Should I Or Shouldn't I . . .

[simply_disappear]

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

***Apparently, you see yourself as the total solution. I see the words of the Lord's annointed as the solution. They tell us to stick to the approved lesson material and approved resources. You keep avoiding that there are direct references to what we ought and ought not bring into our lessons.

We are sentenced to mind-numbing monotony because "the majority of the Saints haven't gotten it yet"?

***I believe so. It is how the gospel works, man. Line upon line, precept upon precept.

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?

***I didn't say we weren't progressing....many of the Saints are. I venture to say a good number are, of course in their own time. The GD class is for nuts and bolts teaching. Institute is for further instruction.

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"?

***It has always been so. Look to the Israelites.....if you want to be like them.....keep thinking that we need weightier matters for the whole of the body of Christ when they can't accept the nuts and bolts of the gospel as it is AND LIVE IT. The Children of Israel (Jews) are still locked into the Mosaic Law as a whole because as a whole, they will not accept further Light and knowledge. At the points when we are ready, the Lord will give us further Light and knowledge and expect us to live a higher law.

But that will be never, because the body of Christ, as a body, will never progress.

***Are you sure about that? We have been commanded to be even as Enoch and Melchizidek.(sp) and their folks........until we are....well, we have to continue to suffer the growing pains as a whole.

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.

***No, we don't have to speculate. Perhaps the Lord didn't require it all because He can see into her heart whereas a Bishop cannot always do this. It was a different world when Christ was there in person, wouldn't you say? No one is asking for the Scriptures to match up to the modern Church in that way. He is Christ and can do as He wanted when He wanted and how. You are getting mired down in technicalities. How do you suppose the one thief made it into favor with the Lord but the other did not? Do we know the other did not? Or should we speculate on that one?

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?

*** I was attempting to use your logic, sir. Trying to understand from your point of view. I happen to believe it happened. I happen to believe it happened and if it wasn't in the original text...so what. Moses' account of Genesis wasn't written until other scripture was written by some scholars' beliefs.....what to do!

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

***No, you said it was about the steps. I happen to think you are trying to put too much into it where there is nothing to be gained. The Lord could see into her heart. He knew she was repentant don't you think? There are so many more lessons to be taken from that story other than steps.

There are so many places in the OT and NT where things are sketchy, at best, but we know from having been given a more full gospel, what the doctrinal teachings are. By your standard, we ought not be doing baptisms for the dead either.....there is only one verse and it isn't very clear as to how to perform them, is it? I mean, there are no steps outlined there. Are we as a Church trying to make the scriptures conform to our modern day thinking on that one too?

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?

***Are you hard headed, man? She did not get a free pass. Christ was teaching more to the people than to her, imho. Teaching them that they ought to love their sister than to hate and deny her a good life for her mistake. He was teaching that the Rabbinic Law (the stoning)was done away with when He came and the Mosaic Law would be fulfilled when He was resurrected. That was His message. His message of compassion. Teaching them that because they had sin that none of them were able to judge her in such a harsh way simply because no one knew their sins.....which seemed to me to be fairly weighty if they slithered away without saying much in the end. You fail to understand that the lesson is also about how Christ was teaching them that He was Lord. He knew the woman's heart AND He knew theirs as well. If those people whose sins were written in the dust understood that He knew their sins because of WHO He was....surely they would follow Him all the days of their life because He showed them His power. It is why He was born unto the Jews to grow up as Isaiah prophesied....as a tender plant......so that they would not be able to just simply KNOW it was Him but that they had to learn His ways, and let the fences they'd built up fall away and pick up the New and everlasting gospel message.....to love one another.

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

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

***Sure it is. It's basic format for how to live the gospel. How many GC have you listened to? LoL....

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?

***Is it true? Can you verify it? Does it pertain to the lesson? I mean the lesson not the lesson material. I guess my pov is that I would not want to instill in my classes a speculation which leaves some who are not ready to speculate without a way to wrap their minds around the notion I brought up.

***For instance: A few weeks ago, I brought up the Rabbinic law in regards to the lesson. It wasn't in the lesson material, but it is in the scriptures and went to show how dense the Jews were that they put to death the Law Giver, thinking He had come to destroy the Law....which Law? The Mosaic Law. He had not. He came to fulfill it, right? But the Jews had built the Rabbinic Law around the Mosaic Law and because Christ was violating their law which was man made......they rejected Him, the Law Giver. Why? Because they could not fathom this tender plant from Galilee as the Messiah mainly because He continually offended them by breaking the man made Law. I'm not the teacher. I'm glad in this instance because we have quite the colorful group of members with a wide array of input.

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.

***And for your information,,,,,the Church programs is merely a support system for what we ought to be doing at home on our own. It is not the end all so far as our spiritual enlightenment goes....it should be complementing what we put into our spiritual education on our own...not become the substitute for it. If most will never attend Institute.....that weighs on their shoulders to make sure they receive edification by the Spirit. Just because most will never atteend doesn't make it right to bring all this speculation into GD class. It simply doesn't.

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

***Well sure. I don't wish you any ill either. It's a conversation which has given me pause for reflection to be sure.

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.

***That's not what I meant, I guess I meant that he holds the keys to help you magnify your calling. does that make sense? Surely you do have the mantle of authority....which is why I find it all the more important that you teach as the Brethren have outlined.

--------------------

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.

***Uh, no. Try again....sometime.

Thanks for the chit chat.

[jkfrost]

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

Good form - I alway like to hear some historical speculation in SS class.

Sometime it seems way too basic all milk that is - not much progress in that kind of environment.

"gospel doctrine" is taught here...

