Should I Or Shouldn't I . . .

[helix]

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".

Yes, and with your post emphasized, I stand by my statement even more.

I repeat, there is nothing that excludes using non-authorized material. There is also no official list of non-authorized material. There are a list of teachers should do, things that are recommended they should do, and things that should not be done. What conglesari did didn't even come close to breaking a rule or a recommendation.

I think you are straining to say that what was taught was speculation. As "Teaching No Greater Call", they encourage teachers to say "I don't know". That's exactly what consiglieri did. He had the background behind the story (which all good teachers should do). He analyzed the sources. He checked for church statements on the matter. He asked here what he should do. I'm sure he prayed about this lesson as well. And he was as honest with himself as possible. It's not easy teaching a lesson as cold hard doctrine when deep down, you know that this passage may have inerrancy issues, which LDS members are fully able to accept. But he didn't speculate and state these particular verses were false additions. He simply said "I don't know." Which is what he should have done.

But...you told him that what he said would "only serve [his] ego", and that he is "looking for reasons to doubt", you compared him to Judas Iscariot betraying the Savior (WOW!), and you told him he should go talk with his Bishop.

I think we've all sat in on classes in which inappropriate speculation was made, and teachers used that as a conclusion. consiglieri's stayed well within bounds by saying what is encouraged "I don't know."

[The Nehor]

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

While I think it would have been better avoided in general I must admit I would rather attend such a class.

[helix]

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.

Most wards and branches have two classes. Gospel Principles and Gospel Doctrine.

And the Gospel Doctrine manual does not state that the class is to prepare members for weightier matters for the gospel. That is purely your opinion.

In fact, the manuals are very careful *not* to state the rules of what we cannot do. Yes, a few rules and recommendations are set out. But nowhere near the strict level that you've been explaining here.

[simply_disappear]

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.

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

I'm not suggesting we make GD boring and tediously tiring by becoming lectors. In fact, "Teaching No Greater Call" teaches us not to become such. We are to become a vessel for the Spirit to work through in order to teach the gospel in it's purity.

Sure substantive matters should be discussed.....if they are true. GD class is not a place to introduce speculative topics.

[simply_disappear]

Most wards and branches have two classes. Gospel Principles and Gospel Doctrine.

And the Gospel Doctrine manual does not state that the class is to prepare members for weightier matters for the gospel. That is purely your opinion.

In fact, the manuals are very careful *not* to state the rules of what we cannot do. Yes, a few rules and recommendations are set out. But nowhere near the strict level that you've been explaining here.

I stand by my statements. You may want to read the opening pages in the manuals again. You may also want to re-read TNGC again.

Pure doctrine doesn't include speculation.....points of interest are always welcome.....but not if it is speculative. Points which speculate on inerrancy aren't good either....not because we cannot accept them but because they are well,,,,,speculative.

[simply_disappear]

Most wards and branches have two classes. Gospel Principles and Gospel Doctrine.

And the Gospel Doctrine manual does not state that the class is to prepare members for weightier matters for the gospel. That is purely your opinion.

In fact, the manuals are very careful *not* to state the rules of what we cannot do. Yes, a few rules and recommendations are set out. But nowhere near the strict level that you've been explaining here.

It is not my opinion.....anything we learn from the manuals in Church are preparing us to be able to accept weightier matters....regardless of the level of understanding we are at currently. I thought people generally understood that about the gospel. GD class is not a place to spout what may or may not be true but a forum to teach by the Spirit "pure doctrine".

The manuals are careful to guide us in what we should use for reference materials.

[simply_disappear]

"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

I agree that we shouldn't become robotic in our teaching. That's not what I'm suggesting.

[simply_disappear]

While I think it would have been better avoided in general I must admit I would rather attend such a class.

That's what Institute is for though. It is a further developed forum for such things to be explored. Sure it's instructional but it is in a different way. The people who attend SS\GD are there basically because it is the option they have between the hall/foyer and the GP class if they aren't a teacher themselves. It is not a forum to bring in speculative points for discussion. It is a forum to teach pure doctrine in order to edify those who are attending. For those who yearn for more enlightenment, the Church provides people who make circuit talks, they provide continuing educational activities and online classes including localized Institute classes.

