Should I Or Shouldn't I . . .

[consiglieri]

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.

I hear what you are saying, and yet to make the story in John comport with current LDS understandings of repentance, would there not have to be at least some sort of commitment from the woman that she would do as Jesus said? Not to mention, like, confessing and apologizing and restitution and waiting a year to become a member and all that sort of stuff?

I mean, the only thing this woman says is in response to Jesus asking where her accusers are, and she says, "I don't know."

That's enough for forgiveness?

And by the way, I do equate forgiveness with Jesus saying he does not "condemn" her. Actually, not being condemned in the first place would seem to render forgiveness superfluous.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

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.

I am gratified that my twitting was not for naught.

Indeed some neophytes can be older than others. I am a very old neophyte in some areas; while my ten-year old daughter is a younger neophyte in other areas.

Glad to hear that your class went well.

Mine was lots of fun . . . for the class, too.

I did point out that Jesus' brothers didn't believe him to be the Messiah (at the beginning of chapter 7), and one of the class members thought it strange that Jesus' own brothers wouldn't believe him, inasmuch as surely Mary and Joseph would have told them the stories about Jesus' miraculous birth. In passing, and without any fanfare, I did sort of point out that the birth narratives are not in John, but in Matthew and Luke.

Then I just let it slide, brother; I just let it slide.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[simply_disappear]

I'm coming in on this one late but I hope you taught the lesson as prescribed in the lesson manual as we are asked to do. Adding in your two cents worth wouldn't do a lot of good, imho, it would only serve your ego and that, my friend, is not what teaching the gospel is about.

[Log]

And by the way, I do equate forgiveness with Jesus saying he does not "condemn" her. Actually, not being condemned in the first place would seem to render forgiveness superfluous.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Nobody is condemned until the end.

[emeliza]

I hear what you are saying, and yet to make the story in John comport with current LDS understandings of repentance, would there not have to be at least some sort of commitment from the woman that she would do as Jesus said? Not to mention, like, confessing and apologizing and restitution and waiting a year to become a member and all that sort of stuff?

There is always more to the story than what was written. It could easily have been that this women did confess and all that. Maybe it just wasn't written. This actually makes even more sense if this was an oral story that was added in later on rather than originally written. After time oral stories sometimes lose out on important parts.

[simply_disappear]

Just an additional thought:

Although we are talking about the New Testament, this general subject would seem to apply to Church History, as well.

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?

What role does keeping church membership in ignorance of the truth have vis-a-vis teaching only from the "approved manual"? Does this type of teaching style not set members up for some nasty surprises from anti-Mormons?

Just some questions.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Thanks for your comments.

This makes me think of something else unusual about the story:

How is it that forgiveness is given?

The woman does not ask for forgiveness. She does not repent. She does not join the Church. She does not profess a belief in Jesus as the Savior. And Jesus requires none of this from her.

It is an unusual story all around.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Just a suggestion for you:

Did you know that the approved material is designed to teach to the entire body of Saints? It is, just fyi. It is like a classroom full of school children and the one teacher has to teach to the average child. The teacher can, if time and circumstance allow, teach to the above average child and the below average child, but mostly, the teacher has to remain mainstream in order to be most effective. This is how the milk of the gospel is taught. It is up to the individual to gain that spark you are speaking of through their personal study or dialogue with someone like you. It is not up to you to spark but the Spirit and if you are running around trying to figure out how you can put that spark into your lesson on your own through controversial means....you are not magnifying your calling but your ego.

I fail to see how discussing textual differences or findings would enhance your lesson. Whether the story is true or not, whether you have an opinion as to the findings regarding the truth of the story matter not at all. What matters is that the average member learn about forgiveness and righteous judgment vs. an unforgiving heart and unrighteous judgment.

I think you are way off base.

[simply_disappear]

I hear what you are saying, and yet to make the story in John comport with current LDS understandings of repentance, would there not have to be at least some sort of commitment from the woman that she would do as Jesus said? Not to mention, like, confessing and apologizing and restitution and waiting a year to become a member and all that sort of stuff?

I mean, the only thing this woman says is in response to Jesus asking where her accusers are, and she says, "I don't know."

That's enough for forgiveness?

