Gordon b hinkley Manuel

[RevTestament]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

They are already somewhat set up for this, it would not be complicated (I am assuming though I may be wrong) to add this as a specific project, though they would probably have to add staff:

https://www.lds.org/topics/service/create?lang=eng

https://createldsmedia.lds.org/

Yep, I think an online commentary would require more staff, but didn't they want to shift the focus of learning to the home?

I realize the church has videos on LDS.org, but these are basically all professionally done "schmoozy" kind of things. Allowing members to submit their own videos will provide a very "real" feel, and give a chance for the gospel to grow in action. I realize they would need to be subject to approval, and "prank" videos could be weeded out by simply requiring a membership number, and submission through a church account.

[CMZ]

Quote

So, we see the attitude I think that the manual is always right and is not to be challenged.

I'm not sure who says that unless it's the same people who don't study the scriptures on their own but then say to only stick to the basics. They're lazy and too scared to inquire into anything on their own so they say that the Sunday School manuals are infallible (I'm interested in seeing the exact quote about Moses reintroducing the Priesthood) and that anything the teacher says while teaching from them is also infallible, but they probably don't even bother to study ahead of time.

I believe the Institute manuals that go fairly in-depth (at least more than the Sunday School manuals do) can be considered the online commentary you are referring to and they are online! (https://www.lds.org/si/institute/manuals?lang=eng). Whatever goes on in a Sunday block should never ever prevent someone from in-depth study on their own. Nobody need think that the Church is saying that what goes on in Sunday School should be our only source of learning.

Quote

 

You share with your Gospel Doctrine teacher the responsibility to help the class be successful. The Lord has said that teachers need to “preach … by the Spirit of truth” and that those who receive “the word of truth” should “receive it by the Spirit of truth” (D&C 50:17, 19). Come to class prepared to contribute insights, ask questions, share appropriate experiences, bear testimony, and listen attentively to the teacher and the other class members. When you have studied the reading assignments and pondered the questions in this study guide, you will be better prepared to experience the fulfillment of the Lord’s words when He said, “He that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together” (D&C 50:22).

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-class-member-study-guide/introduction?lang=eng

 

 

[RevTestament]

24 minutes ago, CMZ said:

I'm not sure who says that unless it's the same people who don't study the scriptures on their own but then say to only stick to the basics. They're lazy and too scared to inquire into anything on their own so they say that the Sunday School manuals are infallible (I'm interested in seeing the exact quote about Moses reintroducing the Priesthood) and that anything the teacher says while teaching from them is also infallible, but they probably don't even bother to study ahead of time.

I believe it has been a principle for some time to teach only what is in the manuals. Most of the church membership knows this. So anything which challenges what the manual seems to say, is met with an uncomfortable air. As to the exact lesson, I'm sorry but that was I think at least 3 years ago. You will be able to find it in the OT manual. I am pretty sure it taught that Moses was the head of a dispensation. Whether one believes that or not, it is not really true that he restored the priesthood to the earth, since he got it from Jethro as I pointed out. I happen to believe Abraham was the head of the dispensation in which Moses received the law.

Quote

I believe the Institute manuals that go fairly in-depth (at least more than the Sunday School manuals do) can be considered the online commentary you are referring to and they are online! (https://www.lds.org/si/institute/manuals?lang=eng). Whatever goes on in a Sunday block should never ever prevent someone from in-depth study on their own. Nobody need think that the Church is saying that what goes on in Sunday School should be our only source of learning.

Well, while they may be good material, they are not really a line by line online commentary. Instead they are arranged by subject matter.  I am sure some of the material can be reused or linked to from the suggested on-line commentary.

I am not trying to brag. I am well-read in the scriptures, and I feel such a commentary would be helpful. I realize the Church has spent considerable time and effort on creating teaching materials. I have done most of my learning on my own through the guidance of the spirit exactly because the Sunday School manuals do not go into a lot of depth. I believe I am just pointing out some of the faults I see in the current system. If I see them, I assume others may perceive the same types of things. I am responding to how I think the system can be improved for learning at home from the standpoint of a home learner. If the Church wants to believe they have already covered this base, I do not understand what they are really trying to do here... the same approach will yield the same results... which they say they want to change...