[helix]

I stand by my statements. You may want to read the opening pages in the manuals again. You may also want to re-read TNGC again.

Pure doctrine doesn't include speculation.....points of interest are always welcome.....but not if it is speculative. Points which speculate on inerrancy aren't good either....not because we cannot accept them but because they are well,,,,,speculative.

Oh, I've re-read, and re-re-read, and re-re-re-read, and...well, you get the idea. I am quite convinced that you are simply wrong. Saying "I don't know" is encouraged. Part of being able to say "I don't know" is to explain why "I don't know" is the correct response to give. That's exactly what consiglieri did.

But then, I don't think this discussion is going to get anywhere. You will stick with your stern fundamentalist interpretation. And I will stick with my looser opinions.

And since this will be my last say on the matter, I'd also like to add again that calling people to repentance by telling them they should see their Bishop, and equating their actions with Judas Iscariot betraying Jesus is also flat out unacceptable.

[consiglieri]

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

Sorry for being cryptic. It is teaching all these lessons from the gospel of John that is doing it to me, I am sure, wherein Jesus is very cryptic.

Let me explain more fully:

Jesus said to the woman taken in adultery, "Neither do I condemn you."

You posted: "Nobody is condemned until the end."

If that is true, then Jesus' statement to the woman was meaningless. In other words, if nobody is condemned "until the end," then that would include the woman taken in adultery. Jesus could have told anybody that he didn't condemn them, because "nobody is condemned until the end."

Hence, Jesus' statement here becomes meaningless, as it would apply to anybody.

That is why I think analyzing this story from the premise that "nobody is condemned until the end" is not very fruitful.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[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?

Would any of those reasons be inherently wrong? I mean, the teacher's manual encourages the wasting of quite a bit of time at the beginning of each class with an "attention activity."

How about just to teach the truth? Is that justified, in your opinion? Even in Gospel Doctrine class?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

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

I agree with you.

As a side-note, the way the Gospel Doctrine class is set up, the scriptures are not really supposed to be taught.

A "lesson" is formulated by the correlation committee and the "lesson" is to be taught using a passage of scripture or two as a "proof text" to support the lesson selected.

And so we have lessons on "tithing" and on "service" and on "forgiveness" and on "prayer," etc. with a nod to a supporting text here and there.

My preference is to teach from the scriptures, and to try to explain what are often confusing passages, and to ask questions of the text that help the class learn. In other words, the scriptures are my teacher's manual.

I have found that inserting a bit of historical context is helpful to the class in understanding what is being said.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

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

Has anybody considered that teaching the same lessons over and over again to the point of mind-numbing boredom could "possibly cause someone to stumble"?

As I posted earlier, that is precisely what has happened to my wife, who is inactive because she sees no point in going to Church anymore. It appears that structurecop is on the verge; and I would be in the same wagon if I didn't have the calling to teach.

This is a sword that cuts both ways.

And I am always hearing this dangerous possibility that teaching from a resource outside the manual could "cause someone to stumble," but I have yet to hear of a documented example.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

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.

So Gospel Doctrine class is not about anything interesting? That is sadly too true in the vast majority of cases.

And I also often encounter this canard about preparing people "to receive the weightier matters of the gospel." I disagree. That is what Gospel Essential class is about.

The weightier matters of the gospel should be taught in Gospel Doctrine. If not, we might as well consign all the members to an eternity of Gospel Essentials class. No. Wait. That is what you have already done.

Or put another way, did you ever notice that nobody in the Church ever really graduates from Primary?

Gospel Doctrine class "is not a place for speculation and grandiosity"? I would concede the "grandiosity" point. I'm not sure anybody has advocated that.

But as to "speculation," that is what I have to keep avoiding on the part of my class. Time after time after time, I will ask a question that is based on a passage of scripture we have just read, and the response is a homily about LDS doctrine. I have to draw the class members' attention back to the scriptures so they can see the answer that is staring them in the face.

In the story of the woman taken in adultery, speculation is rampant, but the speculation is in trying to read the story in such a way as to make it conform with modern-day LDS doctrine regarding the steps of repentance, none of which are manifest in the story itself.

