Evolution in Sunday School Yesterday

[Black Moclips]

Its funny how much it bothers Jeff K. that people like Consig's class, and how most people here would like to attend. He can't help himself, lining his posts with insults and veiled disgust.

Jeffk, hurry! The horse you road in on is getting away! If you hurry, you can still catch it!

[Tsuzuki]

I don't suppose there's any way we could get regular podcasts, is there?

[Jeff K.]

Its funny how much it bothers Jeff K. that people like Consig's class, and how most people here would like to attend. He can't help himself, lining his posts with insults and veiled disgust.

Jeffk, hurry! The horse you road in on is getting away! If you hurry, you can still catch it!

So says the person who hates the Mormon church. I seem to find myself in better company than Consig does these days. Not that it matters.

[emeliza]

So says the person who hates the Mormon church. I seem to find myself in better company than Consig does these days. Not that it matters.

Remember who Christ surrounded Himself around. Most others thought they were 'bad' company and they were surrounded by better company as well.

[Tsuzuki]

So says the person who hates the Mormon church. I seem to find myself in better company than Consig does these days. Not that it matters.

Why the hatorade? If consiglieri's bishop doesn't like what he's doing, he'll get released.

[Senator]

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.

Nay!

[Jeff K.]

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

It is not about Consig and I have tried to keep it away from being about Consig. But he seems determined to put himself on the pedestal, so of course with a weak foundation he can't help but feel the tottering.

I don't hold much strength or faith in Consig's skill as a masterful teacher. When exposed to be in error regarding church history, he refused to acknowledge it. One wonders how he handles such a thing before his gospel doctrine class? I could see him brow beating someone with the air of superiority because it remains "about him". I cannot speak to those issues beyond his posts here and how they are presented to us.

I have explained clearly why I worry about the manner in which Consig has chosen to teach. I am not a big fan of teaching the philosophies of man mingled with scripture. I think such a practice tends to put the wrong foot forward where the gospel is concerned. I am sure he is fine with it. But I worry about the impact he has on people less mature in the gospel. While here he is easily dismissed as being someone who simply "tosses inane things to the audience", I do feel concern for others who may not understand that Consig is not well informed but merely wishes to push out his personal hobbies in regard to the gospel, rather than the gospel itself.

I have yet to hear a refutation to either myself or the Ensign article or scriptures presented. I think the points I raised were important.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 December 2009 - 01:05 PM, said:

So says the person who hates the Mormon church. I seem to find myself in better company than Consig does these days. Not that it matters.

Remember who Christ surrounded Himself around. Most others thought they were 'bad' company and they were surrounded by better company as well.

The people Christ surrounded himself did not "hate the church". They were outcast by the pharisees and sadducees who had long since thought themselves superior in knowledge and had themselves decided to exercise the philosopohies of man mingled with scripture. They had long since forgotten the simple truthes they were meant to teach.

The ones who hated Christ were the teachers who felt those simple truths were not nearly as important as the philosophies they espoused.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 December 2009 - 10:05 AM, said:

So says the person who hates the Mormon church. I seem to find myself in better company than Consig does these days. Not that it matters.

Why the hatorade? If consiglieri's bishop doesn't like what he's doing, he'll get released.

Why the hatorade? If consiglieri's bishop doesn't like what he's doing, he'll get released.

What hate? I did not mention the bishop either, neither is a concern of mine. I simply point out that the staunchest supporter of Consig is a person who hates the church and its teachings with great vehemence.

Is pointing such a thing out hate? Or an exercise in the obvious?

[emeliza]

It is not about Consig and I have tried to keep it away from being about Consig. But he seems determined to put himself on the pedestal, so of course with a weak foundation he can't help but feel the tottering.

So your biggest problem is you think Consig has an ego? I personally am not sure I see it as much different than yours. I don't mean to make this personal and I apologize as I enjoy reading your threads, but you often write about how you have been able to help someone due to your callings or what have you. I admit you have them in the social forum and they are just personal stories, but they have just as much ego in them if not more sometimes. I don't dislike you for them or think you are in jeopardy of leading others astray.

If you have such an issue with Consig, maybe you should stay away from his treads. His Bishop will have him released if they feel he isn't teaching like he should be.

[Jeff K.]

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.

I have at times indeed heard a disparaging remark regarding evolution. I of course have never heard an entire lesson explaining why evolution is false. And I have been quick to point out that the church, the gospel, and doctrine take no position on the other persons opinion. After all, it has nothing to do with what we testify of and implement into our lives.

[emeliza]

The people Christ surrounded himself did not "hate the church". They were outcast by the pharisees and sadducees who had long since thought themselves superior in knowledge and had themselves decided to exercise the philosopohies of man mingled with scripture. They had long since forgotten the simple truthes they were meant to teach.

The ones who hated Christ were the teachers who felt those simple truths were not nearly as important as the philosophies they espoused.

The people who Christ was surrounded by were the poor and those with jobs of lower class. They were the people that did dislike the church because those running the church treated them shabbily and as if their opinions, their needs and their minds were not needed. They were treated as if they were not important. Have you ever thought that maybe you are doing the same thing? Treating those that left for some reason as if they were no longer important rather than trying to learn what you (and we) need to change so that we don't lose more people?

[Jeff K.]

Nomad, on 15 December 2009 - 09:54 AM, said:

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

Hmmmm, boredom is a reason to leave the gospel? Does anyone else think this is possibility the silliest notion they have heard? One class is boring and therefore I will toss the plan of salvation away?

The present responses of very staunch anti Mormon supporters reflects their anger and hatred, not their boredom. If one were to look at these staunch supporters, one would see people who are very happy to have the church and its "house of cards" (as one has put it in the past) fall down and destroy itself. Does it make one wonder at their motivation and how they see the lesson? If you view someone as an enemy, wouldn't you want them to do the wrong thing and destroy what they have built?

