Stone holm Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 It occurred to me today, that one of the protests against teaching deep truth is that one or more class members are perceived to be too "dumb" to understand it. Is there an ethical element here?
pogi Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) It occurred to me today, that one of the protests against teaching deep truth is that one or more class members are perceived to be too "dumb" to understand it. Is there an ethical element here? I think 'less spiritually advanced' might be a better term to use than "dumb". Milk before meat. You have to consider the diversity of spiritual condition in a congregation and preach to the lowest. We don't get the meat in Sunday School, but in personal communion and daily devotion and study - revelation which comes line upon line. Edited March 30, 2014 by pogi
CV75 Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 It occurred to me today, that one of the protests against teaching deep truth is that one or more class members are perceived to be too "dumb" to understand it. Is there an ethical element here?In the context of the protest, what is meant by "deep truth"?
JLHPROF Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 I think 'less spiritually advanced' might be a better term to use than "dumb". Milk before meat. You have to consider the diversity of spiritual condition in a congregation and preach to the lowest. We don't get the meat in Sunday School, but in personal communion and daily devotion and study - revelation which comes line upon line. But when our entire source of meat comes from person study and revelation that can produce some scary results. Sagebrush prophets, false doctrine, and apostasy. I would think it would be part of the calling of an Apostle to expound on the more "meaty" matters of the gospel, and those should be a good guideline for progressing. I mean, study the teachings of the prophets, the scholarly apostles (Pratt, Talmage, Widtsoe, McConkie etc) and discuss. 1
pogi Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) But when our entire source of meat comes from person study and revelation that can produce some scary results. Sagebrush prophets, false doctrine, and apostasy. I would think it would be part of the calling of an Apostle to expound on the more "meaty" matters of the gospel, and those should be a good guideline for progressing. I mean, study the teachings of the prophets, the scholarly apostles (Pratt, Talmage, Widtsoe, McConkie etc) and discuss. Church and Sunday School are to teach gospel doctrines, and not for open discussion of speculative ideas and theories from scholarly apostles. While that would make for much more enjoyable Sundays, I could see how it could lead to divisiveness and contention, just like on these boards. Theories might be confused for doctrines etc. You are right that personal study can produce some scary results, but only when you are not intune with the spirit. It doesn't really matter what the context is, when you are not in-tune with the spirit, scary results will happen. That is why the basic foundational doctrines are taught at church - to keep us in tune with the spirit. Edited March 30, 2014 by pogi
thesometimesaint Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Teach to the mean. you won't totally lose those withe less ability, and hopeful motivate those with more.
Stone holm Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 Church and Sunday School are to teach gospel doctrines, and not for open discussion of speculative ideas and theories from scholarly apostles. While that would make for much more enjoyable Sundays, I could see how it could lead to divisiveness and contention, just like on these boards. Theories might be confused for doctrines etc. You are right that personal study can produce some scary results, but only when you are not intune with the spirit. It doesn't really matter what the context is, when you are not in-tune with the spirit, scary results will happen. That is why the basic foundational doctrines are taught at church - to keep us in tune with the spirit.Would you consider the Atonement a foundational doctrine? And if so, would you say stick with a superficial treatment of it, because say someone in the class felt that some in the class were too "dumb" to understand anything but superficial discussion. Let leave the level of spiritual development out of it and just go with the common understanding of the word "dumb". 1
pogi Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) Would you consider the Atonement a foundational doctrine? And if so, would you say stick with a superficial treatment of it, because say someone in the class felt that some in the class were too "dumb" to understand anything but superficial discussion. Let leave the level of spiritual development out of it and just go with the common understanding of the word "dumb". What doctirinally visceral aspects of the atonement are you refering to that are being left out because someone thinks that others are too "dumb" to understand? Edited March 30, 2014 by pogi
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2014 Author Posted March 31, 2014 What doctirinally visceral aspects of the atonement are you refering to that are being left out because someone thinks that others are too "dumb" to understand?Why and how
mfbukowski Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 It occurred to me today, that one of the protests against teaching deep truth is that one or more class members are perceived to be too "dumb" to understand it. Is there an ethical element here?No, I continue to post here. We have to teach the dummies after all.
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2014 Author Posted March 31, 2014 No, I continue to post here. We have to teach the dummies after all.I have a problem with assuming that people are not capable of understanding the Atonement except on very juvenile levels. 1
mfbukowski Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 I have a problem with assuming that people are not capable of understanding the Atonement except on very juvenile levels.I have a problem with people who think they are superior to others, especially in the gospel. Why don't you go ahead and explain your superior knowledge of the atonement so we can all learn from you.
