How would you answer this question?

[consiglieri]

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

I would say roughly 10 minutes, what with different class members reading the different events of Creation days while I wrote them on the board.

Is there some relevance to this line of questioning?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

I would say roughly 10 minutes, what with different class members reading the different events of Creation days while I wrote them on the board.

Is there some relevance to this line of questioning?

I am just trying to digest your teaching methods and style! What did you talk about for the remainder of the time?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Maybe you can answer this one question of mine..?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would say roughly 10 minutes, what with different class members reading the different events of Creation days while I wrote them on the board.

Is there some relevance to this line of questioning?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig,

It could have been worse. You could have been teaching Elders Quorum.

Oooh burn.

[e=mc2]

It's simple Consig..... next time just say class, "last week I ended up over intellectualizing the lesson., This week, the lesson is simple. The creation has occurred and we are it, and then LEAVE the room. Call it good and let em gab about nothing. You did your job. You told them nothing new, and told them what they already knew and believed.

[consiglieri]

It's simple Consig.....

Great to see you, Professor!

This is actually quite close to what I almost did; which would be to simply agree and that all that is necessary is for us to believe God did it, then ask for a show of hands as to how many believe that God did it; then when all hands go up, to pack my stuff and head out the side door at the front of the chapel.

Now THAT would have been interesting.

And it would have saved cdowis the trouble of walking out the back door to find the bishop.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And it would have saved cdowis the trouble of walking out the back door to find the bishop.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hahahah, you are silly.

[Zakuska]

It's simple Consig..... next time just say class, "last week I ended up over intellectualizing the lesson., This week, the lesson is simple. The creation has occurred and we are it, and then LEAVE the room. Call it good and let em gab about nothing. You did your job. You told them nothing new, and told them what they already knew and believed.

Hi good professor! You have described some of my worst days in church to a T. Days where I go to church... hear all the same Primary Answers... 'Read the Scriptures', ;ponder' 'Pray' and I get absolutely nothing from any of the scripted lessons taught. It got so bad there for a while in our ward, till they got some very good teachers like Consig who didn't just read the lesson, that I took the Primary Answers to heart, and instead of Going to a class where I knew the teacher was going to slavishly teach the lesson, I sit out in the hall in the foyer and study and ponder the scriptures. If Im not going to get anything new from a lesson its a waste of time to even be there.

[Olavarria]

"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?

"Ya know bro./sis. XYZ, I think you're right.

[Helmuth]

Something about a light and a bushel keeps coming to mind, here.

Burn the bushel.

[Helmuth]

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.

So, Bro. Lloyd, are we ever going to get new manuals? Have inside info? As one who began to tire of lesson repetition in Primary, I find it ridiculous to repeat the same lessons over and over and over. Not the same principles, the same identical lessons! Lessons that weren't interesting the first time.

The current lesson manuals are not good. They're insultingly dumbed-down. Have you ever read the priesthood manuals for the first half of the 20th century? They're actually interesting! They actually read like a course, being taken by adults who may have some interest in the subject matter. It's remarkable. Is the horribleness of the more recent manuals yet another atrocity I must blame on the gov't schools? So maybe if we got new ones they'd be even worse. Alas, my culture and civilization crumbles around me!

[consiglieri]

One of the points he made was that the Brethren regard the scriptures as the Church curriculum.

It is heartening to know that the Brethren support me in my teaching methods, as I have often said, "The scriptures are my manual."

It would be great if you could post your piece when it appears.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

If Im not going to get anything new from a lesson its a waste of time to even be there.

You must not have gotten the memo, Zak.

If you are not getting anything out of the lesson, it is not the teacher's fault, it is not the manual's fault, and it is certainly not the correlation committee's fault.

It is your fault and yours alone.

Get with the program, man.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars

But in ourselves that we are underlings.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Blah]

Consig--

For what it's worth, I would love to be in your SS class. I always feel the Spirit strongest when I learn something that actually helps me understand the Scriptures.

So sad that that makes me an odd duck.

[consiglieri]

The current lesson manuals are not good. They're insultingly dumbed-down.

By way of corroboration, Helmut, last Sunday evening I read to my wife the recent Church News article about using only the Church approved manual in our lessons; the article that starts out with that ridiculous story about the mother preparing a Relief Society lesson buried in books and about to cry when her oh-so-smart daughter comes to the rescue and loftily advises her mother that the Church has done all that work for her in their "inspired" manual.

Before I got halfway through the article, my wife interrupted, asking, "Why does the Church talk to us like we're children?"

I didn't have a good answer for her.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ERayR]

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?

That may be so but it is also true that if one tries to run faster than they are able they are apt to stumble and fall on their face. What is sufficient today is not always sufficient tommorrow.

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? Slowly but perhaps on a much firmer foundation.

