How would you answer this question?

[charity]

Is it wrong if I don't really do it but am sorely tempted?

Remember, you can't even lust in your heart.

[zerinus]

The days are presented as two lists of three, which correspond to each other as 1:4, 2:5, and 3:6--

Day One--Creates light, night and day //Day Four--Creates moon, sun and stars

Day Two--Divides water and creates sky //Day Five--Creates fish for water and birds for sky

Day Three--Creates land and plants //Day Six--Creates land animals and man

Day Seven--Rests.

This not only points out the structural beauty of the creation account, but also helps explain why stars, moon and sun are created on the fourth day when light is created on the first, which makes little sense otherwise.

Thanks, but I still don't see how that realization enables it to make "better sense". What you have noticed is a pattern of some description, like the chiasmus thing, not that it necessarily enables it to "make better sense".

It also helps explain why there are actually eight creative acts crammed into six days, with two creative acts on day three (land and then plants) balancing two creative acts on day six (animals and then man).

How does it "help explain" that? And why should the creation of land animals and man be considered two creative acts? Biologically they are more or less of the same kind. Man is an intelligent, talking animal.

A couple of other questions: (1) Where did you get that information from? Did you just notice it while reading the the scriptures, or did you read up on it in some other source material? (2) How much time did you spend teaching that particular idea in the class? 5, 10, 20, 30 minutes?

[volgadon]

Thanks, but I still don't see how that realization enables it to make "better sense". What you have noticed is a pattern of some description, like the chiasmus thing, not that it necessarily enables it to "make better sense".

Seeing the pattern helps one make a start at better understanding the text.

How does it "help explain" that? And why should the creation of land animals and man be considered two creative acts? Biologically they are more or less of the same kind. Man is an intelligent, talking animal.

Ancient Israel did not think in modern, scientific terms.

Man was considered to be created in the image and likeness of God, the animals weren't.

[volgadon]

A couple of other questions: (1) Where did you get that information from? Did you just notice it while reading the the scriptures, or did you read up on it in some other source material?

Have you read Jesus the Christ?

[zerinus]

Have you read Jesus the Christ?

First of all, since when did you become a spokesman for Consig? Secondly, what has that question got to do with my question?

[Cold Steel]

"I don't mean to throw a monkey wrench into everything, but don't you think you are overly intellectualizing all of this? I mean, isn't the only important thing that we believe that God created the world?"

Actually, you are throwing a monkey wrench into everything. If God only intended to convey that He created this world, Moses could have done this in one verse instead of most of two chapters and a substantial parts of both the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham.

The Book of Moses also speaks of the multiplicity of worlds and the fact that God created more of them than are grains of sand upon the shore, and that the Atonement covered much more than just this Earth.

.

[volgadon]

First of all, since when did you become a spokesman for Consig?

As soon as I began receiving fat paychecks. (BTW what happened to my Xmas bonus Consig?)

Secondly, what has that question got to do with my question?

If one were to cut out all the information and indeed quotes from other source material, it would be a very slim volume indeed.

[mfbukowski]

I'm with Zerinus on this one.

There's nothing about that in Jesus the Christ that I can find.

Consig, I would also like to know where this chiasmus or whatever it is came from and what it's significance is. I am not seeing it.

[volgadon]

I'm with Zerinus on this one.

There's nothing about that in Jesus the Christ that I can find.

Never said there was.

My point was about use of other source material.

[O-Brother]

Here is the set up for the question that I would like to know how you would answer . . .

Okay, so you are the Gospel Doctrine teacher; you have spent literally hours of prep time during the week preceding class in order to help your class understand the Creation account in terms of the ancient Hebrew cosmic view; you are going through the different days, explaining what is happening in those terms, and showing the structure of how the days relate to each other.

You have talked briefly about how Moses 1 serves as a good introduction to the first line of Genesis, by explaining that "In the beginning" does not mean "in the beginning" of the universe, but simply "in the beginning" of this world alone; you have mentioned how Old Testament scholars have a solid majority stating that whatever Genesis means here, it does NOT mean creation ex nihilo, which is important for LDS because we have scriptures committing us to that position in Section 93.

As you are moving through this material, a 50-something male student raises his hand and is called on, who then asks this question:

"I don't mean to throw a monkey wrench into everything, but don't you think you are overly intellectualizing all of this? I mean, isn't the only important thing that we believe that God created the world?"