[Calm]

***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 on, what, the third time through with these same manuals?

From my experience, if I were to state the topic of the lesson, the majority of the members would not only be able to tell me what doctrine we were likely going to be focusing on, but the scripture story that would be used to support it. And many would be able to site the 'personal' story that would be related in some brief detail as well. What the manuals themselves can provide, most members are very well versed in it.

If someone is missing some implication of that doctrine, the often less than detailed description of the doctrine isn't going to make much difference. I am pretty sure the leaders would be willing to spend more money and time on preparing more manuals if these ones were doing so poor of a job of preparing a teacher to teach what the Brethren want to be taught during classtime (since a good manual engages the teacher as well as prepares them to engage the student).

If teaching a particular set of pure doctrine was the sole purpose, we wouldn't be requested to relay our own personal thoughts and experiences so much in class. I think there is a different purpose to SS than this teaching of pure doctrine though this is one of many avenues the Church encourages that can accomplish this. I think, instead, the teaching of doctrine is the vehicle for the other important teaching that can only be accomplished in a group setting which I find it best to describe as community or unity of membership though this doesn't cover all the aspects.

I don't think the Church leadership is foolish enough to risk losing a signficant portion of its members' interest and commitment by solely focusing on serving those who are lacking in doctrinal knowledge or its application. It would be too easy to break up classes into something besides Essentials and Doctrine especially since in many wards we have multiple GD classes.

I can't imagine that the leadership isn't aware of the variation in teaching that occurs considering not only the laymembers teaching, but also the high turnover with the limited teacher development service required (and none that I know that they must take prior to when they start teaching).

The one thing that is consistently stated over and over in all the teaching guidelines that I have studies (which are quite a few as I've been first a teacher and then a resource librarian for 30+ years in the church) is that first and foremost, the Spirit is to be your guide and all else should fall or rise on that. Given the wide range of members being called to be teachers...and that would include their level of spiritual insight...the leadership is knowingly opening the door for a vast variation in teachings....which is one reason they can get away with the same manual year after year.

There are way too many educators in the church leadership to excuse the repetition of manuals every four years simply on the fact that some members didn't get it the first, second or third time around. The answer for that choice isn't so simple, imo.

[Calm]

â??This Sunday School work has been to us a labor of love and our interest does not merely exist for today, but extends into the future.

â??â?¦ We beseech you â?¦ that you never forget for an instant the object of the great Sunday School work, [namely]: To teach the children the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; to make Latter-day Saints of them.â? 1

Sunday School is â??the basic teaching arm of the Church,â? said its president, Elder Robert L. Simpson of the Seventy, in 1987. â??[its] only function is to teach the scriptures and to improve testimonies throughout the Church. [it has] no other purpose in being, and we take that charge and responsibility very seriously.â? 8

How one goes about strengthening testimonies is at issue here, I believe. For me, gathering in a community to study the scriptures is what is so essential--the sense of belonging is a definite testimony builder for me. Sunday School: Oil for Our Lamps

The kids I taught in GD class had grown up in the Church, were attending seminary and pretty much had the doctrinal understanding that I was supposed to be teaching word perfect. The few that didn't...well, there was a reason they didn't and using the same techniques that didn't work for them the first time seemed to me to be of little purpose. If I wanted to reach them, I had to be more concerned with what the Spirit and they were trying to tell me than the manual.

What the rest of the class, even those well versed in scripture study, didn't have was experience in the Word, at least not a lot of it. Also, many lacked a sense of intimately belonging to the work of building up the Kingdom of God. The connection with the gospel, with the community wasn't fully in place yet. And strengthening that part of their testimony was what I believe the Spirit instructed me to focus on.

Some more stuff from lds.org:'When class is boring'

Itâ??s hard for me to sit through my Sunday School class. The lessons always seem to be on subjects weâ??ve talked about over and over. What should I do?

New Era

Sunday School can be a good opportunity to learn more about a single gospel subject in depth. In class, you also have the opportunity to ask questions and discuss things you donâ??t quite understand. But the biggest part of enjoying your Sunday School lessons is getting involved. Donâ??t just sit back and wait to be entertained. You need to bring your attention to the lesson, and youâ??ll be pleasantly surprised with how interesting your lessons can be.

First of all, you need to get rid of the notion that, since youâ??ve discussed or learned about a subject a few times, you know everything there is to know. The more you study the gospel, the more you will discover. The scriptures, both in the Old Testament book of Isaiah and in 2 Nephi, talk about learning step by step: â??For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they haveâ? (2 Ne. 28:30; see also Isa. 28:9â??13).

Did you notice the warning at the end of this scripture? It says that if we think we have learned enough, even that knowledge will be lost. The Lord wants us to understand the doctrines of his kingdom. We need to know these gospel principles for our salvation. And if we diligently search and learn, we will be blessed by receiving more wisdom and knowledge.

We will have many different teachers in our lives. Just because we donâ??t find the manner in which one particular teacher gives lessons to be as personally interesting as another doesnâ??t mean that our classmates might not find that teacherâ??s manner of teaching more powerful for them. If our teachers are teaching the truth, there can be great power in the message.

You can learn life-changing truths with the help of the Holy Ghost. If you are prayerful and diligent, you may find an answer to your prayers through the words of your Sunday School teacher. Be sure you are always in attendance. You never know which day it will happen, that the lesson will be taught in such a way to open up your mind. Your teachers have been called and given a blessing that they may prepare the things you need to hear. [How can teachers accomplish this if they are limited to what is in the manual?]You need to be ready to receive those words.

As you participate more by bringing your scriptures, asking questions, and paying attention to what is being taught, you will find the lessons becoming more interesting. And as you gain wisdom, you will receive the Lordâ??s blessing of more knowledge â??line upon line.â?

