Should I Or Shouldn't I . . .

[Tanyan]

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

WWJD [Or Say] ?.

[Paul Ray]

WWJD [Or Say] ?.

That's Hebrew, I think.

Those people are notorious for leaving all of the vowels out.

[Log]

nevermind.

[Tanyan]

That's Hebrew, I think.

Those people are notorious for leaving all of the vowels out.

Isn't That just terrible ?.

[Paul Ray]

Isn't That just terrible ?.

Pffft. Yeah. Tell me about it.

How are we supposed to know what they really are saying???

[Tanyan]

Pffft. Yeah. Tell me about it.

How are we supposed to know what they really are saying???

Learn Hebrew via School, Books, DVD'S, CD'S. I happen to have a Kohaneen Levite who happens to be LDS in my Ward, maybe I coukd ask him.

[Paul Ray]

Learn Hebrew via School, Books, DVD'S, CD'S. I happen to have a Kohaneen Levite who happens to be LDS in my Ward, maybe I coukd ask him.

Oh, do you want to know what WWJD stands for, or represents?

Oh, why didn't you just say so.

What Would Jesus Do.

Does your Kohaneen Levite friend know the language used by Hebrews?

[helix]

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.

And where do curriculum manuals say we must first contact our local church leaders before using such material?

I'm sorry, but everything you say rubs me the wrong way. The manual's recommendations never get as picky and strict as you have here. It never mentions we have to get prior approval for non authorized curriculum. It never mentions to what extent we have to focus on authorized cirriculum. The message is kept simple, to focus on the lesson topic, use the scriptures, use the Spirit, keep the class involved, etc.

Overall, all this talk of constantly having to check in with your superiors reminds me of the counsel our Stake President gives our Bishop when our Bishop asks for clarifications on difficult policy questions. The response he always gets, "You're the Bishop, it's your Ward."

I feel, and have seen through a dozen wards and branches, the same guidelines apply for teachers.

[Tsuzuki]

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

Spock has always had a beard, though I do recall an episode of Star Trek where Kirk and company went to an alternate universe where Spock didn't have a beard.

[consiglieri]

Oh, do you want to know what WWJD stands for, or represents?

Oh, why didn't you just say so.

What Would Jesus Do.

Does your Kohaneen Levite friend know the language used by Hebrews?

What Would Jesus Do?

(What Would Scooby-Doo?)

I think this is an inane question, whether asked in words or just the first letters, WWJD?

The reason is that no human can know what Jesus would do.

Jesus did a lot of strange things.

Jesus did a lot of unexpected things.

In the case in point, Jesus just forgave an adulteress without any repentance on her part; without any faith; without any baptism; etc.

If we didn't already know the story, I think that would have been hard to predict.

And I have trouble thinking that, whatever Jesus might do in this situation, he would restrict himself to a notion of "approved church materials" in teaching his lessons. If that were what Jesus of Nazareth would have done, he never would have made history.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Spock has always had a beard, though I do recall an episode of Star Trek where Kirk and company went to an alternate universe where Spock didn't have a beard.

You crackee me upee!

Live long and prosper . . . or die the death!

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

"Jesus just forgave an adulteress without any repentance on her part; without any faith;"

You're making a big leap here. The Bible does not tell us anything about the womans heart or what she did after her encounter with her Lord and Savior.

The Inspired Version does however have John 8:11

11. She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more. And the woman glorified God from that hour, and believed on his name.

[Neighbor]

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

First off, I'm interested in the evidence that it was inserted later. As for all teachings of Jesus, it must be filtered through His other teachings. Since Jesus upholds Gods laws and judgments, I view it a matter that Jesus was not going to show impartiality in execution of the law of God. They did not bring the man. Why? Why did they only desire the woman be condemned? Jesus knew their hearts and motives and stepped above the immediate trial of unequal application of Gods law to show that the greater matters of God are to love mercy and truth.

[erichard]

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.

Is not the Doctrine and Covenants the Law the church members and officers are to live by?

If so, what about this commandment:

D&C 46

2 But notwithstanding those things which are written, it always has been given to the elders of my church from the beginning, and ever shall be, to conduct all meetings as they are directed and guided by the Holy Spirit.

If the Spirit directs Consiglieri to bring this up in the Sunday School MEETING, then he should not deny the Spirit.

It is as simple as that.

Those who have issues with allowing Elders to conduct meetings by the Spirit, instead of by a set of rules made up by authorities, probably do not have real faith in the Word of God. Right?

That said, I tend to agree with Poulsenll that this account may very well have been in an original version, was taken out by someone, and then put back in correctly.

Richard

[thesometimesaint]

erichard:

I too have taught the Gospel Doctrine class, but I've never felt constrained to limit the discussion to just what is in the KJV of the Bible.

[juliann]

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?

First, you don't know that it didn't happen. We don't have the original MSS and age is not necessarily an indicator of validity. Additions can be legitimate corrections that restore rather than embellish. At the very least it is a good parable.

[juliann]

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.

The last time I taught in RS the manual said to adapt lessons to the people being taught. Has this changed?