The tendency is to take the scriptures and make them say what we already believe, instead of looking at what the scriptures say and seeing if maybe we can actually learn something new.

Do you think there is really anything new to learn from the scriptures? If you advocate following strictly the lesson manual, then I am afraid your answer to this question would have to be no.

And the question must then be asked as to why to have a Gospel Doctrine class at all if nothing new is ever taught and nothing new is ever learned? It doesn't sound like much of a class to me, and the teacher of such a class doesn't sound like much of a teacher.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

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

While I cannot give you a precise date, it would obviously be some time after Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[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?

I outlined what happened in post number 144 above.

In addition, though, I guess I did something else verboten.

I was reading in class in John 7 about how some of the Jews rejected Jesus because they believed that the Messiah would appear mysteriously, and it would not be known where he came from.

I said that this was a common belief amongst the Jews and that there was a passage in 1 Enoch that supported that belief. (Gasp! Never fear. I didn't actually read from 1 Enoch, even though it was good enough for Jude to quote and make it into the Bible.)

A sister in the class, whom I affectionately refer to as "Sister Stormcloud," raised her hand and started in about how she disagreed, and how the Jews thought that the Messiah would be from Bethlehem.

At this point, I used a somewhat strong hand and corrected her, explaining that the Jews did not hold one unified belief regarding the Messiah any more than Christians today hold one unified belief about Jesus.

I told her that some Jews believed the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, and that they are even referenced in the same chapter about ten verses later; but if we don't understand that some Jews thought that they would not know where the Messiah came from, then we will never understand the earlier passage.

So now I suppose I am double-dog damned. Not only did I mention historical facts about the textual history of the story of the woman taken in adultery, I even referenced a non-canonical text.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[simply_disappear]

I'd have no qualms about mentioning that the woman taken in adultery story is not in the oldest manuscripts we have, but I also think that it would be dicy to claim that the story does not belong there. I think it does.

And this is what I was thinking would be appropriate. I don't think it would have been right to claim that the story was not true, or that it didn't belong there but sure, it's fine to mention about the textual evidences that are factual.

As for the differing accounts of JS's first vision. These are factual but where do you fit them in? I mean, should we begin teaching that in Primary? Just because they exist? I think things like this belong in the home. Our children get in depth scriptural indoctrination at home, as we are commanded.....we go into things like this because we want them to grow up understanding the gospel and history thereof in this and other dispensations.

I love interesting teachers who can bring in facts and incorporate them into the lesson material,,,,but back it up and make sure it's fact and teach it all with the Spirit.

[consiglieri]

While I think it would have been better avoided in general I must admit I would rather attend such a class.

You are welcome to attend any time.

A small contribution is requested.

[consiglieri]

I'm not suggesting we make GD boring and tediously tiring by becoming lectors.

That's okay. You don't have to suggest it. Following the procedure you endorse has already made "GD boring and tedious" in over 90% of the cases.

(That's from a statistical study, by the way.)

[consiglieri]

Sure substantive matters should be discussed.....if they are true. GD class is not a place to introduce speculative topics.

You keep harping on this as if I advocate teaching something speculative.

I have not.

As outlined above, I have to be the bulwark against speculation.

It is a constant and tiresome job.

And it appears that your insistence that nothing be referenced outside "approved materials" is another form of speculation that I must guard against.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The manuals are careful to guide us in what we should use for reference materials.

You have to be carefully taught.

That's what Institute is for though. It is a further developed forum for such things to be explored.

May I suggest that this constitutes a form of invidious discrimination between those who attend college and those who do not?

[consiglieri]

And this is what I was thinking would be appropriate. I don't think it would have been right to claim that the story was not true, or that it didn't belong there but sure, it's fine to mention about the textual evidences that are factual.

And so, after all this back and forth, you finally come over to my side and agree with the way I taught the class as outlined in post number 144?

Welcome to the dark side!

--Consiglieri

As for the differing accounts of JS's first vision. These are factual but where do you fit them in?

Well, let's see.

The 1976 film made by the Church about Joseph Smith's First Vision incorporated different accounts when it had Joseph Smith praying and he heard the sound of a branch snapping in the forest.

