To What Extent Is It Appropriate To Go Off Message In Gospel Doctrine Class

[Stone holm]

Just make sure it is doctrine that you are teaching and not Stone Holm.

Oh Stone Holm is un teachable just ask his wife.

[Paddy]

I have often had teaching callings in one role or another and I used to try and jazz my lessons up a bit with some obscure but profound quote or some interesting point that I had thought up. I guess for me Church was becoming stale (not another lesson on missionary work...or faith...or repentence...or....etc.). However, I am now of the opinion, that we will never know all there is to know about any one of these topics. We might think we do, but all that does is make us unteachable. The Lord doesn't need us to jazz up the scriptures with the doctrines of men.

In my not so humble view the best way to teach is to have a plan to stick to the manual. As you prepare for the lesson each week venture outside of the manual in personal study to prepare your mind. When the time for teaching comes go into it with the manual in mind, but be ready to respond to the Spirit. When I teach I am not teaching to those who are there because it is what LDS folks do, I am there to teach to those who are trying to become LDS, which I fear is not a high percentage most Sundays.

I avoid teaching pet topics like my views on the controversial issues of the day and if there is anything I disagree with the men we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators I NEVER, EVER teach it (like my absolute disdain for Boy Scouts and how I believe it is founded by the devil....I am only slightly joking). The "truth" behind Church history can be taught in an appropriate setting. Gospel Doctrine class is not one of those times.

FWIW. The two main things I use the manual for it the lesson purpose and the scriptural references. I find the there is more than enough content in the scriptures to formulate some pretty deep and meaningful discussion. You can't really go wrong with the word of god as the main manual!!

I must confess that I do steer away from the object lessons and the sometimes stock and often contrived questions the manual suggests. But it often suggests good quotes and a structure that is helpful.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your link doesn't allow me to listen and read the lyrics simultaneously.

Darnit!

It might be a problem with your browser. I can do it just fine with mine.

 

If you have an iPhone, iPad or an iPod touch, you might like to download the LDS Music app. It includes the words to all the hymns in the LDS hymnbook and the musical notation for almost all of them. Plus, you can click on a player that plays the hymn -- with music only or words and music. And you can read the sheet music while you are listening.

 

The app is a free download from the App Store.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

FWIW. The two main things I use the manual for it the lesson purpose and the scriptural references. I find the there is more than enough content in the scriptures to formulate some pretty deep and meaningful discussion. You can't really go wrong with the word of god as the main manual!!

I must confess that I do steer away from the object lessons and the sometimes stock and often contrived questions the manual suggests. But it often suggests good quotes and a structure that is helpful.

Most of the better teachers that I have encountered use this approach, most of the less inspiring teachers will actually ask the questions in the manuals which tend to lead nowhere except cliches. However, there is a segment of the Church which takes exception to the idea of triggering deep and meaningful discussions of this type as being off message. In addition, I understand that some people take offense to the use of the word "indoctrination". However, when teaching ceases to be educational, and becomes the memorization of stock responses to shallow questions that do not require engaging the brain, in my estimation it becomes merely indoctrination.

[CV75]

If a class appears to go off message during the scheduled indoctrination for the week, is it appropriate to join in? If something said in class causes a person to make a comment, or ask a question which is not in the prescribed lesson for the week, should we be concerned. At what level of doctrinal literacy should we presume everyone in the Gospel Doctrine is at when deciding whether to comment? Should we assume that everyone in the class is an investigator with virtually zero inkling of doctrine and history, should we presume literacy level at say the 3rd Grade, or is that too high?

Assuming you are asking this from the persepctive of a class member:

 

1. If a class membeer thinks something is off message, he would have no reason to join in.

 

2. I think any question asked in good faith is fine -- the teacher has to facilitate how that goes and good-faith class members sustain her.

 

3 & 4. The "Teaching: No Greater Call" manual offers some guidance on meeting class members' needs from many standpinints.

[Gray]

The needs of the class should trump the manual  

[rameumptom]

Teach the doctrine, which is sometimes found in the manual, and always found in the scriptures.

[JLHPROF]

The needs of the class should trump the manual  

 

Agreed. 

 

Let's be truly honest with ourselves for a moment.  Most people on this board are pretty knowledgable where gospel doctrine and history are concerned and most of that has come from personal study, not from Church lessons.  That's why discussions here can be a lot of fun.

 

If you were completely honest, when was the last time you heard something brand new, or actually learned new information in a Gospel Doctrine class that used the manual/scriptures as the only resource.

I'm not talking about those wonderful and rare spiritual epiphanies, but any actual new information?  I mean generally every lesson is a rehash and only the teachers anecdotes change.

(I did have a fun moment a while back when the GD teacher mentioned that Gabriel was Noah and one little old sister's eyes bugged out of her head - she had never heard that before).

