Should I Or Shouldn't I . . .

[Helmuth]

If the Lord had wanted a tape recorder to teach the lesson, He could have called one. You have spent years studying the gospel and I expect He wants you to use that knowledge to make the class interesting and inspirational.

Strange the parable of the Good Samaritan should be brought up, because I was going to bring it up by way of illustration. Back some years ago a Gospel Doctrine teacher taught a whole lesson using the BYU Studies article on that parable as an allegory for the atonement. He really went into depth, point by point, just like the original scholarly article had. And that was the whole lesson, not a side-thought. Now I had already read the article in the BYU Studies, and anyway was going to Gospel Principles not his class (anyone who is bored to death by Gospel Doctrine, by the way, try this; it may be a solution to your pain) but I still heard about it because it was an awesome lesson that the class just loved. People LIKE hearing something original! Now was that bad? Is the atonement not something our leaders want us to learn about? But maybe it was wrong because that wasn't the right week to teach the atonement, that's only on the 3rd Sunday in October? Well, 5 years later, now it shows up in the Ensign and everyone can share in the insight my unit already got long ago.

Anyway, you could always just skip the woman in adultery story altogether! If you can't think of any additional helpful light and insight you can throw on it, or you think the who story is dubious, or that it only offers confusion not sound gospel principles, or for whatever reason, hey, skip it!

We spend how many thousands of hours in the course of a lifetime in Church classes receiving instruction? A lot! We ought to come out with something to show for it! Yet how many members could even name all 10 Commandments, in order? One of my favorite lessons was from a sub who taught on the 10 Commandments. He gave us a pneumonic device: GIV SHKAS Water & Candy. Because of that lesson, I have known the 10 Commandments ever since. I left knowing something that I previously did not know! Why can't that happen every time?

Teach whatever and however you feel inspired to, brother.

By the way, here's a good resource for Gospel Doctrine teachers: http://www.ldsgospeldoctrine.net . The lesson in question is John 7-8. Maybe there's something good to work off of in one of the lessons there.

[Paul Ray]

Some people seem to have the idea that if they use only Church approved lesson materials, and any other materials our Church leaders may and have authorized, they will somehow run short on good things to talk about... and that is a very strange notion to have, I believe.

We can use all Church magazine articles, because they've been approved as lesson materials, as well as the scriptures in our lessons... along with our personal testimony we receive from the Holy Spirit.

I don't think we have a shortage of good things to talk about. I think we have more good things to talk about than we can ever talk about... at least during our mortal lives here on Earth.

And for those who still need to know what the counsel of the Church is on this issue, click this link and search our archives, yourself.

[helix]

And for those who still need to know what the counsel of the Church is on this issue, click this link and search our archives, yourself.

Nowhere does it say we must use approved curriculum materials exclusively. In fact, it never hints at it either.

It reads to me that the lessons should focus on topics given in cirriculum materials, and that it's recommended the lessons stay in order. More guidelines are given in individual cirriculum teaching manauls, and these also refraining from placing strict limits on what can be taught and how. Instead, the church gives general guidelines, and we use our agency and the Spirit to decide how best to teach the lessons.

[Scott Lloyd]

I must be looking in the wrong places.

I don't think it's a given that esoterica necessarily makes for a more interesting lesson.

I have been in numerous classroom situations where the members seemed energized and stimulated by a discussion of practical and insightful application of scripture accounts and passages to everyday life. Such discussions are accessible to even the newest neophyte.

On the other hand, I've seen students put off and made to feel ignorant by a teacher's inordinate focus and lecturing on scholarly minutiae.

[Paul Ray]

Nowhere does it say we must use approved curriculum materials exclusively. In fact, it never hints at it either.

It reads to me that the lessons should focus on topics given in cirriculum materials, and that it's recommended the lessons stay in order. More guidelines are given in individual cirriculum teaching manauls, and these also refraining from placing strict limits on what can be taught and how. Instead, the church gives general guidelines, and we use our agency and the Spirit to decide how best to teach the lessons.

Okay. Here is how I see it. It seems that some people still don't understand what I am saying.

The Church gives me approved lesson materials, leaders, and the Holy Spirit to guide me.

Personally, I don't believe the Holy Spirit would approve of me doing [my own thing] if [my own thing] isn't in harmony with what my leaders are telling me to do.

If there is ever any question about what to use for my lesson materials, I ask my leaders about what has been approved for use as my lesson materials, if I don't already know that already. And if I want to use something that hasn't been approved of before, I ask them if they approve of the materials.