As one who is sometimes known to make strange comments in class I still try not be to much of a stumbling block for others.

[ERayR]

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

Aw yes the joys of the pot stirrer in class.

[consiglieri]

Aw yes the joys of the pot stirrer in class.

He should know never to stir the pot of a pot-stirrer.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[wenglund]

"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?

I might ask in return: would it be intellectualizing to ask and explore your question about intellectualizing?

If time permitted, and I thought it important, I might go on to ask: Was Moses intellectualizing when he broke down the creation into seven days, and provided details for what was created during those days? Should he have simply said, "God created the world"?

I might follow that up with: Was Abraham intellectualizing when he differentiated between the spiritual and physical creation?

Were either author intellectualizing when they went into more detail about how the woman was created, and why, and the impetus behind her name?

In short, at what point does instruction go from providing useful information for growth in faith, to needless intellectualizing?

Hopefully, the answer will be that it depends upon the backround and needs and wants of the individual students.

And, since classrooms are composed of individuals of differing backgrounds and needs and wants, most anything that is taught may be deemed buy some as useful information, and by others as intellectualizing, and that's okay.

I trust we are all charitable and flexible enough as students to allow some latitude for what we, given our background and needs and wants, may deem intellectual, and to be quick to look for the positives, and slow to consider the negatives, in what is being taught and how it is being taught. At least that is what has proved useful to me.

Besides, is it likely that we may be making too big of a deal of nothing? Shouldn't we be more trusting of teachers like Consig, particularly given how attentive he is to the promptings of the spirits and how much care and thought and preparation he puts into his lessons. Is anyone really going to be harmed by learning of the "Hebrew cosmic view" and the meaning of the word "beginning"? Isn't it more likely that they will be benefited?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[WalkerW]

And that Malachi verse, BTW, is one of the ways we know that the firmament was what you said it was in ancient Hebrew cosmology.

The town I grew up in consisted mostly of North African and Yemenite Jews, and they took the windows of heaven saying literally, so I grew up with that understanding.

Rain (and dew) were a way of teaching ancient Israel who God was in relationship to them. If we don't get the right rain at the right times, nothing grows.

If nothing grows, you die.

Rain was also tied up with the concept which we in the church would call priesthood keys!

At any rate, I knew I should have read the fine print. Xmas bonus indeed, a bunch of snow. =)

This also strengthens the connection between the Ugaritic storm god imagery and Yahweh.

[Zakuska]

Before I got halfway through the article, my wife interrupted, asking, "Why does the Church talk to us like we're children?"

I didn't have a good answer for her.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Paul did too.. Hebrews 5-6

[consiglieri]

Paul did too.. Hebrews 5-6

I was thinking more 1 Corinthians 13.

[zerinus]

By way of corroboration, Helmut, last Sunday evening I read to my wife the recent Church News article about using only the Church approved manual in our lessons; the article that starts out with that ridiculous story about the mother preparing a Relief Society lesson buried in books and about to cry when her oh-so-smart daughter comes to the rescue and loftily advises her mother that the Church has done all that work for her in their "inspired" manual.

Before I got halfway through the article, my wife interrupted, asking, "Why does the Church talk to us like we're children?"

I didn't have a good answer for her.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

As Scott has pointed out, the curriculum of study for the Gospel Doctrine class is in fact the scriptures, not the manual. The purpose of the manual is to help you teach the scriptures better. Now if the manual doesn

[volgadon]

Zerinus, the OT was given to a people in a culture, place and time far removed from that of most church members. To understand them better we need to understand their background. Sometimes outside sources can be very important.

I think for instance that in order to understand the relationship of the ancient Israelites to God, one needs to know about ancient tribal systems. When we know what love entailed in a covenant setting, we can draw better, deeper spiritual lessons for our own lives. When we understand the importance of a name, we understand what blasphemy is, and hopefully, how to avoid it today.

Much depends on outside sources.

For instance, understanding the full picture of the Dinah story and how truly Christlike Jacob was is difficult without knowing what motivates other desert dwellers.

Understanding requires context.

[zerinus]

Zerinus, the OT was given to a people in a culture, place and time far removed from that of most church members. To understand them better we need to understand their background. Sometimes outside sources can be very important.

I think for instance that in order to understand the relationship of the ancient Israelites to God, one needs to know about ancient tribal systems. When we know what love entailed in a covenant setting, we can draw better, deeper spiritual lessons for our own lives. When we understand the importance of a name, we understand what blasphemy is, and hopefully, how to avoid it today.

Much depends on outside sources.

For instance, understanding the full picture of the Dinah story and how truly Christlike Jacob was is difficult without knowing what motivates other desert dwellers.

Understanding requires context.

Except that the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible. The best source of information on the Bible is the Bible---especially in doctrine.