Should we be worried if the people who hate our beliefs cheer us on?

[Senator]

The ones who hated Christ were the teachers who felt those simple truths were not nearly as important as the philosophies they espoused.

I sure hope you were not making an implied parallel to anyone by this comment. Doing such would be very offensive. (and in bad taste)

Mods,

Please don't close this thread, by throwing the baby out with bathwater.

If need be simply save the baby....and....you know.....throw out the bathwater.

[Jeff K.]

The people who Christ was surrounded by were the poor and those with jobs of lower class. They were the people that did dislike the church because those running the church treated them shabbily and as if their opinions, their needs and their minds were not needed. They were treated as if they were not important. Have you ever thought that maybe you are doing the same thing? Treating those that left for some reason as if they were no longer important rather than trying to learn what you (and we) need to change so that we don't lose more people?

Had they disliked the church, they would have rejected Christ. Indeed the Samaritan woman at the well was denied, she did not reject. The tax collectors were denied a place. They did not reject it.

Christ did not surround himself with Pharisees, Sadducees, or Hellenistic philosophers (who also hated the church doctrine) and sought the destruction of Judaic teachings. Blackmo was never denied a place at church, he actively hates it and rejects its teachings.

So I will have to disagree. We do not accept lucifer in our house because we feel we aren't including him. We reject lucifer because he hates us and seeks our destruction. His servants likewise.

[jkfrost]

I resemble that remark, Frost!

You could have said "get your paws off me ..." ( planet of the Crepes )

[consiglieri]

I seem to find myself in better company than Consig does these days.

I am not certain you could find better company than BlackMo . . . on these or any other days.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 December 2009 - 11:17 AM, said:

The ones who hated Christ were the teachers who felt those simple truths were not nearly as important as the philosophies they espoused.

I sure hope you were not making an implied parallel to anyone by this comment. Doing such would be very offensive. (and in bad taste)

Mods,

Please don't close this thread, by throwing the baby out with bathwater.

If need be simply save the baby....and....you know.....throw out the bathwater.

Do you reject the view that the pharisees and sadducees had rejected the simple truths and therefore could not recognize the ultimate truth in the savior when presented before him? Do you perhaps reject the view that the pharisees and sadducees had accepted many man made philosophies?

If I am wrong in those points, I am more than open to hearing how.

I have yet to hear a response to my earlier post.

[consiglieri]

If you have such an issue with Consig, maybe you should stay away from his treads.

Don't tread on me!

[Senator]

Do you reject the view that the pharisees and sadducees had rejected the simple truths and therefore could not recognize the ultimate truth in the savior when presented before him? Do you perhaps reject the view that the pharisees and sadducees had accepted many man made philosophies?

Pfff

Are you attempting to equate the pharisees and sadducees, the teachers and "haters of christ" with a current church teacher and others whom you are in contention with?

[Jeff K.]

I don't know Consig beyond what he posts here. Surely I can disagree with him when he teaches the philosophies of man mingled with scripture? One would think that is an acceptable thing to critique?

Allow to once again qoute the Ensign.

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

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 December 2009 - 11:40 AM, said:

Do you reject the view that the pharisees and sadducees had rejected the simple truths and therefore could not recognize the ultimate truth in the savior when presented before him? Do you perhaps reject the view that the pharisees and sadducees had accepted many man made philosophies?

Pfff

Are you attempting to equate the pharisees and sadducees, the teachers and "haters of christ" with a current church teacher and others whom you are in contention with?

Are you?

Or are you simply trying to make it about me and not the issue of what is taught? Please see earlier post.

[toon]

Hmmmm, boredom is a reason to leave the gospel? Does anyone else think this is possibility the silliest notion they have heard? One class is boring and therefore I will toss the plan of salvation away?

Boredom is not a reason to leave the gospel, but it's a reason why people don't attend.

Teaching is not an easy task, and to many it doesn't come naturally. Sure, there's teacher prep and training. But I think the attitude that a lesson only needs to be good enough unfortunately prevails. Too many members think that fulfilling their calling simply means getting it done. We may understand that more is required, but when our callings have to compete with all our other responsibilities and interests, getting it done is often "good enough." So the home teacher feels that he has fulfilled his calling when, at the end of the month, he can report 100%. And the Sunday School teacher thinks he or she has done the calling if, on Sunday, a lesson is taught.

Consig should be commended for doing what, in my experience, the vast majority of teachers in the Church fail to do -- put in serious thought and time preparing the lesson. I'll take him anyday over the teacher who's dry, pat and stale lesson follows the manual to a "t." Indeed, when comparing alleged "sins," I think Consig's alleged ego and propensity to ignore the manual pale in comparison to the all-too-common failure to adequately prepare.

I also think members have an obligation to prepare for class, and if they're comfortable with it, to participate in the lesson. Along with the teachers, we are responsible for ensuring that the lesson is engaging and fruitful. But often it is simply not possible. Just last weekin EQ, an EQ counselor apologized that the scheduled teacher could not be there and then proceded to pass out copies of a GC talk. We then took turns reading from the talk. No discussion, no questions, no comments. Just reading. I could certainly see how the marginal member would consider that hour completely wasted and decide not to return the next week. I don't consider myself that marginal yet, and i thought it was a complete waste.

[Bsix]

Too bad...this could have been a very, very interesting conversation.

I have been the Gospel Doctrine teacher for five different wards and am currently overseeing Sunday School for the Stake I live in.

There are a LOT of very relevant points on this topic that we could be talking about. But alas, this thread has taken a disappointing turn.

Six

[Nomad]

... learn what you (and we) need to change so that we don't lose more people?

Some things you just can't change.

"... God shall cause a great division among the people ..."