactly along with the manual. Also there was some extra information on the subjects in the manual.

This has happened with each lesson now. Every time. It is odd how this works. I admit I like to read a lot, but I almost find it eerie (in a good way) how what I am reading tends to fit in so perfectly with what they end up asking me to teach about. I always pray for guidance on the lesson. Generally I ask to help teach the others what they need to hear or find a way to speak to them personally about what He wants us to learn.

Course RS might be different than SS in the ways you can suppliment, but honestly I think you are okay as long as you stay on the lesson topic. Stay with the main message.

[Paul Ray]

My response to sunstoneâ??s response to one of my posts, in his post #71

Many posters have claimed that they were never taught or knew about many of the topics that are discussed on this forum even though they attended church classes up through Institute. This was also my experience.

It was and is also my experience.

It is possible today for a member to go through year after year of the correlated lessons and fully believe that Joseph had only on wife, that the Book of Abraham was a literal translation from scrolls written by the hand of Abraham, that the American Indians are the literal descendents of the Lehiites, etc.

Yes, I know it is possible, if that member never hears or reads about those issues from someone who shares more than what is taught in a Primary lesson, or Sunday School lesson, or Priesthood/Relief Society lesson at some point.

Iâ??m sure that some believe that sticking to a scripted, correlated plan might seem the best way to paint the church and the gospel in a positive light. There is other who hold the opinion that withholding relevant facts is a form of dishonesty.

And there are others who know there is a whole LOT of stuff to learn about than can never be covered in a Church meeting.

â?¦ which is why I and other people read books and listen to people while asking God to help me know the truth when I find it.

Do you really believe everything should be discussed in a Church meeting?

â?¦ and not until then can you know the truth about anything, and everything?

My response to helixâ??s response to one of my posts, in his post #79

Reading through this thread further, I feel a need to respond to many of Paul Ray's strict posts. The level of orthodoxy and fundamentalism expressed is, in my opinion, bordering on destructiveness. Especially where he condescendingly lectured another teacher with "I hope you don't do that again".

You are entitled to believe whatever you want, but I do not agree that I was being destructive, or condescending when I shared what I believe. I said that I hoped someone (specifically) wouldnâ??t stray from the approved lesson guidelines, again, and I still hope that person doesnâ??t do that. I believe I am entitled to share what I hope and believe with other people.

No Paul, you aren't in emeliza's ward, you aren't her Bishop or Sunday School president, and you definitely don't have any right to judge her ability to serve in her calling.

First of all, in an earlier post, I had already suggested that consiglieri consult with members of his Sunday School presidency, his bishopric, and our General Authorities regarding what they believe and have already said about this issue. If I erred by not repeating that to emeliza, specifically, because I assumed she would have already read what I had suggested to consiglieri, then it was only my error to not repeat what I had said to emiliza, specifically.

Secondly, I never judged emiliza, and only said that I, personally, hoped that she would never do that again. If she comes up for judgment for her course of action, by those in authority to judge her, I donâ??t believe they would commend her, or praise her, for her course of actionâ?¦ based on what I know teachers have been told on how to present lessons in Sunday Schoolâ?¦ which is why I was and still am hoping she wonâ??t do that again.

And I also told her she doesnâ??t have to agree with what I was telling her, as if that ever really needs to be said.

She can do what she wants, and she can think what she wantsâ?¦ and so can you, and everyone else on this planet.

Luckily, others have already replied with the other points I wanted to make.

I think itâ??s nice to have other people support what weâ??re saying.

My response to truthseeker2â??s response to one of my posts, in his post #80

I believe you are entitled to your opinion.

I believe I am following Josephâ??s example. I teach people correct principles, (or at least what I believe are correct principles) and let people govern themselves.

My response to truthseeker2â??s post to me, in post #81

Brother Ray, I know for a fact that the church authorities have very little to do with the creation or material provided in the lesson manuals of the church. There is probably a committee that rubber stamps the material that consists of several GA's, but I've taught from these manuals myself and they even ask the teacher to RESEARCH AND PROVIDE APPROPRIATE additional material if so moved by the spirit.

I believe I may know more about this issue than you do, truthseeker.

I know our General Authorities approve only certain materials for teachers to use for Sunday School lessons in our Church, and only those materials are the â??appropriateâ? materials.

I also know a teacher cannot choose to teach [whatever he/she wants to teach] without the approval of his/her authorized leaders.

If you taught from materials other than approved lesson materials, then you are accountable for that action. You may have had authority to do that, and you may not have had. I donâ??t know if you were authorized by one of your leaders.

My response to consiglieriâ??s response to one of my posts, in his post #84

Okay, Paul Ray. Now you're starting to scare me.

Heh, it scares you to know that you are loved more than you know by God and me and a lot of other people?

Ahhhh. Donâ??t be scared. True love is nothing to be afraid of.

My response to consiglieriâ??s response to one of my posts, in his post #86

Okay, I will take the Paul Ray Challenge.

Tithing.

Please tell me something about tithing from the approved lesson materials that I haven't already heard 100 times.

I dare ya!

I believe tithing is a wonderful way to show our faith in God. I pay tithing out of gratitude for all that God has given me and helped me to achieve.

There you go. Iâ??ve never, ever told you how I feel about tithing.

And my testimony is in harmony with all of the Churchâ??s approved lesson materials that you will ever find on the subject of tithing.

[daz2]

I cannot find a prohibition in Teaching No Greater Call ("TNGC") from using anything other than approved Church materials. I certainly find encouragement to use approved materials and subtle discouragement from using other sources (like the "judicious" language quoted above). My recollection is, that in the recent Worldwide Leadership Training, members of the "class" implicitly invited Elder Hollard to discourage teachers from using anything other than approved materials, but he did not do so, but did encourage us all to focus on the scriptures. If there is a specific prohibition on non-Church approved materials or stories in class, I have not seen it.

I also see that chapter 10, "Looking for Lessons Everywhere", of TNGC encourages us to add experiences and observations to the lessons. For me, part of the experience that enlightens my understanding of the gospel are things I read in the newspaper (like the Amish story to which President Faust referred), in poetry, music and books.

I notice that in general conference, our leaders appear unafraid to quote from non-Lds, non-Church approved materials, like the Apochrypha, broadway plays, Shakespeare, definitions of greek words, the newspapers, and even Halle Berry. To the extent we are to "follow the Brethren [and Sister leaders]", I think it is fine to use non-Church approved materials, so long as we do so "judiciously", like our general leaders do in conference.