[CMZ]

Yes, Moses is the head of a dispensation.

[CMZ]

And there's all sorts of commentaries that people can find elsewhere to study as they see fit. I'd guess that the Church doesn't provide super in-depth online commentaries because they don't want to spoon-feed things to people and they trust people to study on their own. I have other thoughts on the matter but that's probably good enough for now.

[CMZ]

http://cmzmedia.com/doctrine/img/GospelDispensations.jpg

[RevTestament]

Quote

You share with your Gospel Doctrine teacher the responsibility to help the class be successful. The Lord has said that teachers need to “preach … by the Spirit of truth” and that those who receive “the word of truth” should “receive it by the Spirit of truth” (D&C 50:17, 19). Come to class prepared to contribute insights, ask questions, share appropriate experiences, bear testimony, and listen attentively to the teacher and the other class members. When you have studied the reading assignments and pondered the questions in this study guide, you will be better prepared to experience the fulfillment of the Lord’s words when He said, “He that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together” (D&C 50:22).

I wish I could say this has always been my experience, but it has not. I did not feel edified in that class I brought up. I felt stomped on. Now if the teacher had stopped and asked what basis I had for stating that, I would have said the spirit. But even a simple search of the scriptures afterwards proved I was right. If the teacher had access and done a similar search or asked the class to search instead of belittling me, I believe the truth would have come out that Moses received the priesthood from Jethro. Then the class would have been edified, and perhaps rejoiced together. Instead I could feel the class' exasperation with me. I believe that teacher later found the answer out for himself, and approached me more kindly later, but I was upset with him so moved to the other class. Again, I believe this all came about from the attitude that the manual is always right, and we are only to teach what is in it. Maybe the church will learn something from this... or maybe not. Anyway what was kind of a painful experience for me, should have been an edifying experience for the class, but was not. My point got mowed over, I got mowed over, and the lesson continued...it certainly changed my attitude about a desire to teach. I will not teach error. Since my current beliefs do not align with the current "doctrine" I do not teach, but will be limited to teaching the church by example. At home I teach what I believe. My family is welcome to examine how my belief comports with scripture. They realize that it doesn't always align with what they have been taught at seminary, etc, but they have my thoughts, and can pray about them. They do not always agree with me, and that is ok. This process just doesn't take place in the official church classroom setting. It's more of a top-down, here is the truth, now memorize it process. If that is what the church wants, the church will be limited by the limits it imposes on the teachers and students. I think the process would be improved by the church at least acknowledging that the process has limits, which is what I am hearing in this new effort to learn at home. As I have indicated for my part, I already try to do this with my family, but I really do believe an online commentary would be helpful, rather than a manual here and a manual there.

[CMZ]

Yeah, there's definitely a problem with that teacher. There's so many times when one member does something that the Church doesn't sanction but another member takes it as action sanctioned by the Church. I've taught numerous classes where I taught true doctrine, even if it wasn't in a manual, and nobody had a problem with it.

Edited August 15, 2016 by CMZ

[Calm]

The teacher may not have understood, but there is nothing preventing the head of a dispensation from receiving the priesthood from someone else, Abraham received it from Melchizedek, iirc Enoch got it from Adam, Noah I can't remember.

If it was in a class in 2001 or later, there is no mention of Moses being the head of a dispensation or any mention of Moses' priesthood at all,so the teacher would have gone off manual for either topic.  And while I can't point to a SS manual from earlier, I would be quite suprised if this claim was in it.  Correlation has been going on for a long time and you can find a number of references to Moses receiving the Priesthood from Jethro.  I thought it was common knowledge actually.  Iow, I just don't see any manual going through Correlation making that kind of mistake.

It sounds more like the teacher had an incorrect understanding of dispensations (Priesthood needed to be restored) and attached it to Moses.

[RevTestament]

44 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Yes, Moses is the head of a dispensation.

