Evolution in Sunday School Yesterday

[Bsix]

Did you know you can search the entire Sunday School curriculum for all classes at the Church website?

Yup...been there...done that...

That's why I am interested in which lesson Consig used as a launching pad for a presentation on evolution.

In fact, I did a search of the entire LDS.org website and got a mere 82 hits for 'evolution.' That is a miniscule number considering how extensive the site is. Not only that, a number of search returns were for uses of 'evolution' that have nothing to do with the biological concept of species development.

Six

[Tsuzuki]

Your words declare who you are. They always have.

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but I'm just not seeing it.

[Jeff K.]

Yup...been there...done that...

That's why I am interested in which lesson Consig used as a launching pad for a presentation on evolution.

In fact, I did a search of the entire LDS.org website and got a mere 82 hits for 'evolution.' That is a miniscule number considering how extensive the site is. Not only that, a number of search returns were for uses of 'evolution' that have nothing to do with the biological concept of species development.

Six

One supposes its not that important?

[cinepro]

Yup...been there...done that...

That's why I am interested in which lesson Consig used as a launching pad for a presentation on evolution.

In fact, I did a search of the entire LDS.org website and got a mere 82 hits for 'evolution.' That is a miniscule number considering how extensive the site is. Not only that, a number of search returns were for uses of 'evolution' that have nothing to do with the biological concept of species development.

Six

How many of those 82 hits were simple acknowledgments that God may have used biological evolution in the creation process?

And what the heck is the meaning of this article?

My Answer to Evolution

And what do these responses mean? What are we teaching our teenagers?

A Natural Selection of Readers

[consiglieri]

That's why I am interested in which lesson Consig used as a launching pad for a presentation on evolution.

You have been so doggedly persistent with this one question, and I apologize for taking so long to get around to answering you; I went from the lesson that discusses section 138, which is the only revelation in the D&C from Joseph F. Smith, and which I spoke about the prior week; then we hit the ground running this past Sunday with the First Presidency Statements also issued under his administration, and we were off to the races!

Believe it, or not!

--Consiglieri

[Tsuzuki]

And what the heck is the meaning of this article?

My Answer to Evolution

"Name withheld"

[consiglieri]

Now I'm guessing that Consiglleri in well aware of Elder Oaks' talk,

Just what I need.

Pointers on how to be a "superior teacher" from the Mormon equivalent of Sam, the American Eagle muppet.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

In fact Consig was the one who stated his popularity was the reason the pedagogy or method of teaching should not be criticized.

I have never said or implied any such thing.

You need to retract this comment, Jeff.

I have never said my method of teaching should not be criticized, nor have I stated my "popularity" counts for anything.

In fact, when I am complimented on my class, I am frequently heard to give the glory to God.

Not that you would know that, though . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

Just what I need.

Pointers on how to be a "superior teacher" from the Mormon equivalent of Sam, the American Eagle muppet.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

In defense of an apostle. It is apparent that your lack of respect towards his talk reflects not an intellectual disagreement, but a somewhat sneering attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you, even an apostle. I would say that an apostle is much more able and likely to call upon the spirit, which is required by teaching I might add, then most of us here.

In essence you have offered no counter argument, you have not shown scripturally where an apostle might have erred. You have, in effect, simply attacked the messenger for no other reason than it, the message, disagrees with you.

And people are upset with me? One wonders at the silence.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 December 2009 - 10:55 AM, said:

In fact Consig was the one who stated his popularity was the reason the pedagogy or method of teaching should not be criticized.

I have never said or implied any such thing.

You need to retract this comment, Jeff.

I have never said my method of teaching should not be criticized, nor have I stated my "popularity" counts for anything.

In fact, when I am complimented on my class, I am frequently heard to give the glory to God.

Not that you would know that, though . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt kid.

I would look at your previous post and then wonder if you really are as humble in declaring the glory to God, especially when you cannot contenance a critique from an apostle or general authority.

And of course, there is still no reply to the scriptures presented and excerpts from talks.

Consig, seriously, is this your idea of an intellectual response?

[Mortal Man]

Yesterday before I taught my Sunday school class on evolution, I told my wife I expected to be fired shortly thereafter, if not before the class was over....

Awesome lesson consig! Please accept my heartfelt congratulations on another outstanding performance.

How Abraham has the Gods commanding things to happen in the creation; and then "waiting until they were obeyed"

Garden Girl should be pleased by that one.

I concluded by affirming that I was not teaching that God created life on earth through the process of evolution, but that there is a big tent in Mormonism on this issue, and members have wide latitude to believe what they want about creation and still be Mormons in good standing.

The church's current position of not having a position was learned through hard experience.

[Tsuzuki]

In essence you have offered no counter argument, you have not shown scripturally where an apostle might have erred.

Does Amasa Lyman count?

[Bsix]

Consiglieri:

Thanks for the clues as to which lesson you were teaching. As best I can get from the breadcrumbs you have provided, the Sunday School lesson that seems to fit the bill is Lesson #39.

"The Hearts of the Children Shall Turn to Their Fathers"

The Church's stated purpose of that lesson is to, "To help class members understand the need to seek out their ancestors and receive priesthood ordinances in their behalf."

The section that covers D&C 138 and President Smith is as follows:

3. President Joseph F. Smith:

[Jeff K.]