How would you answer this question?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Sounds like the 50-something guy likes things simple and easy to digest and the Bible was edited to accomodate that. I often wondered why Genesis simplified Eve's creation as simple as a rib out of Adam. For most people, the rib story works just fine. It's simplistic. So to him, the important thing is that we're here. I would answer him saying that there is more than one way to look at Bible accounts and the simple way doesn't necessarily provide all the answers some of us need and want. What satisfies his intellect doesn't necessarily satisfy everyone else's.

[childoftheatom]

For what it is worth Consig, I wish we had more teachers like you. I've been lurking quite a bit on this forum and it really seems like you put a lot of time into your lessons. thank you for that. What I do not understand is why people get upset when someone puts effort into trying to teach and enlighten others. I understand that we don't want teachers to just spout any fool thing they find on the internet or one of their own private doctrines, but you seem to really desire to educate, not to just impress others.

How do those who argue against education look past quotes like this

"one of the grand fundamental principles of mormonism is to recieve truth, let it come from whence it may." -Joseph Smith jr.

"But i beg leave to say unto you bretheren, that ignorance, superstition and bigotry placing itself where it ought not, is oftentimes in the way of the prosperity of this church." -JS jr

"There is no such thing as testimony in place of knowledge. [a testimony] Is not to be voiced merely to fill up time in a public meeting; far less to excuse or disguise the speaker's poverty of thought or ignorance of the truth he is caused to expound. [no matter how] eloquently phrased or beautifully expressed, [it] is no fit substitute for the needed discourse of instruction and councel expected in a general gathering of the people. The man who professes a testimony, and who assumes that his testimony embraces all the knowledge he needs, and who therefore lives in indolence and ignorance shall surely discover his error to his own cost and lost . . . Of those who speak in his name, the LORD requires humility, not ignorance." -Joseph F. Smith

I've heard many times that a teacher should focus on bringing the spirit to the class, and while i agree with this whole-heartedly, i disagree that the holy ghost is mearly a feeling.

In contrast Joseph Smith taught,

[handys003]

Answering as if I were Consiglieri "Yes, but then I over intellectualize everything, and besides, if that were the point of the lesson we'd be done in 2 minutes - then what would we do for the rest of the time?"

[cdowis]

Sounds like the 50-something guy likes things simple and easy to digest and the Bible was edited to accomodate that. I often wondered why Genesis simplified Eve's creation as simple as a rib out of Adam. For most people, the rib story works just fine. It's simplistic. So to him, the important thing is that we're here. I would answer him saying that there is more than one way to look at Bible accounts and the simple way doesn't necessarily provide all the answers some of us need and want. What satisfies his intellect doesn't necessarily satisfy everyone else's.

From the Introduction of the Gospel Principles Manual (the Priesthood and RS manual for 2010):

Before you teach from a chapter, study it thoroughly to be sure you understand the doctrine. Also study the additional scriptures listed at the end of the chapter. You will teach with greater sincerity and power when the teachings in the chapter have influenced you personally. Never speculate about Church doctrine. Teach only what is supported by the scriptures, the words of latter-day prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit (see D&C 42:12

[Zakuska]

From the Introduction of the Gospel Principles Manual (the Priesthood and RS manual for 2010):

Perhaps this 50 year old man had read this introduction, and was inquiring whether the teacher was following the rules. I personally find it offensive when a teacher is injecting their own agenda into the lesson beyond what is taught in the lesson. I just leave the class and find another one to attend.

I peresonally find ex nihlo, etc, an interesting topic of discussion but not in a SS class.

Yup... we have too many of those types in the church... already.

[mfbukowski]

Never said there was.

My point was about use of other source material.

I'm sorry, I'm still not getting your point. I thought you were saying it was in Jesus the Christ.

[volgadon]

I'm sorry, I'm still not getting your point. I thought you were saying it was in Jesus the Christ.

I cited it as an example of a gospel work which draws heavily from what Zerinus termed outside sources. Just a little something to bear in mind during the course of this thread.

[consiglieri]

A couple of other questions: (1) Where did you get that information from? Did you just notice it while reading the the scriptures, or did you read up on it in some other source material? (2) How much time did you spend teaching that particular idea in the class? 5, 10, 20, 30 minutes?

I got the information while doing class prep reading the footnotes in the Oxford Bible. (I also read the footnote to the class that said Creation ex nihilo is not suggested in Genesis, which has especial significance for Mormons as section 93 commits us to the proposition that Creation was from eternally existing matter.)

