Evolution in Sunday School Yesterday

[gtaggart]

Jeff,

If we are suposed to be teaching the basics we shouldn't even have a manual at all.

1) Since the Manual is extra-scriptural by definition

2) Heck we could elliminate the NT all together since Christ never endoresed it as scripture.

Riddle me this Jeff...

Why is it OK for Apostles to Quote CS Lewis in General Conference? Heck... Paul himself quoted Pagan poets and that made it into the scriptures? Why can they realy on extra scriptural material and its taboo for the rank and file to stray from the instruction manual?

Like I said... its attitudes such as yours that make me dread teaching in church. There is a wealth of greate material out there there I could use in my leasons to make them more intresting, but Since the ward I come from is 80% retierees and most of them are in the habit of not reading the leason before hand, I, 95% of the time read the lesson word for word, or have some one in the class read a paragraph or two. Rarely rellying on anything else for fear that some one such as yourself will run to the Bishop and complain that Im not sticking to the manual strictly enough.

Re the bolded part: But it's not taboo--even according to the manual itself. You've created a straw man. Bringing things TO an existing lesson, one that is already in the manual, is different from creating an entire new lesson, one not contemplated by the manual let alone in the manual.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff,

If we are suposed to be teaching the basics we shouldn't even have a manual at all.

1) Since the Manual is extra-scriptural by definition

2) Heck we could elliminate the NT all together since Christ never endoresed it as scripture.

But a prophet or someone in authority did.

Riddle me this Jeff...

Why is it OK for Apostles to Quote CS Lewis in General Conference? Heck... Paul himself quoted Pagan poets and that made it into the scriptures? Why can they realy on extra scriptural material and its taboo for the rank and file to stray from the instruction manual?

Kind of illogical aren't you? Is there a manual for Conference Talks that the brethern put together? If there were, I bet they would adhere to it. Or perhaps you presume that they do not have the authority to make policy?

So really your hyperbole and rhetoric don't even make sense in this case.

Like I said... its attitudes such as yours that make me dread teaching in church. There is a wealth of greate material out there there I could use in my leasons to make them more intresting, but Since the ward I come from is 80% retierees and most of them are in the habit of not reading the leason before hand, I, 95% of the time read the lesson word for word, or have some one in the class read a paragraph or two. Rarely rellying on anything else for fear that some one such as yourself will run to the Bishop and complain that Im not sticking to the manual strictly enough.

Sometimes sous chefs are overcome by the heat and must leave the kitchen.

I am sure there are lots of great things out there, comic books are great. So are the original Star Trek series. Tons of great things, we could bring them all into Gospel Doctrine class and make lessons out of them....

But then when you are called to teach gsopel doctrine, it entails a certain responsibility by those whose authority it is to make the call, as to what should and should not be taught. Gospel doctrine is facinating, its wonderful, it is sublime, spiritual, incredibly, simple while also complicated in its implementation, it contains allegories we cannot even begin to touch upon because it deals with the infinite, in both love, and impact.

The gospel, when being taught, deserves the hands and voice of those who are humble and obedient. The goals of the manual are fairly straightforward, and the manual itself is not a straight jacket. If one is lazy, one can simply quote the manual. If one is lazy, one can go to sources which have no real bearing on the goals of the lesson. Two extremes which do little to fortify testimonies or show the way.

It is a shame you presume to use hyperbole with the idea that somehow you have to read the manual word for word. That is they silliest thing I have ever heard, and no one here does it, and no one here is silly enough to be "afraid" not to. Well, almost no one. You will have to find your own way with that.

Let me tell you about my ward. We have several former stake presidents, more than a few bishops, three or four retired Phd's who taught everything from comparative religion to Arabic (one still reads the Book of Mormon in Arabic), and the oldest member of our stake, a 98 year old man who speaks five languages and reads the Book of Mormon in each of them every year, I won't go into the descendents of Hyrum Smith, and other pioneers who reflect on journals that they possess (along with moneyed script signed by Brigham Young). We also have some new members who are still learning about the gospel. Now that is intimidation (especially the new members). It is also the High Priests group I sometimes teach, as well as Gospel Doctrine which I am sometimes called upon to teach. I work hard to teach the things the manual proscribes to people I can only presume are much wiser, much more knowing, and have had a ton of experiences spiritual and otherwise. They bring rich flavor to the lessons. I work hard to prepare for them because I appreciate their richness and diversity.

Try not to be afraid, and try to understand the concepts of the manual, mroe importantly try to understand what is important and what isn't. Then maybe you won't quail everytime someone new comes into class. Its not about you, it is about the people you teach and the stewardship you accepted with the calling.

And that is my rant for the night.

[cinepro]

But that's just me, the Mormon equivalent of Sam the American Eagle Muppet.

If you ever end up in my ward,

I get to be Rowlf.

[Zakuska]

But a prophet or someone in authority did.

