How would you answer this question?

[Black Moclips]

If I were an outsider looking in, I would agree it is hilarious.

From the inside, it's pretty funny anyway, but mixed with concern at how far we have come from the religion Joseph Smith founded, in which he reveled in the freedom to believe more and more, and in which it felt so good to him to "not be trammeled."

I hope you do not take offense, BlackMo, but after a year, I changed my signature from your quote to one from Joseph Smith that I think reflects my teaching style.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Its okay Consig, it had a good run!

[consiglieri]

I do not get bent with Consig's teaching style. The question was one of sufficiency and the answer is yes it is sufficient. The other is interesting but not necessary.

I am always intrigued by how readily Mormons are able to distinguish things that are "necessary for their salvation" from things that are not.

Who says we have to believe God created all things to be saved? Why isn't that only "interesting but not necessary"?

On the other hand, who says we don't need to now more about it than simply "God did it."

In this way, Mormons are starting to sound like some fundamentalist Christians whose "motto of the closed mind" is:

God said it.

I believe it.

That settles it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Actually, the lesson printed in the manual brings up ex nihilo.

One of the discussion questions is this:

Was the earth created out of nothing? (See Abraham 3:24, Abraham 4:1.)

There follows a quotation from Joseph Smith:

The word create came from the [Hebrew] word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos -- chaotic matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess it is just a funny way of me saying I personalised the lesson. being created in the image of God was half my lesson. It helsp answers the 3 biggest questions in life- who am I, where did I come from and what does the future hold. I also taught that knowing who he was helped Moses resist the devil.

The other half of the lesson was that knowing that things were created for a reason and along an orderly timetable helps us realise that God has a plan and that he is in control of everything. Both points should give us purpose and confidence. We can make the right choices and increase our faith in God because we know who we are and we can learn who he is, by studying specific examples of his interaction with us.

Oh and the joke was a way of illustrating the figurative nature of 'days'.

Then it sounds like you did just what the manual suggests: You selected material that best meets the needs of your class members.

[consiglieri]

Actually, the lesson printed in the manual brings up ex nihilo.

Good observation, Scott!

The fact that cdowis will now reverse position and agree that a discussion of creation ex nihilo is appropriate for Sunday school after all only goes to highlight the fact that it is not the nature of the subject that is important, but whether it appears in the manual.

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with that picture?

*extends arm with thumb up as if shaking hands . . . *

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

Actually, the lesson printed in the manual brings up ex nihilo.

One of the discussion questions is this:

There follows a quotation from Joseph Smith:

WHAT?! It can't be!? The manual actuall brought up outside material?!

WOAH IS ME?!

We are definatley on the road to Apostasy now!

[Zakuska]

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with that picture?

*extends arm with thumb up as if shaking hands . . . *

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Ive been agreeing with you from day one.

The manual says it.

I beleive it.

That settles it.

[Zakuska]

Just like you are free to give you opinion, I am free to give mine. If you don't think you are pharisaical, then don't sweat it. Many of the comments here sound that way TO ME. Here is what to say, how to say it, blah blah blah. I can just imagine comments like yours coming from some old guys with beards, in robes, standing in the back of class, counting their tassels and scrutinizing every word said just to make sure it agrees with the manual and approved teaching style, or else you may need some counseling from the church leadership. Same concept as Zak's eagle.

We have far to many 'Sam the Eagles' in the church?! (And not just BoyScouts)

Look at some of these and tell me if you see a resemblance.

[Brade]

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?

Hmm, I'd either say "You're right, but isn't this more fun?" or "Sure, then let's make Church shorter, 20 minutes would probably do."; can't decide.

[ERayR]

I am always intrigued by how readily Mormons are able to distinguish things that are "necessary for their salvation" from things that are not.

Who says we have to believe God created all things to be saved? Why isn't that only "interesting but not necessary"?

On the other hand, who says we don't need to now more about it than simply "God did it."

In this way, Mormons are starting to sound like some fundamentalist Christians whose "motto of the closed mind" is:

God said it.

I believe it.

That settles it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Don't get me wrong Consig I am personally fine with the way you teach. The question was is it sufficient. From what you post above I take it you don't think it is. In that case what is to happen to the good brother who ask the question will he be rejected because he only believes? I still think that for him to know that God did it is sufficient.

[Zakuska]

Don't get me wrong Consig I am personally fine with the way you teach. The question was is it sufficient. From what you post above I take it you don't think it is. In that case what is to happen to the good brother who ask the question will he be rejected because he only believes? I still think that for him to know that God did it is sufficient.

And yet eternal progression is stumped and growth is thwarted in such a scenario.

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

If all we are teaching is that which is in the Manual and in the past. How are we going to get that which is to come?

[Senator]

We have far to many 'Sam the Eagles' in the church?! (And not just BoyScouts)

Look at some of these and tell me if you see a resemblance.

Come now Zak, lets not take what was a one time light-hearted joke, and turn it into an all out belittlement of all the brethren.