[simply_disappear]

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"?

***Has anyone considered that we are supposed to be taught the lessons until we come to a unity of faith? We have yet to reach that. Look at us here......we are not yet at a unity of faith. We are far from Zion even here amongst faithful members.

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.

***I'm very sorry your wife is less active. I have problems in my own family with this. However, the less active is the reason they are less active, not a boring teacher. We take with us the attitude of what we can glean from a lesson......the teacher is there as a tool....it may be a dull tool but if that is so, we should sit there and pray for them, not condemn their character flaw. Perhaps put their name in the temple, perhaps include their name and situation in our personal prayers. Perhaps ask if there is anything we can do to help. It sounds like your wife may enjoy GD class now....since you are teaching it and all.

This is a sword that cuts both ways.

***I'm sorry but it doesn't. It cuts one way and that is against the person who unloads their personal responsibility to learn the gospel off onto someone else's weakness instead of them taking up the load and turning to their own personal study habits and attitudes while sitting in Church.

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.

***So, because you have never heard an example it means it never has happened. Gotcha!

[helix]

I said he should go to see his Bishop not for repentance. Whatever gave you such an idea?

I got that idea when a mention of 30 shillings and you saying he should see his bishop about disagreements with the church.

I took that as you saying he should repent. You meant it otherwise. I apologize.

[helix]

One question for simply dissappear.

You do keep mentioning that we should bow to our leaders, bow to the lesson manual, and adhere to a tight list of what we cannot use while teaching. And you've mentioned that if we have concerns, we should talk with our bishop about it.

However, while teaching gospel doctrine, I've frequently had members of the bishopric and stake presidency sit in my lessons. And I frequently used non-curriculum material and used the manual as a topic outline. In many lessons, I departed quite significantly from the structure outlined...instead opting for my own set of scripture verses, quotes from church leaders, and using many non-curriculum items which I felt would best allow me to teach the topic to the class given my teaching style.

If I'm teaching what I feel is right, and I pray sincerely about my lesson, and I read the lesson manuals' guidelines and honestly believe I work within those, and the bishopric and stake presidency never have issues, then am I teaching correctly?

[consiglieri]

My thanks to helix and calmoriah for taking up the torch.

As a response to simplydisappear, however, I think it should be obvious by now that we actually agree on some things while disagreeing on others. I would like to make this explicit.

1. I think that we agree on the fact that speculation should not be a part of Sunday school, or that when it should occur in class from a student, it should tactfully be identified as such and attention should be returned to that which is not speculation.

2. I think we also agree that Sunday school is not a place for teaching one's pet gospel theories (again a form of speculation).

3. I think we also agree that Sunday school class (and the other meetings) are too often regurgitations of the same pablum we have heard hundreds of times over, that this can be extremely boring, and that the resulting boredom can have a negative impact on the desire for faithful members to attend their church meetings.

4. Now we get to the stuff where we probably don't agree. I see simplydisappear's attitude as part of the problem and not part of the solution. I understand simplydisappear to be acknowledging the problems that exist on the one hand, but on the other hand advocating a strict adherence to the same practice that tends to cause these problems. This is especially interesting in light of the fact that she acknowledges "similar problems" with her own family members finding church meetings boring.

5. I see (and I think simplydisappear does, too) a distinct difference between a teacher who spouts speculation, and one who knows their stuff and inserts material into the class to broaden and deepen understanding about the gospel without creating doubt. But I think that simplydisappear's approach would lead to avoiding the former at the expense of strangling the latter. I see this as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

6. A teacher needs to prayerfully approach what he or she will teach in Sunday school, and doubly so when considering the use of outside sources. What generally happens in my class is that the foyer is empty, everyone is in the classroom, and class participation goes up. These are good things, I think; and the fact that there are a handful of members in the class who are irked by this is a small price to pay.

7. I think it also should be said that I don't always hit the bull's-eye in class. Some classes are fantastic; others are just okay; and sometimes I feel like I hit a real clinker.

8. Several weeks ago when I decided to quote from Dracula to make a point, I felt like I had hit a clinker, because I was looking at a lot of blank faces. Afterward, however, a gray-headed high priest came up to me and said he really appreciated those quotes, because it gave him something to think about. He told me several days later that he was still thinking about the quotes, and how they apply to the gospel. I felt like if I were just teaching for this one individual in that particular class, then it was not completely unworthwhile.

9. On the other hand, after the same class, another high priest came up to me and complimented me on the class and suggested I read an article in the BYU-Magazine called "The Root of Christianity." He gave me explicit directions on how to find it, and really wanted me to read it. So I looked it up and read it, and it was an article that could have been written by simplydisappear about what to teach in Sunday school! So I understand that he was tactfully trying to tell me not to go outside the "approved materials."

10. So what should a teacher do? Let's say that the class is divided up 75% "approved materials" and 25% outside sources. The first high priest had only 25% of the class directed at him, while the second high priest got the lion's share of the class. But that is not enough for the second high priest; he wants 100% of the class taught the way he thinks it should be taught.

Which leads me to this question: Why should the first high priest be sacrificed at the expense of the second high priest?

11. This is one of my pet peeves, though "peeves" may be too small a word. Why is it that some members feel so strongly that 100% of the class must be things they have heard a thousand times before, and they are so dogged in their insistence that they know what is best for the entire class that they then go and complain to the bishop and the stake presidency in order to enforce their rigid view of what is appropriately taught in Sunday school? And invariably when they complain, they are not complaining for themselves but for some assumed and unnamed "others" who might have their testimony shaken by what is being taught.