 

25 minutes ago, CMZ said:

http://cmzmedia.com/doctrine/img/GospelDispensations.jpg

Although this was not the point I brought up, I don't really agree with the Church on this. And the Church is also incorrect about Joseph being the head of the 7th dispensation. He is the head of the sixth. Of course you are welcome to show how I am wrong. Each dispensation lasts about 1000 years. JS is in the 6th thousand years according to D&C. Each dispensation represents a covenant period. Adam introduced the covenant of the Sabbath to man. Noah is the second, and introduced a new covenant. Abraham the third. Moses did not introduce a new covenant but was fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant, but because of transgressions God introduced the law to Moses. As I pointed out in class Moses did not restore the priesthood to the earth either. David the fourth. Although David fell from the Davidic covenant, the covenant remained. These covenants correspond to the 7 eyes of the lamb of revelation. 

I realize you will disagree with me - and that is ok, but it will take more than that link to convince me otherwise...

[Calm]

Noah was ordained by Methusaleh

[RevTestament]

29 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Yeah, there's definitely a problem with that teacher. There's so many times when one member does something that the Church does and another member takes it as action sanctioned by the Church. I've taught numerous classes where I taught true doctrine, even if it wasn't in a manual, and nobody had a problem with it.

Well, while the teacher could have handled it better, I think his response is somewhat fostered by the attitude to only teach what is in the manuals. While you may feel you can go outside the manuals with "true doctrine" that is not what I am talking about. My point was not false. It wasn't really even "doctrine." It was scripture. Again Moses did not restore the priesthood to the earth. He restored the priesthood to Israel, but it was not lost to the earth. Nor was the covenant.

[stemelbow]

I thought the Church's position was we don't know how many dispensations there have been.  We're only aware of some.

[CMZ]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

Although this was not the point I brought up, I don't really agree with the Church on this. And the Church is also incorrect about Joseph being the head of the 7th dispensation. He is the head of the sixth. Of course you are welcome to show how I am wrong. Each dispensation lasts about 1000 years. JS is in the 6th thousand years according to D&C. Each dispensation represents a covenant period. Adam introduced the covenant of the Sabbath to man. Noah is the second, and introduced a new covenant. Abraham the third. Moses did not introduce a new covenant but was fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant, but because of transgressions God introduced the law to Moses. As I pointed out in class Moses did not restore the priesthood to the earth either. David the fourth. Although David fell from the Davidic covenant, the covenant remained. These covenants correspond to the 7 eyes of the lamb of revelation. 

I realize you will disagree with me - and that is ok, but it will take more than that link to convince me otherwise...

Don't worry, I'm not trying to convince you with a link! You might be seeing an argument where there is none. True that in some respects the earth's history can be divided into thousand-year periods, but that doesn't mean each dispensation is exactly equal to one thousand years. A dispensation also doesn't necessarily mean that the Priesthood is being restored to the earth anew via heavenly messengers. Noah got his priesthood from a mortal man and so did Enoch and so did Abraham, just like Moses getting it from Jethro. And the Aaronic Priesthood was on the earth when Jesus Christ came into mortality. It was probably only with Joseph Smith's dispensation that all priesthood was restored anew via heavenly messengers.

[CMZ]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I thought the Church's position was we don't know how many dispensations there have been.  We're only aware of some.

But there's seven main ones.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, while the teacher could have handled it better, I think his response is somewhat fostered by the attitude to only teach what is in the manuals. While you may feel you can go outside the manuals with "true doctrine" that is not what I am talking about. My point was not false. It wasn't really even "doctrine." It was scripture. Again Moses did not restore the priesthood to the earth. He restored the priesthood to Israel, but it was not lost to the earth. Nor was the covenant.

Except it is likely the manual didn't have that.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I thought the Church's position was we don't know how many dispensations there have been.  We're only aware of some.

True

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/dispensations?lang=eng

 

[CMZ]

Seven main dispensations, probably numerous sub-dispensations.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, CMZ said:

But there's seven main ones.

Main ones...ones we know about.  tomato or tomato...whatever. 

[CMZ]

Seven main ones altogether. Lehi's "dispensation" is not a main one but is considered to be a big branch of the Mosaic Dispensation.

[RevTestament]

54 minutes ago, CMZ said:

And there's all sorts of commentaries that people can find elsewhere to study as they see fit.

Well, here is the sticky-wick, isn't it? Most of those commentaries are full of errors - esp from the LDS point of view. For example find even one that interprets Ezekiel 37 correctly with the stick as the rod of the gospel, instead of representing the nation.

