Evolution in Sunday School Yesterday

[consiglieri]

You need to start a blog. This is great stuff.

You are mucho kindo, mi amigo.

I think I meant to say the 1909 First Presidency Statement, instead of 1906.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[David T]

I just read this in Teaching: No Greater Call. Thought it was relevant.

Some Teaching Does Not Nourish the Soul

Many topics are interesting, important, and even relevant to life and yet not nourishing to the soul. It is not our commission to teach such topics. Instead, we are to edify others and teach them principles that pertain to the kingdom of God and the salvation of mankind.

Teaching that stimulates the intellect without speaking to the spirit cannot nourish. Nor can anything that raises doubts about the truth of the restored gospel or the need to commit ourselves to it with all our heart, might, mind, and strength.

I do think the information Consig shared is relevant, interesting, and important. I don't believe, however, that The Gospel Doctrine class he was assigned to teach was the approved or proper venue for it.

[consiglieri]

I do think the information Consig shared is relevant, interesting, and important. I don't believe, however, that The Gospel Doctrine class he was assigned to teach was the approved or proper venue for it.

Thank you for the kind words, nackhadlow.

One wonders what the "approved and proper venue" would be for teaching things "relevant, interesting and important."

It seems sometimes that we spend 99% of the time talking about 3% of the scriptures.

Why is Sunday school not the "approved and proper venue" for discussing the 1909 First Presidency Statement?

Why is Sunday school not the "approved and proper venue" for discussing chapters 4 and 5 of the Book of Abraham?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Bsix]

Specifically, I am curious if this was Gospel Doctrine class, Priesthood, or some other class. Does the Church or Consiglieri's ward have a special "History" class that is outside the regular curriculum. I am also interested in the specific lesson number if this was a regular Church class.

I'd be interested in comparing the approved Church lesson and Consiglieri's version of the lesson.

As well as the lesson may have gone in Consiglieri's own description, I would wonder the appropriateness of departing from the materials provided by the Church and the lesson objective that is provided in the Gospel Doctrine manual.

I don't know exactly which class and lesson number Consiglieri was assigned to teach.

Six

[consiglieri]

I don't know exactly which class and lesson number Consiglieri was assigned to teach.

I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel.

[David T]

In 30 Minutes, there's not much time. The Church would rather you use this small dedicated Sabbath-day time to spiritually edify than intellectually stimulate.

Honestly and seriously, I would suggest that you suggest to your stake having a Weekday Adult Religion Class and volunteer that you teach. These are authorized, and there is no set curriculum. Mike Parker teaches what appears to be an awesome one, and he's put his notes online. He includes many of the issues you love to raise, and gives great introductions to secular biblical scholarship in context with the Old Testament. Plethora of handouts and power point presentations on the site -- and I don't think he's limited to a 30-45 minute class Plenty of time to teach the 'interesting' and the 'spiritually edifying' altogether in one class.

[consiglieri]

In 30 Minutes, there's not much time. The Church would rather you use this small dedicated Sabbath-day time to spiritually edify than intellectually stimulate.

Once again, I appreciate your kind words and the kind manner in which you make your comments.

I am not so certain that the spirit and the intellect are in separate hermetically sealed compartments.

I sort of think that gospel subjects that stimulate the intellect cannot but have a concomitant effect on the spirit.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Black Moclips]

Nice job Consig!

I think the reason why the reaction was so positive is because you stimulated them to think and ponder and wonder "What if?", something sorely lacking in many sunday school classes. People draw closer to God in many different ways. The topic of evolution specifically may not in itself bring one closer to God, but your lesson and the way you presented it, most likely caused many to think about the issue and wonder about the process of creation in genera and imagine for themselves how it could have happened. The unknowns and what if's often give people motivation to seek out and learn new things. Can that bring someone closer to God? Absolutely.

[Bsix]

Consiglieri is one of my favorite members of this message board. I like his style and insights. He does so much better at dealing with disagreements and provocations than I do. His generally positive demeaner is an asset to this board.

