Let us evolve

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What?  I have no idea why you think I said anything promoting that we should fear anything. 

You said you agreed with Pres. Brown who said that only error needs to fear freedom of expression.  I'm sorry if i misunderstood but i read that as saying that the free expression of error should be feared.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I've been in stakes that offer adult CES classes all the time.  I took one on Isaiah not that long ago.  They are awesome!

I took a night time seminary class too..it was on the Book of Mormon and not only was it informative..but we had fun.  We were a group of people from all over the world (a military base) and we just all got along and had great discussions.  Now...Isaiah...I loved his words..but I had a hard time with figuring him out.    Every now and again a lightbulb would go off in my head and I could understand him.  You rock Bluebell!

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I definitely agree with that!

We have been blessed over the years with a string of outstanding teachers [and I bracket myself in saying that, as I taught the class for several years].

One of the factors that helps make our class vibrant is that we get a lot of good class discussion, and from a variety of people, not just from the same ones week after week. As I intimated earlier, much of the discussion is behavior-oriented, focusing on practical application of the doctrines and principles in the day-to-day lives of members.

And, in my opinion, that's where the real value of Sunday School rests, not so much in chatter about mysteries or imponderables or matters that might spark disagreement or contention.

 

Discussion makes all the difference!  Right now we have very very little discussion and the teacher often goes off on long spiels (that sounds horrible i just can't think of another word to use.  What she's saying is right on, it's just that she will say it for 15 minutes at a time, like she's giving a talk instead of teaching, so much so that we almost always go over time).  

[Boanerges]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've been in stakes that offer adult CES classes all the time.  I took one on Isaiah not that long ago.  They are awesome!

Everyone is welcome to take Institute classes. Likewise, the manuals are free to download/view online. There is some advantage to the sounding board of sharing ideas in a class setting, though. While some here seem to think Sunday School isn't the place for that, I disagree. However, if Sunday School isn't the place, then maybe Institute is. Institute is not what the article was talking about, though - it was talking about Sunday School.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not saying that.  I'm saying grown ups in the Church have enough prerequisite knowledge to entertain thought, as it pertains to gospel discussion.  And yes, often, that would mean thoughts shared in such a scenario would stray from the standard material. 

And if they don't already have the prerequisite knowledge it's time to dig in and develop the chops to analyze information without requiring spoon feeding. It will be interesting to see how many people are prepared for these types of discussions. I think there will be some severe growing pains, but it's necessary. The church can't hide from challenging information just because it's hard. People need this information to truly develop their own beliefs and have real agency to choose how to implement their faith.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Discussion makes all the difference!  Right now we have very very little discussion and the teacher often goes off on long spiels (that sounds horrible i just can't think of another word to use.  What she's saying is right on, it's just that she will say it for 15 minutes at a time, like she's giving a talk instead of teaching, so much so that we almost always go over time).  

Our current GD teacher lectures and tells stories for 40 straight minutes. IF he asks a single question it's usually a closed end yes/no question. He's an interesting guy but it's hard to sit through. I used to prepare and study the lessons every week until I realized he barely followed the theme of the lesson, let alone the scriptures. Engagement is so important in learning and I'm hopeful the changes to GD will engage ward members and force them to flex intellectual and spiritual muscles that have atrophied.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church can't hide from challenging information just because it's hard. People need this information to truly develop their own beliefs and have real agency to choose how to implement their faith.

 

Are you saying that people can't form a testimony of the gospel and the church (I'm putting it simply but you know what i mean) unless they first study out this kind of information?

I'm not sure i'm understanding you correctly so just asking for clarification.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that people can't form a testimony of the gospel and the church (I'm putting it simply but you know what i mean) unless they first study out this kind of information?

I'm not sure i'm understanding you correctly so just asking for clarification.

I'm suggesting that for a person to make a decision about whether or not they believe in the restoration, they can't do it on false information. Knowledge is power. Agency is only exercised when a person is able to choose. It's hard to choose if they are not given information that provides additional options.

 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm suggesting that for a person to make a decision about whether or not they believe in the restoration, they can't do it on false information. Knowledge is power. Agency is only exercised when a person is able to choose. It's hard to choose if they are not given information that provides additional options.

 

I get what you are saying, but i disagree a little.  The idea that one can't know truth thru the Holy Ghost without first having all the info first doesn't seem to ring true when we compare it to what the scriptures teach and the examples of others throughout history.  There is a ton of information that we have now that people before us didn't.  To suggest that a person can't exercise agency without knowing all of us stuff implies that people who came before us had no agency and therefore, could not know truth.

I believe that knowledge is really important, but not so much as far as gaining a testimony goes.  I think it's important as a part of our conversion and spiritual growth and maturity.  I think that it's good if that growth happens sooner rather than later.  But i also know that you can't force growth, and that putting people in situations that they are not ready or prepared for is detrimental.   

So while i would very much like there to be more 'meat' in Sunday school, I think it's a mistake to believe that what i want and need is what everyone else needs too.  