Quote

I'd guess that the Church doesn't provide super in-depth online commentaries because they don't want to spoon-feed things to people and they trust people to study on their own. I have other thoughts on the matter but that's probably good enough for now.

Now, now, let's admit that the church is already "spoon-feeding" things in these lesson manuals. Perhaps the Church is scared of a commentary, because people might take issue with what is in them later. However, I feel there is a great need for one. It doesn't have to be presented as doctrine, and could even expressly state that the brethren are providing these points for purposes of study only, and that it is possible that in the due time of the Lord, He may reveal things otherwise. It could point out the Catholic Bible says such and such, and Catholic interpretation of visions say such and such. I think this will help members understand and teach those they are trying to convert to the gospel. I am puzzled by the resistance some seem to have to this suggestion. Oh well, I can only make the suggestion... Perhaps "doctrine" is not so formulated as the Church represents it to be. And that should be OK, but my guess is not due to the traditional representations.

[CMZ]

Quote

3. Read the scriptures first.

If we will read the assigned scripture block before reading the lesson materials or any supplementary material, and write down any impressions we have as to doctrinal insights, questions we might ask, and invitations we might extend, then by exercising our agency in this way, we will maximize the Spirit that will come to us. We will become spiritually self-reliant. I have found that when I read the scriptures and have a question, there is often the temptation to immediately go to the commentaries for the answer. But if I restrain myself from doing that and instead wrestle with the issue, usually some personal inspiration will come. Sometimes the answer I get is the same as is in the commentary, but now the answer is mine, not theirs. Other times I may gain an insight that was customized for me and is different from the commentaries.

If I had gone straight to the commentaries, I would have lost those benefits. President Marion G. Romney made this candid observation: “When I drink from a spring I like to get the water where it comes out of the ground, not down the stream after the cattle have waded in it” (quoted by Elder J. Richard Clarke, “My Soul Delighteth in the Scriptures,” Oct. 1982 general conference). The lesson materials can be very helpful, but they should never interfere or take priority over our personal relationship with the scriptures and the Spirit.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/5-ways-to-become-a-teacher-come-from-god?lang=eng

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by CMZ

[CMZ]

Right there on the Church website they are saying that a personal relationship with the scriptures and with the Spirit is more important than a commentary. We needn't get bothered thinking that the Church thinks all our learning has to come from whatever some Gospel Doctrine teacher chooses to convey to us.

[RevTestament]

40 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Seven main dispensations, probably numerous sub-dispensations.

Well, I will just state from my point of view that the seven main dispensations correspond to the 7 main covenant periods which just happen to be 1000 year periods, as well as the 7 eyes of the lamb of Revelation. And JS is the head of the sixth such covenant - the everlasting covenant promised to the Gentiles by the Lord in Isaiah. Whether there are other subdispensations  of the gospel is not something I have prayed specifically about. It would seem that Moses was definitely the head of a gospel dispensation to Israel or at least a dispensation of law. The law, however, was subordinate to the covenant, which is where the gospel truly lies, which would make Moses' dispensation subordinate to Abraham. Moses not only received the priesthood from Jethro, but received instruction from him. However, I think I need to drop this topic rather than derail the thread...

[CMZ]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, I will just state from my point of view that the seven main dispensations correspond to the 7 main covenant periods which just happen to be 1000 year periods, as well as the 7 eyes of the lamb of Revelation. And JS is the head of the sixth such covenant - the everlasting covenant promised to the Gentiles by the Lord in Isaiah. Whether there are other subdispensations  of the gospel is not something I have prayed specifically about. It would seem that Moses was definitely the head of a gospel dispensation to Israel or at least a dispensation of law. The law, however, was subordinate to the covenant, which is where the gospel truly lies, which would make Moses' dispensation subordinate to Abraham. Moses not only received the priesthood from Jethro, but received instruction from him. However, I think I need to drop this topic rather than derail the thread...

I don't mind discussing it at all, but it's true that it's not the topic of this thread. Perhaps you can start a new thread charting how you see things. Maybe when I'm not rushing to get ready for work I can discuss Moses stuff more. I will say for now that he attempted to implement the whole covenant but couldn't because of the hard-heartedness of the people, but that doesn't mean his dispensation was not a dispensation. The full covenant of the Gospel was still around, just not spread to the masses as much as the Lord wished.