This seems to go one way, as a general principle. In other words, the class members (and there are many) who are bored out of their mind by a teacher going only from the "approved materials" do not regularly go and complain to the bishop about it. They just hang in there week after mind-numbing week; or go into the foyer, or stop going to church altogether.

12. I sense that simplydisappear and Paul Ray are among those who would leave my class and go to the bishop and complain about the way I teach. This is why I said earlier that I have been fighting against this "type" for over 20-years now.

13. It would be an interesting exercise to investigate the mind-set of such people, who insist on hearing only what they have heard a thousand times before, and then when something new is introduced, to go and complain to the bishop about it. Are they threatened? Why do they feel themselves to be the anointed defenders of the orthodox doctrine? Were they tattle-tales in grade school?

14. Regardless of the answers to these questions, I find such behavior offensive; not to me personally so much as to all the other members of the class who want to learn more about the gospel, and who are thwarted in so doing by such individuals, who constitute a distinct, though commonly vocal, minority.

Okay, that's about all I have to say right now. Thanks for letting me get it off my chest.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[emeliza]

I think if we search, ponder and pray with the manual in mind, then the Spirit will guide us towards what we need to say. That being said, sometimes the Spirit doesn't follow the strict guidelines that others seem to think He should follow.

I personally know what the Spirit has instructed me on when I am teaching. I also know that the RS Presidency has never had any problems with how I teach or what I use thus far. I don't go out of the scopes of manual ever. Sometimes though instead of going for quantity, I go for quality. We might only focus on a few paragraphs in the manual and spend the entire class dissecting those paragraphs.

My goal is that the lesson really gets taught to the people in the class. That they are able to take something from it. The only way I see this being accomplished is by allowing the Spirit to guide my lesson. The Spirit loves truth, where ever it might come from.

Just out of curiousity......When I taught the chapter from the Spencer W. Kimball book entitled "The Miracle of Forgiveness", was it wrong for me to use the actual book, "The Miracle of Forgiveness"? I don't believe that it is 'approved' material as being stated so many times before......

I personally think that Consiglieri's style is perfect. Especially when he stated out exactly what he meant.

[daz2]

I know that some members and some leaders feel like teachers and Sacrament meeting speakers should only refer to or quote "approved" Church materials (whatever "approved" means). However, that directive is not stated in any of the manuals. As I noted before, Elder Holland was implicitly invited to state such a rule in the recent WorldWide Training meeting, and he passed on the invitation in a tactful way.

There is no question that the manuals encourage us to use Church "approved" materials (does that include Mormon Doctrine?). But nowhere that I have seen is there a prohibition on using anything else.

To me, this is similar to disputes about whether choir and other musical numbers (including prelude music) in Sacrament can come from anywhere other than the green hymnal or other Church "approved" resources. The Church's music website makes crystal clear there is no such rule, but also makes clear decisions on music are left to local leaders.

Some general authorities prefer that only music from the hymnal be used, and state that preference to stakes that they visit. This personal preference of a general authority, however, is not a Churchwide rule. Similarly, individual stakes and wards may have a policy on Sacrament music, and that is within the prerogative of the local leadership.

Whenever I teach, I almost always add materials that are not in the lesson manual (although I generally follow the outline of the lesson). I may add a joke I recently heard, something from the newspaper, a video clip of something (I once used a short clip form the movie Dave to illustrate the difference between "ministering" and "administering"), an excerpt from a novel, riddles, a personal experience, a poem, an excerpt of a song, or the like. All my leaders (including the stake presidency) know this is my style. No leader has ever suggested to me that I not reach out to use such illustrative materials.

As with Sacrament music, it may be within the prerogative of a local leader to instruct teachers only to used "approved" materials. In my opinion, however, it would be inappropriate to represent such a directive as being a general Church policy.

[jkfrost]

8. Several weeks ago when I decided to quote from Dracula to make a point, I felt like I had hit a clinker, because I was looking at a lot of blank faces. Afterward, however, a gray-headed high priest came up to me and said he really appreciated those quotes, because it gave him something to think about. He told me several days later that he was still thinking about the quotes, and how they apply to the gospel. I felt like if I were just teaching for this one individual in that particular class, then it was not completely unworthwhile.

9. On the other hand, after the same class, another high priest came up to me and complimented me on the class and suggested I read an article in the BYU-Magazine called "The Root of Christianity." He gave me explicit directions on how to find it, and really wanted me to read it. So I looked it up and read it, and it was an article that could have been written by simplydisappear about what to teach in Sunday school! So I understand that he was tactfully trying to tell me not to go outside the "approved materials."

10. So what should a teacher do? Let's say that the class is divided up 75% "approved materials" and 25% outside sources. The first high priest had only 25% of the class directed at him, while the second high priest got the lion's share of the class. But that is not enough for the second high priest; he wants 100% of the class taught the way he thinks it should be taught.

Which leads me to this question: Why should the first high priest be sacrificed at the expense of the second high priest?

11. This is one of my pet peeves, though "peeves" may be too small a word. Why is it that some members feel so strongly that 100% of the class must be things they have heard a thousand times before, and they are so dogged in their insistence that they know what is best for the entire class that they then go and complain to the bishop and the stake presidency in order to enforce their rigid view of what is appropriately taught in Sunday school? And invariably when they complain, they are not complaining for themselves but for some assumed and unnamed "others" who might have their testimony shaken by what is being taught.

This seems to go one way, as a general principle. In other words, the class members (and there are many) who are bored out of their mind by a teacher going only from the "approved materials" do not regularly go and complain to the bishop about it. They just hang in there week after mind-numbing week; or go into the foyer, or stop going to church altogether.