My interest in what lesson and class he was teaching is not intended to call him out for criticism.

I have a general concern when teachers depart from the Church's correlated materials to teach freelance lessons that do not sync with the objective of the lesson.

As well as each freelance lesson my be received by some, if it causes hurt, doubt, and shakes the testimony of even a single mmember of the ward, the lesson will have been a failure. The more freelance lessons taught over time increases the opportunity to confuse and challenge the faith of a member of the ward. Teaching lessons' based on the teacher's personal agenda misses the clear objectives the Church has designated for that particular lesson.

The objective of Sunday School is not to feed the intellect...or to grow testimonies in obscure or controversial issues in the Gospel -- even if the freelancing teacher is using official Church materials and resources. The objective of Sunday School is to change lives through the spirit on the assigned lesson topic. The spiritual objective for each lesson is clearly stated at the beginning of each lesson in the teacher's manual.

Now, I am at a disadvantage in relation to Consiglieri's lesson on evolution. I don't know which lesson he was supposed to be teaching. I can't find a Gospel Doctrine lesson on evolution in the manual. Thus, I don't know what the lesson objective was. (Consiglieri has not shared that with us.)

I take the position that while teachers have some latitude to address points that are IN a lesson with more depth. The goal of every Sunday School lesson should be focused on teaching to the spiritual objective stated at the beginning of each lesson.

Regards,

Six

[Bsix]

Just for reference:

This year's Sunday School theme and course of study: "Doctrine and Covenants and Church History"

From the Gospel Doctrine Teacher

[Jeff K.]

Okay, Jeff, it's time for your theory to meet the facts. Explain this for me:

Why is it that this particular class was greeted with overwhelming positive reaction from the class members?

The way they acted, I would have thought they were starving street urchins who just got a bowl of warm soup. "May I have more please?"

One fellow who was until recently in the bishopric of a student ward told me he wanted me to be the teacher for the next ten years.

A sister told me she always goes home after my lessons and reads the scriptures I talk about, so it is my fault that her house is not clean.

Another older class member actually e-mailed me yesterday with his thanks for the class.

It seems obvious my class members do not see their gospel doctrine class as irrelevant; quite the opposite.

I want you to explain to me why that is, Jeff.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It is instersting how consig attempts to make himself some sort of intellectual savior. Of course he is neither.

Oh the poor benighted masses, thank heaven consig came to save them from their gospel ignorance by teaching them the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. Indeed stage craft for the sage on the stage is important, he wants people to "like" him, he wants them to feel the rush of information, the tittilation of something that is borderline. Even people want that sometimes. We see consig telling us that he is giving the people what they want, the philosophies of men apparently are exciting to teach for Consig.

The Lord next proceeds to indicate what he expects his authorized ministers to teach:

[consiglieri]

I think gospel doctrine teachers should know better.

Apparently some don't.

We had to kill the Sunday school class in order to save it.

[Jeff K.]

Perhaps some teachers are incapable of making gospel truths intersting or important? It is so easy to fall back on gossip, rumor and speculation. It requires talent and learning and more than a little knowledge teach the gospel properly with the respect accorded to eternal truths that led us through the atonement and hopefully Eternal Life.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 December 2009 - 09:27 AM, said:

I think gospel doctrine teachers should know better.

Apparently some don't.

We had to kill the Sunday school class in order to save it.

Trite, expected and perhaps you have reached your intellectual capacity to see beyond yourself. Not sure.

But a bad teacher does not mean we have to kill Gospel Doctrine. It only means the Gospel Doctrine teacher has to learn, if he is capable of doing so.

Understanding that is part of seeing beyond yourself consig, your response is most telling in that sense.

[Bsix]

Please don't let this thread devolve into a personal attack on Consig.

Surely we can discuss differences of opinion without making it personal.

I find the entire concept of what is taught in Sunday School, the merits of the Church's correlated approach, the purpose of rather bland lessons (or not), and the wisdom of deviating from the lessons...all to be interesting topics.