Thats the beauty of the preisthood Jeff. I have just as much authority from God as president Monson does. We both hold the Melq. Priesthood. We are BOTH prophets, indwelt by the holy Spirit of God. Isn't that exactly what Moses wished for and that Joel fortold would happen on Pentecost? The difference being... President Monson holds certian Keys that, I do not. Like wise President Monson holds not keys of Authority over... say... My wife or Family in certian respects.

Lets suppose for a moment that (God forbid) an earthquake happend at GC and all the twelve and first Council were taken to be with the Lord. God could call any man in the Church to succeed the Prophet or to a position of the 12.

Its not a matter of the Gospel Doctrine manual being "straight-jacket". It's a matter of buerocratic tattle tell members that go complaining to the Bishops or Stake Presidents every time Brother so and so shares an experience in class that they might perceive as not quite orthodox/mormon enough to be shared. Or to do with the lesson of study for the day.

Its no matter... on the weeks I don't teach I tend to sit at the back of classes and emerse my self in the scriptures because usually the droplets of milk being presented in the classes taught Ive heard 1000 times before. Theres a reason why High council men sleep during meetings ya know.

PS. Scriptures where made for man and not man for the scriptures. There are so many scriptures such as the Apocrypha that I wish we could talk about in church but the manual and ceritan sheepish members won't allow it.

[WalkerW]

I find this onslaught against Consig rather disgusting. Perhaps he shouldn't have devoted an entire lesson to the subject, but the ridiculous diatribes I've read against the man are repulsive.

Glad to see what strict, obviously Spirit-less manual abiding does for our members.

[Jeff K.]

Thats the beauty of the preisthood Jeff. I have just as much authority from God as president Monson does.

No, you don't. You may need to familiarize yourself with that concept.

President Monson holds certian Keys that, I do not. Like wise President Monson holds not keys of Authority over... say... My wife or Family in certian respects

Which makes your first statement wrong.

You do not have the authority for instance to make your own Sunday School manual, nor do you have the authority to make your own doctrine. You do, in the context of being a Sunday School teacher, have the authority to work within a narrow field in order to present doctrine.

Its not a matter of the Gospel Doctrine manual being "straight-jacket". It's a matter of buerocratic tattle tell members that go complaining to the Bishops or Stake Presidents every time Brother so and so shares an experience in class that they might perceive as not quite orthodox/mormon enough to be shared. Or to do with the lesson of study for the day.

Just another "the gospel puts me in a straight jacket" tale. I don't know of anyone who has brought up such an experience here either. I have never heard of someone bringing up such an issue unless it was inappropriate.

So far I see a great deal of imaginative stuff being thrown out but nothing serious.

and continuing it is only you that has brought up these red herrings, and they have nothing to do with following the prophet, listening to the apostles or following the scriptures, which I have used, which were made for man, but men (some at least) seem loathe to use them, but so far some have not even mentioned. No counter point to what those "in authority" have said.

PS. Scriptures where made for man and not man for the scriptures. There are so many scriptures such as the Apocrypha that I wish we could talk about in church but the manual and ceritan sheepish members won't allow it.

You mean like those who have the authority you don't have?

I have the references to the Apocrypha, and venues like this are fine for discussing it. But as someone else once said. If you feel its important, get a room somewhere, let your friends know and then preach your version all you want. I am sure it will be fun for all. But that isn't what you do in Gospel Doctrine and it has nothing to do with bishops or sheepish members.

[consiglieri]

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.

There is a connection which, though technically possible, is nonetheless implausible.

That is the beauty of it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I take my pointers from Beaker.

Let's hear it for the muppet second-string!

[consiglieri]

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

Umm, I think he's talking about you, Zak.

[consiglieri]

"Third, a superior teacher of the gospel will teach from the prescribed course material."

Thanks for the picture, Six!

(I am starting to realize why all the conference talks are given from behind a lectern.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Feel free to respond and I will gladly retract my post and apologize.

I'll believe that when you retract your previous post and apologize for claiming I stated my teaching should not be criticized because I am so popular.

*chirp, chirp*

[Nemesis]

Actually you are going to have to wait at least a week before you will see that apology. I've had enough.

Nemesis

[consiglieri]

Actually you are going to have to wait at least a week before you will see that apology. I've had enough.

Nemesis

Umm, does that mean that I am banned or somebody else?

I guess we'll see when I hit "Add Reply."

Here goes . . .

[Senator]

Umm, does that mean that I am banned or somebody else?

I guess we'll see when I hit "Add Reply."

Here goes . . .

Ha,

I wonder if that's what it will be like on the day of judgment!

Shaazaam!

[Nemesis]

Umm, does that mean that I am banned or somebody else?

I guess we'll see when I hit "Add Reply."

Here goes . . .