[simply_disappear]

So Gospel Doctrine class is not about anything interesting? That is sadly too true in the vast majority of cases.

***I did not say that it wasn't. I agree it is the case all too often.

And I also often encounter this canard about preparing people "to receive the weightier matters of the gospel." I disagree. That is what Gospel Essential class is about.

***No sir, it is not only GE which is about the basic matters of the gospel. I agree that GD should be more in depth than GE but it is not the weightier matters of the gospel....it is simply more weighty than GE. If this is the weightier matters of the gospel, then what will we have to learn when we actually meet with our God?

The weightier matters of the gospel should be taught in Gospel Doctrine. If not, we might as well consign all the members to an eternity of Gospel Essentials class. No. Wait. That is what you have already done.

***I agree.....but what you suggested was not weightier matters. What you suggested was to teach a speculative matter as truth. The textual evidences may show that the story was an addition but surely your opinion or the ones you cited are speculative with regard to whether the story was, in fact, true and whether it belonged there or not, don't you agree?

***Have you ever wondered why we have been assigned to the monumental task of repeating the GD lessons every four years, year after year after year? Because the majority of the Saints haven't gotten it yet. We are given what we can, as a whole, live. People like you and I find it boring to teach straight from the manual with the scriptures and use the resources outlined by the First Presidency but that is what we are counseled to do so we can progress as the body of Christ and be allowed to have higher elements of the gospel introduced....you know, the "weightier matters".

Or put another way, did you ever notice that nobody in the Church ever really graduates from Primary?

***Surely, you are joking. This is what I'm speaking about.....the majority use the GD as their only source of scriptural edification for the week. Is it really a surprise why we are on the merry go round every 4 years....still? I think you actually understand what I'm saying but you want to bring the masses up to your speed when instead we should be following the Lord's protocol and teaching by the manual and scriptures as proscribed by the First Presidency. This means speculative matters should be checked at the door and the gospel be taught in it's purity.

Gospel Doctrine class "is not a place for speculation and grandiosity"? I would concede the "grandiosity" point. I'm not sure anybody has advocated that.

***You are right and I owe you an apology for insinuating it. I'm sorry.

But as to "speculation," that is what I have to keep avoiding on the part of my class.

***Good for you! Seriously. That is what we should be doing. I applaud the teacher who knows his/her scriptures well enough to be able to do so. It's why we are there.

In the story of the woman taken in adultery, speculation is rampant, but the speculation is in trying to read the story in such a way as to make it conform with modern-day LDS doctrine regarding the steps of repentance, none of which are manifest in the story itself.

***Surely the scriptures don't give us the amount of detail which the actually occured. For you to speculate and say that the Lord's Church isn't using the process of repentance and forgiveness the right way or that we do it differently is a farse and pure speculation. What you seem to have forgotten is that even if it did happen as it is outlined in that story and there really is nothing else to the story that the Lord has a living Church with living prophets who have outlined the repentance process and forgiveness detail for this dispensation. We have no need to try to make the story conform to LDS doctrine. It fits....the story is not about the steps as you have outlined but as the Lord has outlined. This is the speculation which doesn't belong in your class. The story is about the immense power of Christ's love and compassion. It is about the mote and the beam. It is about anything but steps. You miss the point, imo if you focus on the steps. But if you want to focus on the steps sure.....outline them. Let's see what is really missing.

The tendency is to take the scriptures and make them say what we already believe, instead of looking at what the scriptures say and seeing if maybe we can actually learn something new.

***Oh, no. I don't believe this is the tendency of those who are truly seeking to understand. My husband gave a talk once about this and his words stick with me through our lives. He said that it is for us to form our lives around the scriptures and the gospel and when we have begun to try to form the scriptures and the gospel around our lives we can know for sure that we have turned from the Lord and to the world. He is not an eloquent speaker of flowery words, but he speaks by the Spirit and this one stuck with me along with a few others.

Do you think there is really anything new to learn from the scriptures? If you advocate following strictly the lesson manual, then I am afraid your answer to this question would have to be no.