12. I sense that simplydisappear and Paul Ray are among those who would leave my class and go to the bishop and complain about the way I teach. This is why I said earlier that I have been fighting against this "type" for over 20-years now.

13. It would be an interesting exercise to investigate the mind-set of such people, who insist on hearing only what they have heard a thousand times before, and then when something new is introduced, to go and complain to the bishop about it. Are they threatened? Why do they feel themselves to be the anointed defenders of the orthodox doctrine? Were they tattle-tales in grade school?

14. Regardless of the answers to these questions, I find such behavior offensive; not to me personally so much as to all the other members of the class who want to learn more about the gospel, and who are thwarted in so doing by such individuals, who constitute a distinct, though commonly vocal, minority.

Okay, that's about all I have to say right now. Thanks for letting me get it off my chest.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Ever consider teaching from Buddha or Aristotle and Plato along with Dracula?

This could take up the whole lesson but you already know that.

How often have you heard the GAs teach from other sources - Poems etc? - they do it.

They have quoted Billy Graham among others.

Now I have heard an old woman preach in testimony meeting that the cookie monster was bad,

even though I agree with her somewhat I do not think it was the right place or time for it. j/k

SS class could be the place to teach against dare I say it "The Simpsons" or "Desperate Housewives",

A HP once did a talk in RS on Divine Housewives.

I have also heard Louis L Amour quoted -

do not mind it as long as it isn't added to the scripture text.

Paul quoted from Greek authors so I am told and it is included in the scripture.

Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being;

as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Moderation with the Spirit.

[Paul Ray]

12. I sense that simplydisappear and Paul Ray are among those who would leave my class and go to the bishop and complain about the way I teach. This is why I said earlier that I have been fighting against this "type" for over 20-years now.

Just so you know, I am not, so please try again to understand who I am.

I have never complained about how anyone teaches to any of my leaders... even when I was serving as a Sunday School president.

I simply counseled with my leaders when I had a question... which is what I was recommending that you do.

... instead of asking all of us (who are not your leaders) what we think about this issue, or any another issue, when it has something to do with your calling as a Sunday School teacher.

You have leaders you can appeal to for guidance... just like I do, and I enjoy doing it.

13. It would be an interesting exercise to investigate the mind-set of such people, who insist on hearing only what they have heard a thousand times before, and then when something new is introduced, to go and complain to the bishop about it. Are they threatened? Why do they feel themselves to be the anointed defenders of the orthodox doctrine? Were they tattle-tales in grade school?

I never even once "insisted on hearing what I have already heard a thousand times before" Consiglieri.

... and I'd be interested in hearing how you think you could do that.

I was simply saying that our leaders have given us some guidelines to follow for presenting Sunday School lessons, and counseling with our leaders when we have questions is one of them.

How do you suppose you "judicously" decide what to do?

Do you ever talk about anything with your leaders in your Sunday School presidency, and follow the guidelines they give you?

Or, instead, do you always think you can know for yourself regarding what you should do, because the Holy Spirit is guiding all your decisions?

I think a lot of people fail to look to their leaders for counsel, thinking they do or can know for themselves, while simply assuming they are following the counsel of the Holy Spirit even when they find themselves wanting to be inactive in the Church.

Finding fault with our leaders isn't the only sign of apostasy. Thinking we don't really need them is another one.

14. Regardless of the answers to these questions, I find such behavior offensive; not to me personally so much as to all the other members of the class who want to learn more about the gospel, and who are thwarted in so doing by such individuals, who constitute a distinct, though commonly vocal, minority.

Nobody can offend you but yourself, Consiglieri.

... when you choose to be offended by what someone is saying.

I'm only sharing my own opinion as I talk with you, and other people. I'm not telling you how to respond to what I am telling you.

And I am telling you that if I were you, or in your position, as I have been, I would counsel with my leaders to make sure I am following their counsel when figuring out what to teach in a Church meeting.

... and the Holy Spirit isn't my only leader.

Okay, that's about all I have to say right now. Thanks for letting me get it off my chest.

Oooh, neat trick. How did I do that, exactly?

How did I choose to let you get you something off of your chest?

Let me know, and I will do it again.

[Calm]

I understand simplydisappear to be acknowledging the problems that exist on the one hand, but on the other hand advocating a strict adherence to the same practice that tends to cause these problems.

I don't think an adherence like simplydisappear is advocating automatically leads to these problems. The approved materials that are generally mentioned in the manual are extremely wide and varied and can be adapted to a wide variety of topics. One of my goals as resource librarian is to help collect short segments of videos not otherwise indictated to be used as background for lessons in order to add variety to presentation materials. As long as a teacher is using the Spirit, I think effective lessons can be had even with the manual as the only printed source.

I think the problems come in when the dependence on the manual supercedes the dependence on the Spirit.

That being said, I don't think teaching with the Spirit can be limited solely to what is printed, at the very least any recitation of one's own personal experience is going to 'go beyond' the manual. (But I don't think this is what simplydisappear is talking about).

There was an article in the Ensign--I'll try and find it--that I was reading yesterday that focused on what I think is one of the most important goals of SS and that is to help us learn to study and teach so that we can carry this out into our personal and public life. I think a teacher who can demonstrate a love and interest of scripture study is doing one of the major roles of his calling, but since not all of us are studying the scriptures in the same way, this love will end up being demonstrated in various ways, often including references to the fact that there are more resources out there even if specific info from those resources isn't mentioned. I often refer for those who want more detail to go to the Institute manuals for a good basic grounding as well as a bibliography source for further research. Because I've taught mainly youth, I don't go much beyond this except with a few students who like to talk about things after class. At times we'll branch off a bit into other scriptures, but most often personal applications are brought up by myself and by class members AND THIS IS ENCOURAGED in the manual itself. But this is going to automatically include "outside materials" even if it's only recitation of a personal experience.