I don't ask the members of the class, or the other members of the Church. I ask my leaders who are authorized to lead me. And I don't try to buck the system, by going straight to the top. I start with those directly appointed to lead me... because I know God has appointed them to lead me.

I hope you now understand how I feel.

[phaedrus ut]

Paul,

Your responses on this thread reminds me of this quote:

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God." (Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945 & Improvement Era, June 1945)

Phaedrus

//DCP wrote a rather insightful response to this kind of thinking. FRB:9-1

[consiglieri]

The Church gives me approved lesson materials, leaders, and the Holy Spirit to guide me.

Personally, I don't believe the Holy Spirit would approve of me doing [my own thing] if [my own thing] isn't in harmony with what my leaders are telling me to do.

It seems to me you have just made the Holy Spirit superfluous.

Phaedrus

//DCP wrote a rather insightful response to this kind of thinking. FRB:9-1

DCP is not a bishop, SS president or a GA. Hence, anything that DCP might have to say on the issue is moot.

I have been in numerous classroom situations where the members seemed energized and stimulated by a discussion of practical and insightful application of scripture accounts and passages to everyday life. Such discussions are accessible to even the newest neophyte.

As opposed to the oldest neophyte?

Or is this what you mean by "scholarly minutiae"?

[consiglieri]

I don't ask the members of the class, or the other members of the Church. I ask my leaders who are authorized to lead me. And I don't try to buck the system, by going straight to the top. I start with those directly appointed to lead me... because I know God has appointed them to lead me.

I hope you now understand how I feel.

But if you know that God has appointed your leaders to lead you, and those leaders have called you to be the Sunday school teacher, why would you ask to be released from your calling?

I am smelling a non sequitur here.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[SolarPowered]

I'm right now making a copy of the latest Leadership Training Broadcast for someone. The subject of the tape is teaching.

Elder Holland just said, "Never sow seeds of doubt."

That would seem to apply here in spades.

[phaedrus ut]

DCP is not a bishop, SS president or a GA. Hence, anything that DCP might have to say on the issue is moot.

Well he was commenting on the quote i provided which I believe was from Apostle Mark E. Peterson. I thought it was specifically relevant to the discussion. Some are worried that non-correlated infomation is dangerous. I disagree.

Phaedrus

[Paul Ray]

But if you know that God has appointed your leaders to lead you, and those leaders have called you to be the Sunday school teacher, why would you ask to be released from your calling?

Heh, that's a good point, but I wasn't thinking about it that way.

I only meant that if you can't do the job they gave you, the way they told you to do it and will tell you to do it, then you should consider yourself to be disqualified.

I am smelling a non sequitur here.

What is that, exactly? Is it a good thing? Does it taste good? Can you get me one?

[consiglieri]

Well he was commenting on the quote i provided which I believe was from Apostle Mark E. Peterson. I thought it was specifically relevant to the discussion. Some are worried that non-correlated infomation is dangerous. I disagree.

Phaedrus

It may have been less than pellucid that I was speaking tongue-in-cheek.

I, too, disagree.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[daz2]

Paul,

I take it that if you were a general authority, or my area authority 70, stake president, bishop, bishopric counselor in-charge, or Sunday School president or counselor, you would instruct me as a teacher never to use anything that is not in approved Church materials. I suppose that might be your prerogative to do so, just as many Church leaders ban the use of guitars in sacrament meeting, even though the Church has no such Churchwide policy.

I can tell you, with some assurance, that many people in those leadership positions do not understand Church policy to prohibit judicious use of non-approved materials in Church classes. And, as I pointed out, some of the Brethren even feel comfortable using non-approved materials in their conference talks.

I took some of your comments to mean that you thought Church policy prohibits use of non-approved materials in class. You are welcome to your own interpretation, but I have not seen anything, including the materials to which you generally allude, that leads me to agree with you.

[consiglieri]

What is that, exactly? Is it a good thing? Does it taste good? Can you get me one?

I think a non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow from the premise. Does it taste good? I'm not sure.

Truth tastes good. Or so Joseph Smith taught. But that may not be "approved."

Can I get you one? Why do you ask? You seem to have a barrel full of them to hand.

All the Best, my thoroughly correlated friend!

--Consiglieri

[Paul Ray]

It seems to me you have just made the Holy Spirit superfluous.