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

I get what you are saying, but i disagree a little.  The idea that one can't know truth thru the Holy Ghost without first having all the info first doesn't seem to ring true when we compare it to what the scriptures teach and the examples of others throughout history.  There is a ton of information that we have now that people before us didn't.  To suggest that a person can't exercise agency without knowing all of us stuff implies that people who came before us had no agency and therefore, could not know truth.

I believe that knowledge is really important, but not so much as far as gaining a testimony goes.  I think it's important as a part of our conversion and spiritual growth and maturity.  I think that it's good if that growth happens sooner rather than later.  But i also know that you can't force growth, and that putting people in situations that they are not ready or prepared for is detrimental.   

So while i would very much like there to be more 'meat' in Sunday school, I think it's a mistake to believe that what i want and need is what everyone else needs too.  

I understand where you're coming from and it's true that a person rarely has all pertinent information in decision making so we base decisions on the best information available. However, if someone purposely withholds pertinent information, that person is limiting a person's agency in real ways.

If we look at the cliché car analogy, a person has 2 cars to sell. One is a 1983 Gremlin and the other is 2005 Hyundai. The seller tells the buyer that the price for each is $2500. The person can then make their decision. They can kick the tires, smell the interior, look under the hood, and even pray about which car would be best. So the person decides to purchase to 2005 Hyundai because it's 22 years newer and it feels right. Obviously that would be the better deal. Besides it is much more attractive looking than that awful Gremlin. But what the seller didn't mention is that the Hyundai has 300,000 miles, has been totaled and only has a salvage title, has a cracked head gasket and the transmission is slipping. On the other hand, the Gremlin has been in a Gremlin showroom for the past 22 years, maintained impeccably and only has 10,000 original miles. Which deal sounds better now?

By withholding pertinent information the seller impacted the individual's agency in making an informed decision. Or if the buyer wasn't interested in gathering the complete information that was available, then he would likely make a bad decision. It is almost always better to have access to more information.

Regarding growth, I agree that growth can't be forced but it can be encouraged and facilitated. A good mentor will encourage a mentee to growth by challenging him to perform at a higher level in ways that aren't fully comfortable to the mentee. A lobster will shed its shell and hide under a rock for protection so that it can grow a new larger shell that it can grow into. Growth often causes temporary pain

Edited December 2, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

It would also mean that thoughts shared in such a scenario would sometimes be false and/or heretical, though espoused as if they were true.

Yep.  Which is no different in that sense, than what we have now.  The added benefit though is it'd inherently acknowledged that thoughts shared could be in error. 

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand where you're coming from and it's true that a person rarely has all pertinent information in decision making so we base decisions on the best information available. However, if someone purposely withholds pertinent information, that person is limiting a person's agency in real ways.

If we look at the cliché car analogy, a person has 2 cars to sell. One is a 1983 Gremlin and the other is 2005 Hyundai. The seller tells the buyer that the price for each is $2500. The person can then make their decision. They can kick the tires, smell the interior, look under the hood, and even pray about which car would be best. So the person decides to purchase to 2005 Hyundai because it's 22 years newer and it feels right. Obviously that would be the better deal. Besides it is much more attractive looking than that awful Gremlin. But what the seller didn't mention is that the Hyundai has 300,000 miles, has been totaled and only has a salvage title, has a cracked head gasket and the transmission is slipping. On the other hand, the Gremlin has been in a Gremlin showroom for the past 22 years, maintained impeccably and only has 10,000 original miles. Which deal sounds better now?

By withholding pertinent information the seller impacted the individual's agency in making an informed decision. Or if the buyer wasn't interested in gathering the complete information that was available, then he would likely make a bad decision. It is almost always better to have access to more information.

Regarding growth, I agree that growth can't be forced but it can be encouraged and facilitated. A good mentor will encourage a mentee to growth by challenging him to perform at a higher level in ways that aren't fully comfortable to the mentee. A lobster will shed its shell and hide under a rock for protection so that it can grow a new larger shell that it can grow into. Growth often causes temporary pain

Your points are valid.  I just think we are looking at it from different perspectives and different life experiences.

 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yep.  Which is no different in that sense, than what we have now.  The added benefit though is it'd inherently acknowledged that thoughts shared could be in error. 

That's true, but right now we have a manual that is supposed to function as the final authority on things presented.  Sunday school isn't a free for all where all ideas are granted equal time, validity, and voice for good reason.  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

That's true, but right now we have a manual that is supposed to function as the final authority on things presented.  Sunday school isn't a free for all where all ideas are granted equal time, validity, and voice for good reason.  

Don't think it's for good reason.  Indeed, the manuals are too problematic to be the final authority. 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Don't think it's for good reason.  Indeed, the manuals are too problematic to be the final authority. 

Our reasonable difference of opinion is probably an illustration of why, no matter how SS evolves, some people will think it's wrong and others will think it's right.  In that sense, one person's evolution is another's dead end. 

That's why "let's evolve" is a loaded statement and means different things to different people.