My personal experience---that which is encouraged to be brought up in the manual in order to relate how what we are learning can be applied to our lives outside of SS---includes extensive study. My study of the scriptures informs other things I study and the reverse is true as well. In reality, I don't think I could relate a substantive personal description without something of this extended study/interaction creeping in.

As long as the manual is pushing for personal study and for us to then bring that personal study into the classroom with us, the leadership is obviously---to me---allowing for outside input because there are no limits on what that study should involved as long as it's with the Spirit, just a minimum (and that is the scriptures).

And considering their comfort using their own personal study (see comments about quoting nonLDS sources above in GC as well as relating personal experiences), as long as we are extremely careful to do so with the Spirit and don't make our 'lives' the central core of a lesson, I don't think we would receive disapproval.

I think this is what needs to be remembered--consig's knowledge is part of his scripture study process as our own knowledge and experience as we relate it to our study is a part of our own process; it may be part of how he relates what he learns to his life. Since teachers are encouraged to bring personal experience to the class in part to provide examples, I see mentioning what one has learned outside of class (being careful to identify it correctly) as a valid part of teaching.

[katherine the great]

I agree that this story probably wasn't in the original text. If the Jews knew they did not have the authority to kill Jesus, then why would they think they had the authority to kill the adulteress? They wouldn't because only Romans could impose the death penalty.

I still think it's a wonderful story though. I'd keep it.

[William the Conqueror]

Consiiglieri,

You first posted on April 19th. Sunday was April 22nd. My question is: How did you approach this subject in your Sunday school class?

[consiglieri]

I agree that this story probably wasn't in the original text. If the Jews knew they did not have the authority to kill Jesus, then why would they think they had the authority to kill the adulteress? They wouldn't because only Romans could impose the death penalty.

I still think it's a wonderful story though. I'd keep it.

Hi, Kate!

Not to mention the anomalous story of Stephen getting stone in Acts 7 by the Jews who couldn't execute Jesus.

But I do recall several instances in which they tried awful hard to stone Jesus.

Hi, calmoriah!

Thanks for the wonderfully articulated post. I feel that my main job as a Sunday school teacher is to attempt to infuse in the students an enthusiasm for reading the scriptures themselves.

Dear WTC,

Take a look at post number 144 above.

Dear Paul Ray,

At least we have stake conference this weekend, so my class won't be in jeopardy for another 11-days . . . and counting.

All the Best!

--Consgilieri

[structurecop]

At least we have stake conference this weekend, so my class won't be in jeopardy for another 11-days . . . and counting.

The horror... the horror...

[katherine the great]

Hi, Kate!

Not to mention the anomalous story of Stephen getting stone in Acts 7 by the Jews who couldn't execute Jesus.

--Consgilieri

Yeah, but those were the crazy Alexandrian Jews.

[simply_disappear]

One question for simply dissappear.

You do keep mentioning that we should bow to our leaders, bow to the lesson manual, and adhere to a tight list of what we cannot use while teaching. And you've mentioned that if we have concerns, we should talk with our bishop about it.

***No, I keep mentioning that we have been counseled by our leaders to do certain things. By suggesting that we heed the counsel I am not stating insinuating bowing down to anything. Your snide remark is unwarranted. I'm not saying there is a tight list but a list of approved materials. What could possibly be wrong about speaking to our Bishops when we have concerns about our callings. Surely you aren't suggesting this is not a good idea.......or are you?

However, while teaching gospel doctrine, I've frequently had members of the bishopric and stake presidency sit in my lessons. And I frequently used non-curriculum material and used the manual as a topic outline. In many lessons, I departed quite significantly from the structure outlined...instead opting for my own set of scripture verses, quotes from church leaders, and using many non-curriculum items which I felt would best allow me to teach the topic to the class given my teaching style.

***This is your prerogative.

If I'm teaching what I feel is right, and I pray sincerely about my lesson, and I read the lesson manuals' guidelines and honestly believe I work within those, and the bishopric and stake presidency never have issues, then am I teaching correctly?

****I believe there is a fine line that could be crossed easily and sometimes without our even realizing it. From my perspective, it is best to remain steadfast in the good counsel of the Brethren where the flock is concerned.

Elder M. Russelll Ballard counseled: "Teachers would be well advised to study carefully the scriptures and their manuals before reaching out for supplemental materials. Far too many teachers seem to stray from the approved curriculum materials without fully reviewing them. If teachers feel a need to use some good supplemental resources beyond the scriptures and manuals in presenting a lesson, they should first consider the use of the Church magazines" (in Conference Report, April 1983, p. 93; or Ensign, May 1983, p. 68)

I am citing this from one of the current YW manuals from my personal library.

[simply_disappear]

My thanks to helix and calmoriah for taking up the torch.

***I'm thankful for their contributions as well.

As a response to simplydisappear

****Just as an aside...anyone who feels they would rather are free to refer to me as "simply".....my handle is rather a lot to type.....your choice....heck....you could even refer to me as disappear.....just not too often or I just might---disappear---lol... NOT ON YOUR LIFE>>>>

1.Agreed

2.Agreed

3. I think we also agree that Sunday school class (and the other meetings) are too often regurgitations of the same pablum we have heard hundreds of times over, that this can be extremely boring, and that the resulting boredom can have a negative impact on the desire for faithful members to attend their church meetings.

***I agree, but with a twist. It is still up to the individual to bring with and take from the lesson what the Spirit will impart based on their attitude and general approach to the class. It is their responsibility just as it is anyone's who enters any Church anywhere, LDS or no.