You may think so, but I don't think so. (I just saw this post, btw)

The Holy Spirit has assured me, and keeps assuring me, that my leaders are authorized to lead me.

Now that I know that, I now allow them to lead me.

In what way do you think that is superfluous?

[consiglieri]

I'm right now making a copy of the latest Leadership Training Broadcast for someone. The subject of the tape is teaching.

Elder Holland just said, "Never sow seeds of doubt."

That would seem to apply here in spades.

I think that must apply to doubt regarding the foundational doctrines of the Church.

He probably did not mean to not sow seeds of doubt that Roman Catholicism is not true. (Wow! Three negatives in one sentence!)

Let me ask you, then. The Johanine Comma in 1 John is the only passage in the Bible that could even arguably be used to support the apostate doctrine of the Trinity.

Would it be wrong to "sow seeds of doubt" that it was not in the original but is obviously an addition made about 400-years later?

That particular "seed of doubt" would tend to confirm LDS belief in a non-Trinitarian view of God.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

You may think so, but I don't think so. (I just saw this post, btw)

The Holy Spirit has assured me, and keeps assuring me, that my leaders are authorized to lead me.

Now that I know that, I now allow them to lead me.

In what way do you think that is superfluous?

I am surprised you have to ask. It seems obvious to me from what you have just written.

We will probably just have to agree to disagree on this one, as well as the subject of the entire thread.

You seem like a nice guy, but frankly, I have been fighting doggedly against your type for over 20-years.

Don't take it personal.

All the Best to you!

--Consiglieri

[Paul Ray]

Paul,

I take it that if you were a general authority, or my area authority 70, stake president, bishop, bishopric counselor in-charge, or Sunday School president or counselor, you would instruct me as a teacher never to use anything that is not in approved Church materials. I suppose that might be your prerogative to do so, just as many Church leaders ban the use of guitars in sacrament meeting, even though the Church has no such Churchwide policy.

I can tell you, with some assurance, that many people in those leadership positions do not understand Church policy to prohibit judicious use of non-approved materials in Church classes. And, as I pointed out, some of the Brethren even feel comfortable using non-approved materials in their conference talks.

I took some of your comments to mean that you thought Church policy prohibits use of non-approved materials in class. You are welcome to your own interpretation, but I have not seen anything, including the materials to which you generally allude, that leads me to agree with you.

I think you pretty much got the gist of what I was saying... but you seem to have missed one point.

If I want to use materials that haven't already been approved, I can ask my leaders if they will approve them.

... and if my leaders approve them, then I am free to use them.

It's just that I don't think I (or any of us) can use whatever I (or we) want to use just because I (or certain other people) want it to be used... unless those "certain other people" are our authorized leaders and say it's okay to use it.

God has given us a system whereby we can know what God wants, and God wants us to follow our authorized leaders... which includes a lot of other people other than the Holy Spirit.

I'm simply trying to put the focus on our authorized leaders... instead of personal opinions.

[Paul Ray]

I am surprised you have to ask. It seems obvious to me from what you have just written.

We will probably just have to agree to disagree on this one, as well as the subject of the entire thread.

You seem like a nice guy, but frankly, I have been fighting doggedly against your type for over 20-years.

Don't take it personal.

All the Best to you!

--Consiglieri

I'm not asking you to fight doggedly against me, Consiglieri.

I'm asking you to explain how following our authorized leaders is superflous to following the guidance of the Holy Spirit... when we know, by the power of the Holy Spirit, that God has authorized those people to be our leaders.

I think you're a nice guy too, and I don't want to fight against you, but I will tell you what I know God has told me.

[SolarPowered]

I think that must apply to doubt regarding the foundational doctrines of the Church.

He probably did not mean to not sow seeds of doubt that Roman Catholicism is not true. (Wow! Three negatives in one sentence!)

Let me ask you, then. The Johanine Comma in 1 John is the only passage in the Bible that could even arguably be used to support the apostate doctrine of the Trinity.

Would it be wrong to "sow seeds of doubt" that it was not in the original but is obviously an addition made about 400-years later?

That particular "seed of doubt" would tend to confirm LDS belief in a non-Trinitarian view of God.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig,

I heard Elder Holland on the tape, and immediately posted to this thread based on the discussion on the first couple pages about whether to comment about the lack of the story of the Woman Taken in Adultry in early manuscripts of John. I take it that the thread had drifted in the meantime and was discussing the Johanine Comma. Perhaps I should have taken the time to catch up before posting.