And by the way, I do equate forgiveness with Jesus saying he does not "condemn" her. Actually, not being condemned in the first place would seem to render forgiveness superfluous.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Has it not occurred to you that this is not the entirety of their conversation? I mean, we must have a mere portion of all the actual conversations and occurrences which took place. We k now the Bible is not inerrant. I find it hard to understand that you take these positions and try to equivocate what our Savior chose to do with how the Church is run in our day. You are looking for reasons to doubt, imo.

We all know what that'll getcha. What did they say it was going for now? 30 schillings? pay up man!

I think you need to go talk to your Bishop about how you feel about the way the Savior is running the Church. lol.....not really laughing,,,,but your idea is laughable.

[consiglieri]

Nobody is condemned until the end.

Then Jesus was just kind of shining her on saying he didn't condemn her because nobody is really condemned until the end?

I think we can do better exegesis than that.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Has it not occurred to you that this is not the entirety of their conversation? I mean, we must have a mere portion of all the actual conversations and occurrences which took place. We k now the Bible is not inerrant. I find it hard to understand that you take these positions and try to equivocate what our Savior chose to do with how the Church is run in our day. You are looking for reasons to doubt, imo.

We all know what that'll getcha. What did they say it was going for now? 30 schillings? pay up man!

I think you need to go talk to your Bishop about how you feel about the way the Savior is running the Church. lol.....not really laughing,,,,but your idea is laughable.

My idea is laughable because I read what the scriptures say instead of imposing a prior assumptions upon the text?

Laugh away, my man.

Has it occurred to you that maybe the scriptures are actually trying to teach us something, but that as long as we continue to read it by inserting unsaid words and unmentioned actions, we are destined to be ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

There is always more to the story than what was written. It could easily have been that this women did confess and all that. Maybe it just wasn't written. This actually makes even more sense if this was an oral story that was added in later on rather than originally written. After time oral stories sometimes lose out on important parts.

Hi, Emeliza.

It was funny that you wrote in my name line, "makes up stuff to make himself happy."

But in reality, I think that those who wish to speculate about why the story reaches us in the version it is in are the ones making up stuff.

I know it is a temptation to suggest that stuff was lost, and the lost stuff would make it good Mormon doctrine (or any other church's doctrine), but I am of the mind that this is precisely the type of temptation we should resist.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Log]

Then Jesus was just kind of shining her on saying he didn't condemn her because nobody is really condemned until the end?

I think we can do better exegesis than that.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Please explain. I find your comment(s) cryptic.

[emeliza]

But in reality, I think that those who wish to speculate about why the story reaches us in the version it is in are the ones making up stuff.

I know it is a temptation to suggest that stuff was lost, and the lost stuff would make it good Mormon doctrine (or any other church's doctrine), but I am of the mind that this is precisely the type of temptation we should resist.

You are probably right. Personally I just speculated here. I wouldn't teach my speculations. I still have a tendency to want everything to fit into a nice little box. It rarely does. However I also don't wish to close myself off to other possibilities. In the same manner, I think this story can be thought of in about 10 different ways at least and I couldn't say that any of them are completely wrong. Maybe it was just about judging others. Maybe this was basically stating that we all have beams so quit looking at other people's motes.

[consiglieri]

You are probably right. Personally I just speculated here. I wouldn't teach my speculations. I still have a tendency to want everything to fit into a nice little box. It rarely does. However I also don't wish to close myself off to other possibilities. In the same manner, I think this story can be thought of in about 10 different ways at least and I couldn't say that any of them are completely wrong. Maybe it was just about judging others. Maybe this was basically stating that we all have beams so quit looking at other people's motes.

I agree with you that this story would be simpler if it were Peter or somebody else in the role of the Savior.

But of course, Jesus is the one with power to forgive and to condemn, and here he exercises it in an unexpected way.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[truthseeker2]

Just a suggestion for you:

Did you know that the approved material is designed to teach to the entire body of Saints? It is, just fyi. It is like a classroom full of school children and the one teacher has to teach to the average child. The teacher can, if time and circumstance allow, teach to the above average child and the below average child, but mostly, the teacher has to remain mainstream in order to be most effective. This is how the milk of the gospel is taught. It is up to the individual to gain that spark you are speaking of through their personal study or dialogue with someone like you. It is not up to you to spark but the Spirit and if you are running around trying to figure out how you can put that spark into your lesson on your own through controversial means....you are not magnifying your calling but your ego.