[consiglieri]

I still think that for him to know that God did it is sufficient.

I agree with you on this.

My problem with the brother in question is that by raising the subject in the first place, he aims to enforce his idea of sufficiency on the rest of the class.

Trust me. I know him. He regularly alternates the expression, "throwing a monkey wrench into the works" with, "playing devil's advocate." We've been down this road before. Many times. I am thinking I am going to start actually bringing a monkey wrench with me to class for the next time he raises his hand.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[volgadon]

Bring a toy one and throw it at him. I know a real one is tempting, but you live in the land of litigation.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Any more questions?

Well yeah, but I am feeling really dense I guess.

I see the parallels you are talking about, but I am having trouble seeing the significance of the parallels.

I hate to put it this way, but is there more to it? Do the parallels symbolize something? Is there significance to the first day going with the fourth? Is there a significance to the two columns of numbers? Like one is spiritual and the other is actual, or something?

Do you understand what I am asking?

[consiglieri]

Do you understand what I am asking?

I think I understand, but am not sure I am qualified to give a good answer, although you might look at nackhadlow's site for further information as to how this relates to the temple.

I do think, however, that we will never be in a position to even ask such a question unless we are allowed to see the structure in the first place.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

Come now Zak, lets not take what was a one time light-hearted joke, and turn it into an all out belittlement of all the brethren.

You're right. But he sure does looks like some of the Old cranky buzzards in our High Priests group.

People are just SOO serious all the time.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

"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

Enough with the logic!

[zerinus]

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?

Thank you Consig; but you have left several of my questions still unanswered. When you have answered all of those then maybe I will think of some more to ask.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you Consig; but you have left several of my questions still unanswered. When you have answered all of those then maybe I will think of some more to ask.

I knew you would be here looking for that answer- I was waiting for it too.

Check posts 115 and 116 above. I think that is the best we are going to get, and I have a feeling I know how you will reply.

[LDSToronto]

In this way, Mormons are starting to sound like some fundamentalist Christians whose "motto of the closed mind" is:

God said it.

I believe it.

That settles it.

Let me challenge that a bit, because this isn't how I think whatsoever, and yet, I do tend to question deviations from 'Standard Doctrine'. I'm a lot like you are, consig; I research the heck out of a topic to find interesting things, and perhaps, like you, I form opinions and theories and find tidbits that give me a bit more insight into the 'mysteries of God'. And, like you, I'm careful to categorize those things in my mind - I know what is true doctrine, I know what is historical/interesting/scholarly fact, and I know what I am speculating about.

When presented with any bit of knowledge that comes from a source other than an those deemed official, my first instinct is to ask, 'Why should I believe that?'. Next, I compare what I'm being taught against what I believe to be true and 'official' doctrine, and then start a serious inquiry into what I'm being taught to see if it can reconcile itself against what I believe to be true.

I think you could appreciate this approach, consig, but I'm uncertain you do. The impression thus far is that you expect your students to accept the scholarly and insightful facts that you are presenting and, somehow, incorporate those facts into their belief system as true axioms. Of course, that is only my perspective. Labeling people as close-minded doesn't leave you open to the possibility that what you present is being examined in a deep and thoughtful way; ironic, because before you could present any of those deep and scholarly findings, you'd have had to examine those findings in a deep and thoughtful way as well.

Give people a bit of leeway. It took you longer than 45 minutes, once per week, to grasp this stuff.

H.

[Scott Lloyd]

WHAT?! It can't be!? The manual actuall brought up outside material?!

WOAH IS ME?!

We are definatley on the road to Apostasy now!

Well now, if it is contained in the manual, then, by definition, it cannot be regarded as "outside material," can it?

Incidentally an anti-ex nihilo doctrine is very much a part of the scriptural canon. In addition to the passages from Abraham (see Sunday School manual quotation in my prior post), there is Doctrine and Covenants 131:7.

By the way, I've just spent an hour or so with the general Sunday School president regarding teaching in the Church. My story is coming this weekend. One of the points he made was that the Brethren regard the scriptures as the Church curriculum.

[consiglieri]

Thank you Consig; but you have left several of my questions still unanswered. When you have answered all of those then maybe I will think of some more to ask.

Oooo, a dream come true.

Like I have nothing better to do than answer your questions so you can ask some more.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

When presented with any bit of knowledge that comes from a source other than an those deemed official, my first instinct is to ask, 'Why should I believe that?'.

* * *

Give people a bit of leeway. It took you longer than 45 minutes, once per week, to grasp this stuff.

H.

I do try to give people amply leeway. I avoid teaching things in a dogmatic fashion.

And one way in which we are not so much alike is that my first instinct is to ask how much evidence supports a given proposition, whether it comes from a source deemed official or not.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. Hi, Em!

[zerinus]

Oooo, a dream come true.

Like I have nothing better to do than answer your questions so you can ask some more.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well, you are the one who asked if I had any more questions. How about answering this one at least:

(2) How much time did you spend teaching that particular idea in the class? 5, 10, 20, 30 minutes?