[CV75]

The needs of the class should trump the manual

Agreed, and the "manual" addresses that: “This is why you need to do more than simply understand your lesson material; you need to understand the people you teach—as children of God, as members of their age-group, and as individuals.”

http://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-no-greater-call-a-resource-guide-for-gospel-teaching/lesson-2-understanding-those-you-teach?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-no-greater-call-a-resource-guide-for-gospel-teaching/lesson-3-reaching-out-to-the-one?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-no-greater-call-a-resource-guide-for-gospel-teaching/lesson-4-helping-new-members-and-less-active-members?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-no-greater-call-a-resource-guide-for-gospel-teaching/lesson-5-teaching-those-with-disabilities?lang=eng

“Consider first the suggestions given in the lesson manual. When necessary, adapt them to the needs of those you teach.”

“However, you do not need to present lessons exactly as they appear in the manuals. You may adapt the lessons according to the needs and circumstances of those you teach.”

[ERayR]

Oh Stone Holm is un teachable just ask his wife.

 

That may have been a bit obscure.  What I meant to say was be sure you are teaching Church doctrine and not Stone Holm doctrine.

[CV75]

If you were completely honest, when was the last time you heard something brand new, or actually learned new information in a Gospel Doctrine class that used the manual/scriptures as the only resource.

I'm not talking about those wonderful and rare spiritual epiphanies, but any actual new information?  I mean generally every lesson is a rehash and only the teachers anecdotes change.

I can’t remember the last time I received any new data during class from the manual or scriptures, but that is not my expectation for attending Gospel Doctrine class. My expectation for attending is more in line with D&C 50.

I also find it to be a good opportunity for me to review and reflect upon the teachings in the Old Testament and Pearl of Great Price, such as: “God’s dealings with his people from the time of the Council in Heaven to a few hundred years before the Savior’s birth;” “powerful examples of faith and obedience and show the consequences of forgetting, disobeying, or opposing God;” and the prophecies “of the Savior’s birth, atonement, second coming, and millennial reign.”

I do remember being prompted to receive new insight on the manual/scriptural data from other class members and the teacher.

And if I can help someone to do the same through my participation, great!

[Stone holm]

Agreed. 

 

Let's be truly honest with ourselves for a moment.  Most people on this board are pretty knowledgable where gospel doctrine and history are concerned and most of that has come from personal study, not from Church lessons.  That's why discussions here can be a lot of fun.

 

If you were completely honest, when was the last time you heard something brand new, or actually learned new information in a Gospel Doctrine class that used the manual/scriptures as the only resource.

I'm not talking about those wonderful and rare spiritual epiphanies, but any actual new information?  I mean generally every lesson is a rehash and only the teachers anecdotes change.

(I did have a fun moment a while back when the GD teacher mentioned that Gabriel was Noah and one little old sister's eyes bugged out of her head - she had never heard that before).

 

Actually, the last Gospel Doctrine instructor did provide new information -- course he then got released (many suspect for his teachings), our current Gospel Doctrine is not providing new information, but his questions tend to draw out responses which do explore new perspectives and information -- alas, I fear he is going to get released as well.  I have taken a self-imposed vow not to comment or speak in class in the hopes that he doesn't get released -- but i fear his days are numbered.  In which case, we are likely to be back to someone teaching from the manual again accompanied by large numbers attending the Gospel Gossip Class held in the foyer which various Bishops have tried to put an end to.

[JLHPROF]

Actually, the last Gospel Doctrine instructor did provide new information -- course he then got released (many suspect for his teachings), our current Gospel Doctrine is not providing new information, but his questions tend to draw out responses which do explore new perspectives and information -- alas, I fear he is going to get released as well.  I have taken a self-imposed vow not to comment or speak in class in the hopes that he doesn't get released -- but i fear his days are numbered.  In which case, we are likely to be back to someone teaching from the manual again accompanied by large numbers attending the Gospel Gossip Class held in the foyer which various Bishops have tried to put an end to.

 

Doesn't this just say it all about getting stuck on milk.  One day perhaps we will recognize that Gospel Doctrine should be a modern day School of the Prophets, and not Primary for adults...and then perhaps we will have advanced far enough in knowledge, faith, perfection and zeal to bring about the start of the Millennium.

 

We are so busy waiting patiently for the Millennium & the Second coming to create our "advanced" gospel society where we can learn and grow.  When it's actually God patiently waiting for us to prepare the Earth by learning, growing, and living all that he has revealed.

Edited February 21, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

Doesn't this just say it all about getting stuck on milk.  One day perhaps we will recognize that Gospel Doctrine should be a modern day School of the Prophets, and not Primary for adults...and then perhaps we will have advanced far enough in knowledge, faith, perfection and zeal to bring about the start of the Millennium.

 

We are so busy waiting patiently for the Millennium & the Second coming to create our "advanced" gospel society where we can learn and grow.  When it's actually God patiently waiting for us to prepare the Earth by learning, growing, and living all that he has revealed.

I've used this variation on the imagery before, but "milk" is better than tainted meat -- by which I mean speculation, conjecture, pet theories, folklore, rumor, gospel hobbies, axes to grind, complaints, none of which have any place in a Church meeting or class. Give me the milk every time, if those things are the alternative.