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2014 Author Posted March 31, 2014 I have a problem with people who think they are superior to others, especially in the gospel. Why don't you go ahead and explain your superior knowledge of the atonement so we can all learn from you.What is the standard explanation of the Atonement?
pogi Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Why and how The "why" has been thoroughly explained - to overcome both physical and spiritual death. The prophets admit that they don't know "how." So, what is it exactly that you want to teach in church about the "how" of the atonement that is doctrinal, and why is that more important than the foundational doctrines being taught? The only "how" that we need to know about the atonement is "how" to utilize it in our lives. That's the really important practical part that they teach in church. Edited March 31, 2014 by pogi
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2014 Author Posted March 31, 2014 The "why" has been thoroughly explained - to overcome both physical and spiritual death. The prophets admit that they don't know "how." So, what is it exactly that you want to teach in church about the "how" of the atonement that is doctrinal, and why is that more important than the foundational doctrines being taught? The only "how" that we need to know about the atonement is "how" to utilize it in our lives. That's the really important practical part that they teach in church.Why would Christ have to suffer in the manner He did?Given that very few people believe that a whipping boy explanation makes sense, how did the Atonement actually work?What was really going on?
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2014 Author Posted March 31, 2014 The "why" has been thoroughly explained - to overcome both physical and spiritual death. The prophets admit that they don't know "how." So, what is it exactly that you want to teach in church about the "how" of the atonement that is doctrinal, and why is that more important than the foundational doctrines being taught? The only "how" that we need to know about the atonement is "how" to utilize it in our lives. That's the really important practical part that they teach in church.No the how does make a difference.
pogi Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Why would Christ have to suffer in the manner He did?Given that very few people believe that a whipping boy explanation makes sense, how did the Atonement actually work?What was really going on? While an interesting topic of speculative discussion, I don't see any practical application which makes these questions more important than what is being taught, especially sense there is no clear revelation on the matter. No the how does make a difference. Show me the revelation which outlines the doctrine, than perhaps we can talk about the "how" in church. Otherwise you are introducing speculative doctrines. If the how is important to my salvation, I will learn it through personal revelation.
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2014 Author Posted March 31, 2014 While an interesting topic of speculative discussion, I don't see any practical application which makes these questions more important than what is being taught, especially sense there is no clear revelation on the matter. Show me the revelation which outlines the doctrine, than perhaps we can talk about the "how" in church. Otherwise you are introducing speculative doctrines. If the how is important to my salvation, I will learn it through personal revelation.You are saying then that the why and how of the Atonement have so little doctrine as to be speculative? Don't you find that a bit ... I don't know unsettling with regards to the central concept of Christianity?
mfbukowski Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 What is the standard explanation of the Atonement?You know as well as I do. And you didn't answer me.
mfbukowski Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 The bottom line pragmatic truth is that if we do all we can to stop doing whatever we did wrong, and do our very best to make up for it. God forgives us for what we have done, and we can free ourselves from guilt and go on with life, knowing we are forgiven. That gives us renewed life and peace. Bang your head against the wall all you want for a fancier explanation and trying to rationalize the various explanations, but that is the bottom line. The belief that Christ has taken away our sins takes them away. Call that faith in the atonement if you like- the practical effects in our lives are the same either way. 1
The Nehor Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 I have a problem with assuming that people are not capable of understanding the Atonement except on very juvenile levels. Juvenile on God's scale or on ours? Why would Christ have to suffer in the manner He did?Given that very few people believe that a whipping boy explanation makes sense, how did the Atonement actually work?What was really going on? I don't anticipate that the reasons for the necessity of the atonement are comprehensible to us. We know that it is and how to use it. 1
mfbukowski Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) I don't anticipate that the reasons for the necessity of the atonement are comprehensible to us. We know that it is and how to use it.That is the point I was trying to make. All we directly experience is the pragmatic effects of putting the atonement to work in our lives through repentance. We feel the peace, but we will never know how it works. We can make up all the stories we want, but we will still never be able to understand it better. Edited March 31, 2014 by mfbukowski
The Nehor Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 That is the point I was trying to make. All we directly experience is the pragmatic effects of putting the atonement to work in our lives through repentance. We feel the peace, but we will never know how it works. I am not sure I agree with the latter statement. I suspect that few throughout history knew enough to understand the reasons on some level. I think I have an inkling but it is barely more then total ignorance. I am not one of the people who may understand.
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2014 Author Posted March 31, 2014 Juvenile on God's scale or on ours? I don't anticipate that the reasons for the necessity of the atonement are comprehensible to us. We know that it is and how to use it. We are all juvenile compared to God, that does not mean we need to stick with a "See Spot run," approach. 1
wenglund Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) It occurred to me today, that one of the protests against teaching deep truth is that one or more class members are perceived to be too "dumb" to understand it. Is there an ethical element here? I don't know about an ethical element (except perhaps in terms of harmfully burdening people with the responsibility of knowledge they aren't able to bear), but there is a practical element. Education works best when students are properly prepared to progress. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited March 31, 2014 by wenglund
Recommended Posts