Does Amasa Lyman count?

Not really, unless you are advocating excommunication for someone who cannot their doctrinal position with scripture and acceptance by the Quorum and the first presidency. Personally, short of denying the atonement, I can't think of a deviation in Sunday school to be worth such punishment. Though you are welcome to the extreme opinion, I must reject it.

[cinepro]

The Church's stated purpose of that lesson is to, "To help class members understand the need to seek out their ancestors and receive priesthood ordinances in their behalf."

Is there anything better than the theory of evolution for accomplishing that purpose? Unfortunately, Consig didn't ask the two most pertinent questions:

1. Can the pre-Adamites be adopted into the Adamic family?

2. If so, do they need their Temple work done?

[jkfrost]

Is there anything better than the theory of evolution for accomplishing that purpose? Unfortunately, Consig didn't ask the two most pertinent questions:

1. Can the pre-Adamites be adopted into the Adamic family?

2. If so, do they need their Temple work done?

Their Temple work is done so easily a Caveman can do it...

[Zakuska]

Just what I need.

Pointers on how to be a "superior teacher" from the Mormon equivalent of Sam, the American Eagle muppet.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I take my pointers from Beaker.

[Zakuska]

Does Amasa Lyman count?

Peter seems to have erred when he tried to reintroduce segragation back into the church and Paul threw a his hissy fit to the Galatian church. Paul, Barnabus and John also seemed to have got into it as well.

How many Apostles even ones who signed their names to the 11 witnesses to the BOM erred when they turned their backs on Joseph's new teachings?

[Zakuska]

Their Temple work is done so easily a Caveman can do it...

Stop you guys! Im seriously going to cough up a lung!

[Zakuska]

Now, I don't see any possible connection or basis to teach the Church's position on evolution based on this lesson or this segment on D&C 138 and President Smith.

We all understand understand that virtually any Church lesson can be shoe-horned into a different topic. But, I'd say that if this was a planned departure from the intent of the lesson...this is a very big departure from the spirit and intent of the lesson manual.

Of course, we all know that class members can hijack a lesson. When that happens, it should be the responsibility of the teacher to get it back on track.

All this brings me back to my original concern. (Not making this personal to Consiglieri) I have a concern with Sunday School classes and instructors that freelance their own topics and interpretations in their classes.

Regards,

Six

You must not have read the OP. He specifiacly stated several times to the class the church has no position on evolution. Its pretty hard for him to "teach the church's position" on an issue that the church has no position on now isn't it?

[gtaggart]

Just what I need.

Pointers on how to be a "superior teacher" from the Mormon equivalent of Sam, the American Eagle muppet.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Does that pass for argument where you live? Your response was, shall we say, non responsive. I post on-point quotes by two different church leaders, both of whom I assume you have sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, and both of whom appear to say that you're on the wrong track in your Gospel Doctrine class, and the best you can do is call me a Muppet?

Surely you can justify why your Gospel Doctrine manual reads so differently from the one used by the men we sustain Apostles and Prophets. As you justify yourself, pretend you're sitting across from Elder Oaks or President Monson offering up your rationale for taking valuable church time to teach extended lessons on the church's position on evolution or Mountain Meadows or the history of the policy on Blacks and the priesthood. In the hypothetical I'm proposing, see what you can do to convince them that the Sunday School hour would be a good place to discuss the Adam-God doctrine. (No fair trying to justify yourself to MADB participants. That would be too easy--too many cheerleaders here.)

[Zakuska]

Does that pass for argument where you live? Your response was, shall we say, non responsive. I post on-point quotes by two different church leaders, both of whom I assume you have sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, and both of whom appear to say that you're on the wrong track in your Gospel Doctrine class, and the best you can do is call me a Muppet?

Surely you can justify why your Gospel Doctrine manual reads so differently from the one used by the men we sustain Apostles and Prophets. As you justify yourself, pretend you're sitting across from Elder Oaks or President Monson offering up your rationale for taking valuable church time to teach extended lessons on the church's position on evolution or Mountain Meadows or the history of the policy on Blacks and the priesthood. In the hypothetical I'm proposing, see what you can do to convince them that the Sunday School hour would be a good place to discuss the Adam-God doctrine. (No fair trying to justify yourself to MADB participants. That would be too easy--too many cheerleaders here.)

He didn't call you a muppet? He called the GA a muppet.

[Jeff K.]

It requires a certain audacious intellectual dishonesty to dismiss an apostle which has provided scriptural backing for his position, and to dismiss that apostle by insulting the person. Doubtful such a person would have the guts to do so in person, better to be honest in all your dealings with your fellow man.

But it does reflect a certain shallowness in the person who chooses to do a drive by rather than engage on specific issues and valid points raised.

Those who defend such shallowness are also reflective of a very large building with jeering multitudes.

One is force to wonder what passes for intellectual discourse in classes led by such people.

[Jeff K.]

You must not have read the OP. He specifiacly stated several times to the class the church has no position on evolution. Its pretty hard for him to "teach the church's position" on an issue that the church has no position on now isn't it?

If Bsix's point were a barn, you just missed the entire right side of it.

[Bsix]

Called, sustained, and annointed by the Lord.

Regards,

Six