4. Now we get to the stuff where we probably don't agree. I see simplydisappear's attitude as part of the problem and not part of the solution.

***I understand.

5. I see (and I think simplydisappear does, too) a distinct difference between a teacher who spouts speculation, and one who knows their stuff and inserts material into the class to broaden and deepen understanding about the gospel without creating doubt. But I think that simplydisappear's approach would lead to avoiding the former at the expense of strangling the latter. I see this as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

***I think I have come to understand what you are saying but your original post posited that you were willing to speculate for your class....I felt that would have been a prideful movement. I am not against true, scholarly input. I am all for that and I think I have made that point clear on more than one occasion on the thread.

6. A teacher needs to prayerfully approach what he or she will teach in Sunday school, and doubly so when considering the use of outside sources. What generally happens in my class is that the foyer is empty, everyone is in the classroom, and class participation goes up. These are good things, I think; and the fact that there are a handful of members in the class who are irked by this is a small price to pay.

***I am so glad that your class is full. The foyer has been a noisy place in many wards I've visited. It's not always because of the methods or lack thereof of the GD teacher. More often than not, I've found that in my ward it is because those in the foyer have bad manners and have been taught that what they do in the foyer is acceptable and they do it during Sacrament as well. It is their habit and it is annoying. In my father's ward.....he (being the Bishop) walks around and corrals people back into their respective classes.....he has always done this, even when he wasn't the Bishop. It's just his way. He is gentle and decent about it. Kudos to him...he cares, but I digress....

7. I think it also should be said that I don't always hit the bull's-eye in class. Some classes are fantastic; others are just okay; and sometimes I feel like I hit a real clinker.

***I think this is normal....regardless of the venue or the teacher

8. Several weeks ago when I decided to quote from Dracula to make a point, I felt like I had hit a clinker, because I was looking at a lot of blank faces. Afterward, however, a gray-headed high priest came up to me and said he really appreciated those quotes, because it gave him something to think about. He told me several days later that he was still thinking about the quotes, and how they apply to the gospel. I felt like if I were just teaching for this one individual in that particular class, then it was not completely unworthwhile.

***I find quotes from Dracula to be questionable given the context of the storyline...but that's me(not like I'd have to tell you ). It's interesting what people can draw from though, isn't it? Take for instance, my dh is able to draw some spiritual connotations from the storyline in the movie "The Devil's Advocate" and the ideas stick tightly to him and he holds them close to his heart....he doesn't know his scriptures well, but he can draw upon everyday life or like I said....movies....and find spirituality.

9. On the other hand, after the same class, another high priest came up to me and complimented me on the class and suggested I read an article in the BYU-Magazine called "The Root of Christianity." He gave me explicit directions on how to find it, and really wanted me to read it. So I looked it up and read it, and it was an article that could have been written by simplydisappear about what to teach in Sunday school! So I understand that he was tactfully trying to tell me not to go outside the "approved materials."

***Yeah, I'd never do something like this. I do feel that the teacher has the mantle of authority and on the same note....they carry with that the consequences or blessings for the choices they make regarding what they do with the choices they make wrt that mantle. I hope you aren't thinking I would. I am discussing it here on this board because you brought it up and asked what we thought.

10. So what should a teacher do? Let's say that the class is divided up 75% "approved materials" and 25% outside sources. The first high priest had only 25% of the class directed at him, while the second high priest got the lion's share of the class. But that is not enough for the second high priest; he wants 100% of the class taught the way he thinks it should be taught.

***I think we are given the lesson material and are asked to teach pure gospel to teach to those who are there to be fed. Sure there are some there who are ready for some very meaty bites....I think they are at the point where they can receive those meatier bites on their own in other venues. I don't mean to say we ought not to teach with zest and zeal but that we ought to maintain the standard asked for us to keep by the Brethren.

11. This is one of my pet peeves, though "peeves" may be too small a word. Why is it that some members feel so strongly that 100% of the class must be things they have heard a thousand times before, and they are so dogged in their insistence that they know what is best for the entire class that they then go and complain to the bishop and the stake presidency in order to enforce their rigid view of what is appropriately taught in Sunday school? And invariably when they complain, they are not complaining for themselves but for some assumed and unnamed "others" who might have their testimony shaken by what is being taught.

***The Lord taught we ought to leave the 99 to retrieve the 1. I find your statement above to be lacking in compassion. I was once an "other". I needed the same lesson over and over until I grew and I now attend my GD class and I am able to see beyond the basic lesson because I have studied and sought to understand and partake of the meat. When the lesson is taught, I glean more by what I know in my heart and in my brain based on that scholarship as will others as they grow. It is the Spirit which teaches us.....our teachers are merely the vehicle.....

This seems to go one way, as a general principle. In other words, the class members (and there are many) who are bored out of their mind by a teacher going only from the "approved materials" do not regularly go and complain to the bishop about it. They just hang in there week after mind-numbing week; or go into the foyer, or stop going to church altogether.

***If they participate in the latter two of the three....it is to the detriment of their spirituality if they choose to not take with them the Spirit and search and ponder and pray about the lesson week by week asking to be taught by the Spirit what the Lord would have them to know. Look at us....we are those who seek to know more....I'm not advocating message boards for all members but I didn't begin on a message board...I began in my Scriptures and in reference materials by professors and other resources which I gleaned truth from. See, I know truth is where it is....we can't make it not be there even outside approved Church materials...........even the Prophet has said as much. However, if we could use materials which would uplift and strengthen isn't it better than to use quotes or poems or whatnot from other sources? If the Savior has something to say and CS Lewis has something to say on the same matter and I can only choose one....I favor the Savior over Mr. Lewis.