The idea of "Never sow seeds of doubt" really strikes me as a really, really strong guiding principle for teaching in the Church. We are here to help people get closer to Heavenly Father, not to do things that risk pushing them farther away.

That said, I don't have any problem with "sowing doubt" about the Johanine Comma. That's not sowing doubt about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rather, it's merely clarifying some of the history of the Trinitarian conflict.

I note that the Johanine Comma differs from the Pericope Adulterae in that it is pretty evident that the former was added by devious people to support the Trinitarian position. The provenance of the latter is much less clear. While it does indeed appear that it was "added [to the Gospel of John] 400 years later", it is not at all clear that it was invented out of whole cloth. It's very possible that it's an authentic text from another source that was merged at that time.

Given that leaders of the Church quote from the Pericope Adulterae in General Conference from time to time, it seems to me that it is "sowing doubt" to knock the underpinnings out from under that anecdote. And there is no need to, because it is quite reasonable to think that the Pericope Adulterae may well be a true story, even if it wasn't written by John in his Gospel.

There are many problems with the biblical text (anyone want to explain how Matthew's and Luke's Nativities are both 100% true???) that could be brought up. It doesn't do any good to confront weak members of the Church who are struggling with much more basic issues with these kinds of questions.

I'm not advocating sweeping these sorts of things under the rug. Certainly, if they come up, I would address them with a full discussion of the current knowledge on the subject. But there is a huge amount of uplifting material to cover in the scriptures without having to delve into these sorts of things in a Gospel Doctrine class.

There are other venues to discuss these things, with those who have the depth of understanding to properly deal with them.

[Paul Ray]

And btw, if it helps anyone to know this, I have served as a ward Sunday School President before, in two different wards, and each time the most difficult challenge was trying to get the teachers to do what their leaders were asking them to do.

Everyone (in general) seems to want to do only what they feel is right... even though they know our Lord has appointed certain people to be leaders.

They just don't believe they need to do what their leaders tell them, unless they agree with their leaders, even though they know certain people are their leaders.

I think it's one of those thing we accept, mentally, to a degree, but have trouble putting into practice.

[Tsuzuki]

Hi Tsuzuki!

I think that the Mormon paradigm is that the Bible is correct insofar as it is translated correctly; that many plain and precious things have been taken away from it; and allows for the idea that nonscriptural additions have been made . . . this likely being a case in point.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think there's also something in the Mormon paradigm about correlation.

[ERMD]

And btw, if it helps anyone to know this, I have served as a ward Sunday School President before, in two different wards, and each time the most difficult challenge was trying to get the teachers to do what their leaders were asking them to do.

Everyone (in general) seems to want to do only what they feel is right... even though they know our Lord has appointed certain people to be leaders.

They just don't believe they need to do what their leaders tell them, unless they agree with their leaders, even though they know certain people are their leaders.

I think it's one of those thing we accept, mentally, to a degree, but have trouble putting into practice.

I find it telling that the recent Priesthood/RS/YW leadership training meetings have been broadcasts involving members of the First Presidency and other General Authorities.

As the Church becomes more global, the task of keeping instruction and training as uniform as practical is going to become an immense challenge.

If those with a long history in the Church in the U.S. are spinning off in their own orbits when teaching classes, think how it must be in Nigeria, Latvia, and Singapore.

[consiglieri]

I think there's also something in the Mormon paradigm about correlation.

Yes, but only in the alternate universe where Spock has a beard.

[Paul Ray]

I find it telling that the recent Priesthood/RS/YW leadership training meetings have been broadcasts involving members of the First Presidency and other General Authorities.

As the Church becomes more global, the task of keeping instruction and training as uniform as practical is going to become an immense challenge.

If those with a long history in the Church in the U.S. are spinning off in their own orbits when teaching classes, think how it must be in Nigeria, Latvia, and Singapore.

I think one thing that might help would be for our General Authorities to recommend, again and again, the need for us to follow our local leaders... just as our local leaders recommend, again and again, the need for us to follow our General Authorities.

I think most of us follow what our General Authorities tell us, or at least more of us try to do that, but some of us think that when our local leaders tell us to do something it is somehow optional or something, as if it really isn't a part of the program.

And yes, of course, our General Authorities should continue to oversee our local leaders, just to make sure they are doing what they tell them. But there is already a good system in place, if we will only follow our leaders, while knowing God has authorized them to be our leaders.