Please don't make this personal.

I think I'd love to be in Consig's class...and would have a whale of a time. I just don't know if the style he takes is appropriate or meets the objectives of the class. Now, that is not personal.

We also have to remember that for every teacher of Consig's knowledge and skill...there are are 100 teachers who go off topic and do some real damage.

Regards,

Six

[cinepro]

My interest in what lesson and class he was teaching is not intended to call him out for criticism.

Now, I am at a disadvantage in relation to Consiglieri's lesson on evolution. I don't know which lesson he was supposed to be teaching. I can't find a Gospel Doctrine lesson on evolution in the manual. Thus, I don't know what the lesson objective was. (Consiglieri has not shared that with us.)

I'll bet it was this one, since it deals with Section 138 (and Joseph F. Smith) and seems closest to Consig's description in post #24:

[emeliza]

I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel.

Please let us never catch you in a movie theater as they did the originater of that quote.

I have a general concern when teachers depart from the Church's correlated materials to teach freelance lessons that do not sync with the objective of the lesson.

I wonder about this to, but my Gospel Principles teacher almost never uses the manual. He just picks a topic and lets it lose and the class talks about it. He generally has a lesson planned for the manual, but something else will come to his mind and instead of using the manual, away he goes. It is one of the reasons I got to this class instead of Gospel Doctrine. It is nice to have something that you can really discuss and learn about.

[consiglieri]

Personally, I would have waited for lesson #42 (Continuing Revelation to Latter-day Prophets), where the focus on evolution would have been an ironic counterpoint as an example of something that has become fuzzier over time with the lack of "continuing revelation" and the plethora of contradictory statements from different Church leaders and publications.

Actually, lesson #42 is next week when I talk about the Priesthood Ban.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[toon]

Which is my point. Why spend an hour focusing on something that, as admitted by the OP, the church has "no opinion" on, rather than something that the church does have an opinion on -- pointing our hearts toward Christ.

I'm sure many of us have heard the occasional disparaging comment about evolution in Church settings. I'm not saying that it comes up often, but it does occasionally. Sometimes it's an aside by the teacher, or a participating comment by a member. I suspect on rare occasions it's a directed attack on evolution. While I don't think I've ever heard any of the latter, I've heard plenty of the former. To the extent that this is based on a misunderstanding that the Church has taken an offical position on evolution, and to the extent that this misunderstanding is widespread, I see no problem in dedicating less than one hour once every four years to clarify what the Church's position really is.

[Nomad]

I think it is perhaps instructive that the most enthusiastic supporters of consiglieri's gospel doctrine teaching methodology are former or unbelieving members of the church.

D&C 85:8

"... that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall ..."

[consiglieri]

Please let us never catch you in a movie theater as they did the originater of that quote.

I am cheered by the fact that Emeliza immediately knew where the quote came from.

And I am heartened by Six's exhortation to not make this personal.

I love the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I love teaching all about it to my class.

(Although I really don't teach all about it, as I have omitted a class on the Adam-God Theory, and did not have time this year for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[jkfrost]

Any thoughts?

--Consiglieri

In the beginning God put into the monkey a spirit who later on ( billions of years )

became a man. and He named him Adam for he was red and ruddy.

[emeliza]

I think it is perhaps instructive that the most enthusiastic supporters of consiglieri's gospel doctrine teaching methodology are former or unbelieving members of the church.

I think you are mistaken on this.

Edit: Althought his most vocal supporters might fit this.

[consiglieri]

I think it is perhaps instructive that the most enthusiastic supporters of consiglieri's gospel doctrine teaching methodology are former or unbelieving members of the church.

Has it occurred to you that maybe that is why they are "former or unbelieving members of the Church"?

I think we do a disservice to those members who go inactive when we fail to see one possible reason being that Church meetings are so bloody long and boring.

Just saying . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

In the beginning God put into the monkey a spirit who later on ( billions of years )

became a man. and He named him Adam for he was red and ruddy.

I resemble that remark, Frost!