12. I sense that simplydisappear and Paul Ray are among those who would leave my class and go to the bishop and complain about the way I teach. This is why I said earlier that I have been fighting against this "type" for over 20-years now.

***I have yet to go to a Bishop to complain about any member of the Church. Your sense of people is way off if this is how you view me, personally. You may want to get your *sense-O-meter* repaired!

13. It would be an interesting exercise to investigate the mind-set of such people, who insist on hearing only what they have heard a thousand times before, and then when something new is introduced, to go and complain to the bishop about it. Are they threatened? Why do they feel themselves to be the anointed defenders of the orthodox doctrine? Were they tattle-tales in grade school?

***I wish I'd read this first. I'm appalled by your sentiments and your assumption on my character. I guess I'm getting my just desserts here for my admittedly assinine comments about the good woman on the other thread. Thank you for feeding me my humble pie, dear brother, however, I feel your statement is unwarranted and plain ugly.

[structurecop]

I support Consiglieri...

...shall I silence the opposition, master?

[helix]

No, I keep mentioning that we have been counseled by our leaders to do certain things. By suggesting that we heed the counsel I am not stating insinuating bowing down to anything. Your snide remark is unwarranted. I'm not saying there is a tight list but a list of approved materials. What could possibly be wrong about speaking to our Bishops when we have concerns about our callings. Surely you aren't suggesting this is not a good idea.......or are you?

I feel that the bishop is a busy man, and that we are our own agents, especially for our callings. As I mentioned before, when my bishop goes to the stake president with questions, the most frequent response he gets is "Well, you're the bishop of your ward. This is for you to figure out".

If we can find a solution by asking friends, and the answer our friends would give is just as good as what the bishop would give, then I'm happy. If I'm particularly troubled, and I feel it goes beyond asking friends and requires bishops counsel, I would go in that direction.

However, while teaching gospel doctrine, I've frequently had members of the bishopric and stake presidency sit in my lessons. And I frequently used non-curriculum material and used the manual as a topic outline. In many lessons, I departed quite significantly from the structure outlined...instead opting for my own set of scripture verses, quotes from church leaders, and using many non-curriculum items which I felt would best allow me to teach the topic to the class given my teaching style.

I believe there is a fine line that could be crossed easily and sometimes without our even realizing it. From my perspective, it is best to remain steadfast in the good counsel of the Brethren where the flock is concerned.

That is your belief, and opinion. To be honest (and I'm not trying to be mean), I've noticed much of your belief about teaching in the church is based on a well thought out structure....of deeply held opinions. And so far, I've found myself disagreeing with virtually all of these opinions. It is hard for you to convince me of anything, because all you can do is throw out more opinions. From my perspective, if I feel that a point needs to be made, I will balance out what my goal for the class, and follow likewise. Will I make a mistake, and occasionally say something that will stray too far? Absolutely. If I follow your route, which I also make a mistake and fail to teach the class effectively. Absolutely. In fact, I've found your way, I make more mistakes and am a far less effective teacher, mainly because the class starts falling asleep because the format is rigid and one they've heard countless times before. I personally feel that in such a setting, members are less able to feel the Spirit.

Is it the end of the world that I make mistakes? Heavens no. It's near impossible to teach perfectly. So I opt for the approach I feel works best with my teaching style.

"Teachers would be well advised to study carefully the scriptures and their manuals before reaching out for supplemental materials. Far too many teachers seem to stray from the approved curriculum materials without fully reviewing them. If teachers feel a need to use some good supplemental resources beyond the scriptures and manuals in presenting a lesson, they should first consider the use of the Church magazines" (in Conference Report, April 1983, p. 93; or Ensign, May 1983, p. 68)

I fully agree with that. First, look at the available material. Then, if you want extra supplemental material, use it. I personally make sure to follow the manuals introductory guidelines, and let those take up at least 90% of my lessons. This means for most of my lessons, I'm using scriptures, quotes from church leaders, church curriculum, church history, general conference, questions to help the class discuss, comments from class members, letting class members answer other peoples questions, etc. I never want to replace that. But, I do reach outside that and use supplemental material quite often. As the quote hints, it is ok to use supplemental material. Supplemental material is most definitely is not banned or excluded. And I have found that most (if not all), are very pleased with the supplemental material used.

[consiglieri]

The horror... the horror...

You're an errand boy for a grocery clerk.

[consiglieri]

SD wrote:

***The Lord taught we ought to leave the 99 to retrieve the 1.

We so often think of the "1" as the weak and the failing. What if the "1" is the bored and the drooling? Should we not go after that "1" as well?

Consiglieri wrote:

13. It would be an interesting exercise to investigate the mind-set of such people, who insist on hearing only what they have heard a thousand times before, and then when something new is introduced, to go and complain to the bishop about it. Are they threatened? Why do they feel themselves to be the anointed defenders of the orthodox doctrine? Were they tattle-tales in grade school?

To which SD responded:

***I wish I'd read this first. I'm appalled by your sentiments and your assumption on my character. I guess I'm getting my just desserts here for my admittedly assinine comments about the good woman on the other thread. Thank you for feeding me my humble pie, dear brother, however, I feel your statement is unwarranted and plain ugly.

Read closer my dear SD. I don't know what "admittedly assinine comments about the good woman" you may have made on another thread (though you've got my interest up!), but my comment was directed specifically toward "such people, who . . . go and complain to the bishop about it." If you do not complain to the bishop about such things, this comment is not about you.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I support Consiglieri...

...shall I silence the opposition, master?

Go forth and conquer, thou merciless Tyler for the Secret Society of Cavernous Evil!

(Sound of winged monkey departing castle.)

--Consiglieri