****You presume far too much, dear Brother. There is always something new to learn from the scriptures. We are taught by the Spirit in the understanding of our current circumstances when we allow it to occur. I didn't say follow the lesson manual strictly but that it is the main resource beside (next to) the scriptures. We have a list of resources we are to use and we should respect that the Prophet knows what should be taught. Once again,,,,I'm not saying that your textual evidence wouldn't be interesting but your opinion on the matter is speculative and there is no room in pure doctrine for speculation.

And the question must then be asked as to why to have a Gospel Doctrine class at all if nothing new is ever taught and nothing new is ever learned?

***You aren't reading what I've said. I never suggested nothing new be taught or learned, but that is for the

Spirit to do with the individual through the lesson material given by the Church. It is there because we have yet to come to a unity of faith. We keep having to repeat the same lesson material and will until we come to that unity of faith. Sure, building on general knowledge is good, but not when it includes speculation.

***As for being a good teacher....I'm not suggesting you aren't. I suggest you speak to your Bishop because you show disdain for teaching what is outlined as if it just isn't good enough because there is so much more. Sure there is so much more to teach.....but GD class isn't the place for it. Perhaps you could look into becoming an Institute teacher? That is the place for further light and knowledge above GD. Personal scripture study is also the place and when we learn new and interesting things, if they wouldn't edify the group as a whole and enlighten them but put them into doubt and stupor they ought to be avoided. This is why we have Institute...people go there because they want to be taught more than what is offered in GD which is a foundation for further light and knowledge.

[simply_disappear]

Oh, I've re-read, and re-re-read, and re-re-re-read, and...well, you get the idea. I am quite convinced that you are simply wrong. Saying "I don't know" is encouraged. Part of being able to say "I don't know" is to explain why "I don't know" is the correct response to give. That's exactly what consiglieri did.

But then, I don't think this discussion is going to get anywhere. You will stick with your stern fundamentalist interpretation. And I will stick with my looser opinions.

And since this will be my last say on the matter, I'd also like to add again that calling people to repentance by telling them they should see their Bishop, and equating their actions with Judas Iscariot betraying Jesus is also flat out unacceptable.

It is flat out unacceptable and I would never do such a thing. I said he should go to see his Bishop not for repentance. Whatever gave you such an idea? That is ludicrous! I suggested he go talk to his Bishop because he thinks the curriculum is lacking......perhaps some guidance from the one who has the mantle of authority in the matter is in order to help the brother gain perspective from the Lord's view????? I've gone to talk to my bishop about things like this when I felt I was failing miserably as a teacher....he helped me understand better how to magnify my calling. This is what Bishops are for. I don't often think of a Bishop for repentance but for guidance....I'm sorry I didn't fill out the details of my thoughts and sorry you jumped to the conclusion you did.

[simply_disappear]

name='consiglieri' date='Apr 24 2007, 07:34 AM' post='1208169720']

You keep harping on this as if I advocate teaching something speculative.

I have not.

***I must have missed #144. I will read it though. I am still going on the basis of your original post in which you posited that you were contemplating speculative matters:

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

2. Should I teach the truth that it probably never happened?**********(in particular)

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.*****

****************************************************************

And it appears that your insistence that nothing be referenced outside "approved materials" is another form of speculation that I must guard against.

****Prove that it's speculation, please. It is not.

May I suggest that this constitutes a form of invidious discrimination between those who attend college and those who do not?

****Well, if the shoe fits. The Church program of GD isn't the end all be all of learning. If one wants to be further edified then the individual seeks to be enlightened through personal study and/or extracurricular programs offered. It's the same with people who seek higher learning in the university setting. No discrimination really, but if you want to be a pessimist, be my guest.

[consiglieri]

***I did not say that it wasn't. I agree it is the case all too often.

Do you see yourself as part of the problem or part of the solution?

***Have you ever wondered why we have been assigned to the monumental task of repeating the GD lessons every four years, year after year after year? Because the majority of the Saints haven't gotten it yet. We are given what we can, as a whole, live. People like you and I find it boring to teach straight from the manual with the scriptures and use the resources outlined by the First Presidency but that is what we are counseled to do so we can progress as the body of Christ and be allowed to have higher elements of the gospel introduced....you know, the "weightier matters".