I fail to see how discussing textual differences or findings would enhance your lesson. Whether the story is true or not, whether you have an opinion as to the findings regarding the truth of the story matter not at all. What matters is that the average member learn about forgiveness and righteous judgment vs. an unforgiving heart and unrighteous judgment.

I think you are way off base.

Interesting dissertation regarding teaching the "milk" of the gospel. The problem you fail to realize is that the milk very often results in few attempting to find the spark. The problem is they end up becoming "shocked" from other sources that maybe unfair but have elements of fact attached to their "shock".

Maybe an analogy would be appropriate in this particular case. If you farm timber, and you want a strong piece of wood, one that isn't going to shatter or break, nature has this unique way of toughing this timber through wind's, rains and other natural means. If you shelter this timber through artificial or intentional means, then you will harvest weak timber. Often when the winds do finally come, then that timber is destroyed because the lack of strong roots and a strong core.

The same can be applied to allot of the content on this board. Like it or not, most active LDS members are not going to take the time or make the effort to learn more or read more. They're content with the way the gospel makes them feel, and frankly life is less complicated if you don't worry about that which might make you feel uncomfortable. But despite what they may feel, life, Satan, or what ever you want to call it comes knocking on your door and eventually your faced with the those questions that we as members wish to not talk about.

So a little controversy is a good thing in some cases, and your snap judgment in terms of the author of this thread's EGO is condescending if you want to know the truth. How can you extrapolate his intent from previous posts?

[rpn]

I presume everyone remembers what happened when a general authority was found to have told fictional stories and passed them off as truth. And the instructions in primary are to carefully distinguish when one is telling a fictional story, from a factual one.

Therefore, I believe that Gospel Doctrine teachers have the obligation to share the evidences of truthfulness in the scriptural context you mention. It shouldn't take longer than two sentences, and citing the various viewpoints and sources would be good. Then moving on to the fact that whether it was late added and why doesn't detract from its message.

People deserve to fully understand and seek their own confirmation of the spirit as to the truths taught.

[simply_disappear]

Interesting dissertation regarding teaching the "milk" of the gospel. The problem you fail to realize is that the milk very often results in few attempting to find the spark. The problem is they end up becoming "shocked" from other sources that maybe unfair but have elements of fact attached to their "shock".

Maybe an analogy would be appropriate in this particular case. If you farm timber, and you want a strong piece of wood, one that isn't going to shatter or break, nature has this unique way of toughing this timber through wind's, rains and other natural means. If you shelter this timber through artificial or intentional means, then you will harvest weak timber. Often when the winds do finally come, then that timber is destroyed because the lack of strong roots and a strong core.

The same can be applied to allot of the content on this board. Like it or not, most active LDS members are not going to take the time or make the effort to learn more or read more. They're content with the way the gospel makes them feel, and frankly life is less complicated if you don't worry about that which might make you feel uncomfortable. But despite what they may feel, life, Satan, or what ever you want to call it comes knocking on your door and eventually your faced with the those questions that we as members wish to not talk about.

So a little controversy is a good thing in some cases, and your snap judgment in terms of the author of this thread's EGO is condescending if you want to know the truth. How can you extrapolate his intent from previous posts?

If you want to know the truth I think that if the average member doesn't go about studying the gospel it isn't the fault of the Church nor is it the fault of a GD teacher. It is the member's fault for not magnifying their study as we are commanded to do. Seek ye first the things of the Kingdom of God. We are not, as teachers of the gospel, supposed to introduce controversy into our lessons. That is for a private setting, if at all wrt teaching the gospel. If it were so, we'd be instructed as to where to find controversial subject matter pertaining to our lessons in the manuals provided by the Church for instruction. We aren't. We are, however, instructed to use the Scriptures, words of the the Prophets and General Authorities and approved materials which come by way of our Ensigns and other manuals from the Corporation of the President. It is how it has been and should be. It is the Lord's Church and is designed to teach basic principles and gospel principles as outlined by our leaders who are called to teach the Lord's word as special witnesses of His.

As for snap judgments.....surely you jest.

[helix]

We are, however, instructed to use the Scriptures, words of the the Prophets and General Authorities and approved materials which come by way of our Ensigns and other manuals from the Corporation of the President. It is how it has been and should be.