[JLHPROF]

I've used this variation on the imagery before, but "milk" is better than tainted meat -- by which I mean speculation, conjecture, pet theories, folklore, rumor, gospel hobbies, axes to grind, complaints, none of which have any place in a Church meeting or class. Give me the milk every time, if those things are the alternative.

 

I agree that "tainted meat" is bad, but you will never develop into a gospel adult if you live on a milk diet.  We are far too comfortable repeating ad nauseam what we already know to be true, and far to reticent to seek out new truths.

[CV75]

Doesn't this just say it all about getting stuck on milk.  One day perhaps we will recognize that Gospel Doctrine should be a modern day School of the Prophets, and not Primary for adults...and then perhaps we will have advanced far enough in knowledge, faith, perfection and zeal to bring about the start of the Millennium.

 

We are so busy waiting patiently for the Millennium & the Second coming to create our "advanced" gospel society where we can learn and grow.  When it's actually God patiently waiting for us to prepare the Earth by learning, growing, and living all that he has revealed.

How would a modern-day school of the prophets look like, and the syllabus? How would you make sure it accords with D&C 50 and 88:122+?

 

I've participated in a trial session of a modern-day version of the school of the prophets (twice), and it was extremely edifying. I still see the great value of Sunday School classes.

[CV75]

I agree that "tainted meat" is bad, but you will never develop into a gospel adult if you live on a milk diet.  We are far too comfortable repeating ad nauseam what we already know to be true, and far to reticent to seek out new truths.

Who is "we"? And why is that really a problem for those who don't "live on a milk diet?" It's s a problem for people who don't progress, but even people on milk are progressing, and yesterday's meat is today's milk for many people.

[Stone holm]

Who is "we"? And why is that really a problem for those who don't "live on a milk diet?" It's s a problem for people who don't progress, but even people on milk are progressing, and yesterday's meat is today's milk for many people.

No if you take a tour through the Journal of Discourses, I think you would have to conclude that the early Saints were lactose intolerant, we definitely have gone from a carnivorous diet to a pure milk diet, not vice versa.

[mfbukowski]

Does the teacher then go with the most needy of the students (meaning those who barely understand the Gospel)?

Uh, let's just say that I think we all could improve in understanding the gospel and thinking that we know more than others... uh.... can be a mistaken notion.

[Kenngo1969]

I'll probably get killed for this (Suuuuure, Ken, blame the messenger! ) but, while it might be easier to blame the teacher for whatever problems I have in a class, I find that there's usually only one person responsible for any of those problems.  Sometimes, I may have been tempted to use my finger to attempt pinpoint the source of the problem.  However, I find that a mirror works better. )  [it's a good thing no "down" votes are allowed in this forum ... ]  [Ken ducks to avoid incoming shoes ...] 

Edited February 22, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Stone holm]

I'll probably get killed for this (Suuuuure, Ken, blame the messenger! ) but, while it might be easier to blame the teacher for whatever problems I have in a class, I find that there's usually only one person responsible for any of those problems.  Sometimes, I may have been tempted to use my finger to attempt pinpoint the source of the problem.  However, I find that a mirror works better. )  [it's a good thing no "down" votes are allowed in this forum ... ]  [Ken ducks to avoid incoming shoes ...]

I don't believe we should blame teachers for following Church guidelines and using prescribed materials, the blame, if you are going to get into it, belongs higher up the food chain.

[ERayR]

Uh, let's just say that I think we all could improve in understanding the gospel and thinking that we know more than others... uh.... can be a mistaken notion.

 

UH others can not possibly understand as much as I can!

[mfbukowski]

UH others can not possibly understand as much as I can!

They are all clearly inferior humans and just plain dummies, awaiting to hear my wisdom, poor idiots that they are.

[Kenngo1969]

I don't believe we should blame teachers for following Church guidelines and using prescribed materials, the blame, if you are going to get into it, belongs higher up the food chain.

Why does the "blame" lie with those "higher up the food chain"?  It's easy to fix blame, if we want to do that.  It's much more of a challenge to fix the problem (and it may well be a problem of perception).  It seems to me that the people closer (closest) to the very top of "the food chain" are those who expend the most effort to encourage us to teach and to learn in the Savior's way, to teach and to learn by the Spirit, to love what we teach, and to love those whom we teach, to strive to befriend the members of our classes and to strive to follow the Spirit by being sensitive to their individual needs, and so on. Here's an example: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/one-step-closer-to-the-savior?lang=eng.   

 

While I'm not blaming anyone, whether the water makes it to the end of the row (i.e., the responsibility for how well any of this counsel is being implemented) rests with the leaders of Wards and Stakes.  And I stand by what I said previously: the responsibility for whether I get anything out of a particular class or lesson lies, overwhelmingly, with me.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[CV75]

No if you take a tour through the Journal of Discourses, I think you would have to conclude that the early Saints were lactose intolerant, we definitely have gone from a carnivorous diet to a pure milk diet, not vice versa.

I have, and i conclude that you are speaking for yourself!