It had never occurred to me before, but made so much sense I had to share it with my class.

I listed the numbers 1-3 down the left side of the board and the numbers 4-6 down the middle, and then had class members read the accounts of the different days and filled them in.

I know it's hard to believe I actually had class members read the scriptures in my class, but there you have it.

This Sunday, we will read portions of 2 Nephi 2 to illustrate how an understanding of the ancient Hebrew world view helps inform our understanding of the Book of Mormon . . . which is kind of remarkable when you stop to think about it.

Any more questions?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

In any case, I think the class member should have brought up your inappropriate teaching style with the SS president, or the bishop.

You are such a snitch.

[consiglieri]

As soon as I began receiving fat paychecks. (BTW what happened to my Xmas bonus Consig?)

Your Xmas bonus consists entirely of the additional blessings you receive through being my spokesman, said blessings to be delivered to you courtesy of opening the windows of heaven, a phrase I mentioned to my class we consider poetic but which the ancient Hebrews took quite literally.

Which is just another scripture (Malachi 3 which Mormons tend to quote a lot) that is illuminated by our understanding of the culture from which it came.

I also had the class read the account of the flood in Genesis 7, and they got to understand what the author meant by saying the floods of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Consig, I would also like to know where this chiasmus or whatever it is came from and what it's significance is. I am not seeing it.

See above for the source. I try to bring the best scholarship available to my class.

I also mentioned that I had always had trouble memorizing what happened on the different days of Creation, but with this structure in mind, it comes quite naturally and I now have no trouble remembering what happened when.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

What satisfies his intellect doesn't necessarily satisfy everyone else's.

I agree with you on this.

What I find so concerning in this type of question/comment is the corrolary that what is supposed to satisfy Primary children must satisfy every member of the Church for the rest of their life, and wo betide the teacher who actually tries to teach.

I am beginning to think that teachers in the Mormon Church are like music conductors.

Nobody will sing without a conductor, but nobody looks at them while they are conducting.

They are something that is required and at the same time completely unnecessary.

Teaching, No Greater Calling, indeed.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

A total classic!

All he needs to make it complete is an original copy of the Book of Mormon.

[consiglieri]

For what it is worth Consig, I wish we had more teachers like you.

You are obviously very astute.

It is sobering that, were the dictates of the Correlation Committee slavishly obeyed, teachers like me would not exist.

As it is, I am on the endangered species list.

Sort of like the American Eagle.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Black Moclips]

I love these threads about Consig's lessons. He sounds like an awesome teacher to me, but its just hilarious to watch the pharisees of the board get so bent out of shape with how he teaches. Someone ought to go complain to the bishop? Puh-lease! If I were in Consig's class and heard that question, I would have stood up, looked at the guy, and made a Doug Hefernin fart noise with my hand.

[David T]

See above for the source. I try to bring the best scholarship available to my class.

I also mentioned that I had always had trouble memorizing what happened on the different days of Creation, but with this structure in mind, it comes quite naturally and I now have no trouble remembering what happened when.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It is pretty cool. For me, I now find the tabernacle connection the best way for me to remember the order. Just visualize the tabernacle, and move from the Holy of Holies outwards:

Day 1: Light = Holy of Holies

Day 2: Firmament/Separation of Heaven and Earth = The Veil

Day 3: Plant Life = Table of Shewbread

Day 4: Sun, Moon, Stars = The 7-branched Lampstand

Day 5: Sea creatures and Fowl from the seas = The Laver of water

Day 6a: Land Creatures = Altar of Burnt Offering

Day 6b: Man = The High Priest

And then with the understanding that it presents the message exactly how to get back from where we came:

Day 6: Altar = Sacrifice, Broken heart and contrite spirit

Day 5: Laver = Washing free the stain of sin

Day 4: Lampstand = Companionship of the spirit of the Lord (and being one with it: "ye are the light of the world" - "I am the vine, ye are the branches")

Day 3: Shewbread = Communion / Fellowship Banquet with the Lord/Saints(Holy Ones = Angels)

Day 2: Veil = Shedding the corruptible flesh and replacing with white robe of righteousness

Day 1: Holy of Holies = Unity in the presence of God in Eternity

The scriptural creation account always had a connection to the temple, and shouldn't be removed from that context.