We are sentenced to mind-numbing monotony because "the majority of the Saints haven't gotten it yet"? This strikes me as cynical and . . . speculative. How is doing what you suggest helping us "progress as the body of Christ" when you admit we are doing anything but progressing? And at this point when we all have progressed as the body of Christ, we will "be allowed to have the higher elements of the gospel"? But that will be never, because the body of Christ, as a body, will never progress.

***Surely the scriptures don't give us the amount of detail which the actually occured. For you to speculate and say that the Lord's Church isn't using the process of repentance and forgiveness the right way or that we do it differently is a farse and pure speculation.

But that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that, in order to make the story conform to modern-day LDS doctrine of the seven steps of repentance, you have to speculate that all seven of the steps somehow occurred even though not one of them is mentioned in the text.

What you seem to have forgotten is that even if it did happen as it is outlined in that story and there really is nothing else to the story that the Lord has a living Church with living prophets who have outlined the repentance process and forgiveness detail for this dispensation.

Even if it did happen? Isn't this the New Testament we're talking about? On what basis could you conclude that it happened any other way than the way it is related . . . other than speculation, that is?

We have no need to try to make the story conform to LDS doctrine. It fits....the story is not about the steps as you have outlined but as the Lord has outlined.

I thought it was about the steps you just said had been outlined by modern day prophets. You are confusing me here.

This is the speculation which doesn't belong in your class. The story is about the immense power of Christ's love and compassion.

Well, if that is what it is about, then I think everybody should get a free pass on adultery (or name the sin of your choice). If the woman in the story gets the free pass, and somebody else does not, that would make God a respecter of persons, wouldn't it?

It is about the mote and the beam. It is about anything but steps. You miss the point, imo if you focus on the steps. But if you want to focus on the steps sure.....outline them. Let's see what is really missing.

All the steps are missing. Is there nothing to learn here?

***Oh, no. I don't believe this is the tendency of those who are truly seeking to understand. My husband gave a talk once about this and his words stick with me through our lives. He said that it is for us to form our lives around the scriptures and the gospel and when we have begun to try to form the scriptures and the gospel around our lives we can know for sure that we have turned from the Lord and to the world. He is not an eloquent speaker of flowery words, but he speaks by the Spirit and this one stuck with me along with a few others.

I think it is an admirable sentiment expressed by your husband . . . and not one found in the "approved materials."

***You aren't reading what I've said. I never suggested nothing new be taught or learned, but that is for the Spirit to do with the individual through the lesson material given by the Church.

So the teacher can't teach anything new? Only the Spirit gets to do that on an individual basis? But what if the Spirit is inspiring the teacher to teach something new to the class on a group basis? Is that not allowed?

I suggest you speak to your Bishop because you show disdain for teaching what is outlined as if it just isn't good enough because there is so much more. Sure there is so much more to teach.....but GD class isn't the place for it. Perhaps you could look into becoming an Institute teacher? That is the place for further light and knowledge above GD. Personal scripture study is also the place and when we learn new and interesting things, if they wouldn't edify the group as a whole and enlighten them but put them into doubt and stupor they ought to be avoided. This is why we have Institute...people go there because they want to be taught more than what is offered in GD which is a foundation for further light and knowledge.

Though I would, of course, agree that when we learn new and interesting things, they shouldn't be taught if they won't edify and enlighten, but you seem to make no allowance for new and interesting things that will edify and enlighten. No. For that GD members must wait for an Institute class most will never attend.

But though it is clear we won't see eye-to-eye on this issue, I do continue to wish you, all the Best!

--Consiglieri

I suggested he go talk to his Bishop because he thinks the curriculum is lacking......perhaps some guidance from the one who has the mantle of authority in the matter is in order to help the brother gain perspective from the Lord's view?????

And here I thought I had the mantle of authority for teaching the Gospel Doctrine class, and that the bishop gave it to me when I was set apart.

[consiglieri]

And it appears that your insistence that nothing be referenced outside "approved materials" is another form of speculation that I must guard against.

****Prove that it's speculation, please. It is not.

I believe it has already been proved speculative by others in this thread who have cited chapter and verse of the church's "approved materials" to make their case.