As stated earlier, the church does not exclude the use of materials found outside the "approved materials". In fact, there really isn't any real list for "approve materials".

The church does have general guidelines that they ask that a lesson revolve around. But again, that does not exclude the use of outside sources. As the D&C says, we should seek out of the best books words words of wisdom.

[consiglieri]

I am struck by the fact that those who are most in opposition to my proposal about teaching the historical development of the story of the woman taken in adultery in the gospel of John say that I should teach from the scriptures instead.

From my point of view, this is teaching from the scriptures. In fact, it is going back to the earliest and best New Testament manuscripts and pointing out in passing that this story simply doesn't appear there; and that when it does start appearing in manuscripts, it can't seem to find a home, but is inserted in various places in John (and even in the gospel of Luke).

This was interesting for the class. It told them something they hadn't heard before. It made them perk up and pay attention.

And most importantly, it was teaching from the scriptures.

It seems a strange thing for Mormons, of all people, to insist on teaching from the Bible as we have it today, as if Mormons didn't think there was hanky-panky with the Bible somewhere along the way.

Just some observations.

--Consiglieri

[simply_disappear]

As stated earlier, the church does not exclude the use of materials found outside the "approved materials". In fact, there really isn't any real list for "approve materials".

The church does have general guidelines that they ask that a lesson revolve around. But again, that does not exclude the use of outside sources. As the D&C says, we should seek out of the best books words words of wisdom.

You may like to reference "Teaching No Greater Call", paying special attention to chapter 11 "Keeping The Doctrine Pure". Chapter 35 may also be of use "Church Resources For Teaching The Gospel".

[simply_disappear]

I am struck by the fact that those who are most in opposition to my proposal about teaching the historical development of the story of the woman taken in adultery in the gospel of John say that I should teach from the scriptures instead.

From my point of view, this is teaching from the scriptures. In fact, it is going back to the earliest and best New Testament manuscripts and pointing out in passing that this story simply doesn't appear there; and that when it does start appearing in manuscripts, it can't seem to find a home, but is inserted in various places in John (and even in the gospel of Luke).

This was interesting for the class. It told them something they hadn't heard before. It made them perk up and pay attention.

And most importantly, it was teaching from the scriptures.

It seems a strange thing for Mormons, of all people, to insist on teaching from the Bible as we have it today, as if Mormons didn't think there was hanky-panky with the Bible somewhere along the way.

Just some observations.

--Consiglieri

But WHY did you want to bring it up? For interest points? To prove that the Bible is inerrant? To perk up the class?

[structurecop]

But WHY did you want to bring it up? For interest points? To prove that the Bible is inerrant? To perk up the class?

I think it is interesting information and to ignore it would be folly in a year-long class on only the NT.

[simply_disappear]

I think it is interesting information and to ignore it would be folly in a year-long class on only the NT.

Is it true though? Is it doctrine as outlined in the manual? Could it possibly cause someone to stumble, not being truth, but speculation?

I don't deny it's interest factor, however, that's not what GD class is about. It is about helping to prepare people to receive the weightier matters of the gospel. It is not a place for speculation and grandeousity, even if it lasts a minute or two.

[rollandelliott]

"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."

I deffinetely don't feel that way. A few interesting tid bits makes the classes so much more interesting. If you had to stick to the books and approved materials, why even bother going to class. We could just sit at home and read. Seriously! People learn and are inspired by personal behavior and teachings. This has been well documented in studies of what make missionaries effective. It is probably one of the main reasons the missionary lessons have been reformatted recently to allow for a more unstructured learning environment.

Peace, Rolland

[structurecop]

Is it true though? Is it doctrine as outlined in the manual? Could it possibly cause someone to stumble, not being truth, but speculation?

One of the reasons I flirt with inactivity is because Church is so tedious when "teachers" are simply lectors for the GD manual. I find it especially un-enlightening and even doctrine is skirted.

I don't deny it's interest factor, however, that's not what GD class is about. It is about helping to prepare people to receive the weightier matters of the gospel. It is not a place for speculation and grandeousity, even if it lasts a minute or two.

When did this idea that substantive matters cannot be discussed in Church develop?

[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

this thread has been going way past the original post,,,so you have allready taught the sunday school class now?

what happened? what did you teach?