Got a guilty conscience or something? I mean we are capricious but "COME ON"!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nemesis

[consiglieri]

Got a guilty conscience or something? I mean we are capricious but "COME ON"!!!!!!!!!!!!

I always have a guilty conscience.

I'm a lawyer, remember?

Keep this up and the critics will lose their ability to say that TBM's are protected on this board.

Merry Christmas!

--Consiglieri

[USU78]

I always have a guilty conscience.

I'm a lawyer, remember?

I resemble that remark.

BTW, Consig? Why are you getting a bunch of folks knickers in a twist over something so innocuous and uncontrovertial as "The Church Takes No Position"?

Reminds me of a limerick:

I know that I am not a star

There are others more handsome by far

But my face, I don't mind it

For I am behind it

It's you folks out front that I jar

[Jeff K.]

I'll believe that when you retract your previous post and apologize for claiming I stated my teaching should not be criticized because I am so popular.

*chirp, chirp*

I apologize, now if you can show me how the general authority and their use of the scriptures is wrong and you are somehow right with something other than a drive by, it would be appreciated.

[consiglieri]

I apologize, now if you can show me how the general authority and their use of the scriptures is wrong and you are somehow right with something other than a drive by, it would be appreciated.

What the . . . ?

I think Nemesis needs to fix his ban button.

(Apology accepted, by the way.)

[Jeff K.]

Even if he doesn't fix it, I will stay out for a week, not my website and you should respect the moderation.

[Zakuska]

I find this onslaught against Consig rather disgusting. Perhaps he shouldn't have devoted an entire lesson to the subject, but the ridiculous diatribes I've read against the man are repulsive.

Glad to see what strict, obviously Spirit-less manual abiding does for our members.

There IS a reason they quit having the Missionairaries memorize the discussions.

Oh the WISDOM!

[Bsix]

I find this onslaught against Consig rather disgusting. Perhaps he shouldn't have devoted an entire lesson to the subject, but the ridiculous diatribes I've read against the man are repulsive.

Other than one board member who got steamed...what other "ridiculous diatribes" are you referring to?

Glad to see what strict, obviously Spirit-less manual abiding does for our members.

I think that you unfairly paint a number of people with a wide brush that misrepresent their views. I also think that you over-simplify and mis-represent the position of a number of folks on this thread.

There IS a reason they quit having the Missionairaries memorize the discussions.

Oh the WISDOM!

Ah...the joy of exaggerations and straw men.

I don't think anyone is advocating the memorization of lessons or rote word-of-word presentations of the Sunday School lessons in the same manner as the missionary lessons were once presented.

I think that your point regarding the new missionary lessons supports the exact OPPOSITE point you are making.

I would remind you that the new missionary lessons ended the rote presentation of plain and simple Gospel topics. Niether the old missionary lessons and the new missionary lessons allow for allow for the presentation of off-topic subjects in the missionary lessons. BOTH missionary lessons focus on teaching the plain and simple basics of the Gospel. (Much the same as the current Sunday School manual sticks to the basics of the Gospel.)

The new missionary lessons changed style and approach...not what is being taught. That fact completely undermines any suggestion that teachers are free to freelance on any topic they want.

As has been said several times on this thread. Teaching the Gospel as outlined in the lesson manuals can be done with spirit, innovation, and passion. A good teacher can teach from the lesson manual in a way that engages, inspires, and changes the lives of the members of their class.

Good teachers bring standard lessons to life every week in thousands of Sunday School classes throughout the Church every Sunday -- all witout steering the lesson into pet subjects or personal agendas.

Regards,

Six

[consiglieri]

Good teachers bring standard lessons to life every week in thousands of Sunday School classes throughout the Church every Sunday -- all witout steering the lesson into pet subjects or personal agendas.

I must have somehow missed those thousands of good teachers in my 30-years as a Mormon.

My class included.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

I must have somehow missed those thousands of good teachers in my 30-years as a Mormon.

My class included.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Amen!

I HAVE had a couple really Good teachers. Though. The two we have had for the past couple years have been the best. And guess what Consig. They have both kind of shot from the hip as you did.

One is a High School teacher by profession who always has 3 questions posted on the Board that he lines out. These questions usually come from items brought up in the lesson but not ALWAYS. And during the lesson... we try and answer those three question and in the end he summarizes what we talked about using them. The other one who was just released, was a kind of unorthodox mormon fellow who has some intresting theories on Patricles in the universe and what they did.

It is refreshing once in a while to plumb the depths of how God glued all the raw materials together and be "intellequally" stimilated in the dorment Gray matter up there, rather than have to endure the barrage of Primary Class answers to questions that usually prevail in the breast feedings at Church on Sunday (IE Read the Scriptures, Pray, Go to Church, Love your family and friends)

[Bsix]

I must have somehow missed those thousands of good teachers in my 30-years as a Mormon.

Don't worry...there is hope for you.

Isaiah 35:5, Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.

Six