[consiglieri]

consiglieri:

"Jesus just forgave an adulteress without any repentance on her part; without any faith;"

You're making a big leap here. The Bible does not tell us anything about the womans heart or what she did after her encounter with her Lord and Savior.

The Inspired Version does however have John 8:11

11. She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more. And the woman glorified God from that hour, and believed on his name.

You know, a class member brought this up, and I didn't know this, and I checked the footnotes in the Bible in class and didn't see it there.

Is it in our Bible, or is it a JST that was not included in our Bible?

Do you know?

--Consiglieri

First off, I'm interested in the evidence that it was inserted later. As for all teachings of Jesus, it must be filtered through His other teachings. Since Jesus upholds Gods laws and judgments, I view it a matter that Jesus was not going to show impartiality in execution of the law of God. They did not bring the man. Why? Why did they only desire the woman be condemned? Jesus knew their hearts and motives and stepped above the immediate trial of unequal application of Gods law to show that the greater matters of God are to love mercy and truth.

This is an interesting take on the story, Neighbor. And for all I know, you may be right.

It seems, though, that in order to make sense out of the story from LDS or non-LDS positions, a lot of reading has to be done into the text to make it come out right.

It would seem that, if what you are saying is the case, and if that is what the author meant to convey, it would have been a simple matter for the author to have included it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Is not the Doctrine and Covenants the Law the church members and officers are to live by?

If so, what about this commandment:

If the Spirit directs Consiglieri to bring this up in the Sunday School MEETING, then he should not deny the Spirit.

It is as simple as that.

Those who have issues with allowing Elders to conduct meetings by the Spirit, instead of by a set of rules made up by authorities, probably do not have real faith in the Word of God. Right?

That said, I tend to agree with Poulsenll that this account may very well have been in an original version, was taken out by someone, and then put back in correctly.

Richard

Thanks for the back-up, Richard.

The account may have been taken out and then reinserted.

But it does seem that, when it was being put (back) in, they had an awful hard time finding the spot where it belonged; as it shows up as an addendum to John at the very end of his gospel in some manuscripts; in other manuscripts it shows up about twenty-verses earlier; and in others it even makes its way into early manuscripts of Luke!

Where it is now, it doesn't really fit and looks like it was just stuck in. If you omit it, the story reads more smoothly.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

First, you don't know that it didn't happen. We don't have the original MSS and age is not necessarily an indicator of validity. Additions can be legitimate corrections that restore rather than embellish. At the very least it is a good parable.

Hi, Juliann,

No, I don't know it didn't happen. And I have tried to be careful in my use of language to not say that I know it didn't happen; merely that it "probably" didn't happen. I claim no special revelation here.

Also, I will post here what actually did happen in Sunday school.

I introduced the story by staying it was a strange story with a strange history (I find that such introductions tend to make people pay attention!).

I said that it doesn't show up in the earliest manuscripts of John, and that when it does start showing up, it is inserted in different places (as in my reply to erichard above).

A class member raised his hand and asked if any general authorities had weighed in on the issue of whether it was true. I responded that they had not, to my knowledge, but that they had quoted it in general conference, so I felt comfortable in teaching from it in Sunday school class.

To this, there were many nods of agreement.

I then went forward and taught from it as a true account.

So I got to bring up the historical background without drawing any conclusions, and then got to teach from it. The best of both worlds!

And for those of you concerned about the use of precious Sunday school time, I took no more than 60-seconds mentioning the background, which seemed to get people's attention. Call it an "attention activity."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

I got it from the Inspired Version. I'm not sure as to which part we accept as Scripture.

Your's must be an interesting SS class.

[consiglieri]

consiglieri:

I got it from the Inspired Version. I'm not sure as to which part we accept as Scripture.

Your's must be an interesting SS class.

I was aware that some of the JST simply wasn't transferred over to the 1979 KJV of the LDS. (Enough acronyms yet?)

I am wondering if this is a case in point.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

Coulds be. I've used any resource that will furthers the point of the discussion.

[consiglieri]

consiglieri:

Coulds be. I've used any resource that will furthers the point of the discussion.

After a little reflection, I am not sure how the JST adding that the woman left, "glorifying God," really adds much to making the story comport with the traditional steps to repentance.

I would glorify God, too, if Jesus just gave me a free pass on adultery and saved my adulterous neck in the bargain!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

I think that is a unwarranted assumption because Jesus also tells the women to sin no more. This is an injunction also in our D&C 42:25. It also ties in quite nicely with what the definition of repentance is; To forsake the sin, and do it no more. I don't see it as a "get out of jail free card". But more as the gift Jesus freely gives to all of us if we will but repent.

It seems to me that because the women did "follow" after Jesus. She was considered a disciple of Christ.

[Scott Lloyd]

As opposed to the oldest neophyte?

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

I perceive that you are twitting me on the supposed use of a redundancy, Consiglieri.

If so I would submit that some neophytes can be older than others and still be neophytes.

In any case, I hope your lesson went well. Mine went better than I deserved.