Having said that, the need for a final authority is one of the basic doctrines of our church.  It's one of the main ways that God's house remains a house of order.  A manual that is a final authority is not a perfect solution, but it is better than a class where every idea/doctrine/interpretation presented is equal in authority. 

[Duncan]

I think that a lot of this evolving just depends on who is in your stake and access to materials and someone who reads and studies. My Mom is a GD teacher and she has people in class who can barely read or don't speak english well and don't feel comfortable even speaking in class. Something i've noticed is people believe experts and so they can say something without much fanfare. So, par example if the late Truman Madsen said something shocking or something most people never even heard of who'd argue with him? whereas if I said the same thing they let the air out the car tires

Edited December 2, 2016 by Duncan

[churchistrue]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's true, but right now we have a manual that is supposed to function as the final authority on things presented.  Sunday school isn't a free for all where all ideas are granted equal time, validity, and voice for good reason.  

You've read the Gospel Doctrine "manual", I assume?

There is no "final authority".  There are occasional statements such as "explain that..." (with doctrinal or scriptural interpration).  But those are short and concise and would take about three minutes per class to cover.     There are references to various scripture, suggested discussion topics and questions, sometimes an "attention activity" or a story that's meant to allude to the scriptural passage.  All of these are open ended.  It would be impossible for the manual to cover or predict every possible permutation and provide "final authority".  The church doesn't work that way, anyway.  There are very few "final authority" doctrinal statements.  Most of the details are left for people to seek the Holy Ghost's guidance.

Sunday School basically is the opposite of your last sentence.  It IS a free for all where all ideas are granted equal time and validity, as long as they fit within the broad umbrella of possible interpretations of LDS scripture and doctrine.

When Mormon said this, I think he meant X.  Hand goes up, "I think he meant Y, and this is how I've related to myself."  Hand goes up, "I think he meant Z, and here's why."  It's not a bad thing.

 

 

 

[stemelbow]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Our reasonable difference of opinion is probably an illustration of why, no matter how SS evolves, some people will think it's wrong and others will think it's right.  In that sense, one person's evolution is another's dead end. 

That's why "let's evolve" is a loaded statement and means different things to different people.

Having said that, the need for a final authority is one of the basic doctrines of our church.  It's one of the main ways that God's house remains a house of order.  A manual that is a final authority is not a perfect solution, but it is better than a class where every idea/doctrine/interpretation presented is equal in authority. 

Having lived it for the past many years...it's not better. 

[Marmonboy]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

But my experience, in a ward that I regard as quite typical of the Church at large, is different from yours. I attend gospel doctrine class almost every week, and we never have people spouting off their own non-doctrinal opinion as fact.

 

 

I have attended two different wards in my 10+ years in this small Utah town, and in one, my wife quit attending GD class because the teacher kept making statements that weren't in the lesson, but his opinion on various topics. In the other one, we have not had that problem. So, Scott, it looks like you got one of the good wards.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Having lived it for the past many years...it's not better. 

Having also lived it for the past many years....i disagree. 

[Marmonboy]

20 hours ago, Jeanne said:

How about a CES coordinated effort for adults who want to know..or a discussion group for those who have no other way to talk about things?  What would that hurt?  Maybe use some of the guidelines/books that the seminary kids are using?  This would be a voluntary effort from those who are really interested;  So many older adults are having discussions with their grandkids...I think they would love it.  A challenge, of course..but it would help blend in the old and the new without stepping on too many toes or testimonies.

I think a discussion group for adults wanting to know more about the Gospel and Church and stuff is a wonderful idea! We should start one. Maybe we could call it Mormon Dialogue and Discussions, or something like that...

I think that the lessons should be updated from time to time. But some people may not be ready for the whole enchilada. I live in a farming town in Utah, and these old farmers don't know anything about Deutero-Isaiah, or stones in a hat, or Olmec/Jaredites, and to abruptly slap them in the face with it will not sit well. Milk before meat...first digest the milk, then you're mature enough to go for heavier fare.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Having also lived it for the past many years....i disagree. 

You're undoubtedly wrong

 

(-;

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

I think a discussion group for adults wanting to know more about the Gospel and Church and stuff is a wonderful idea! We should start one. Maybe we could call it Mormon Dialogue and Discussions, or something like that...

I think that the lessons should be updated from time to time. But some people may not be ready for the whole enchilada. I live in a farming town in Utah, and these old farmers don't know anything about Deutero-Isaiah, or stones in a hat, or Olmec/Jaredites, and to abruptly slap them in the face with it will not sit well. Milk before meat...first digest the milk, then you're mature enough to go for heavier fare.

You are speaking of my own home town..yeah, they don't know alot of the things we do..and they don't really want to..but their kids and grandkids do!!  What if they were to learn or at least ask a question posed to those kids who are asking...what can they do?  It will happen..even for those who wouldn't know what an internet was...it will happen and will it alienate a whole generation?  I know farmers that are just plain set in their ways..and I know farmers that have a shelf...Mormon Dialogue and Discussions isn't where they will be.  It will be in a classroom if anything else.  Yeah...like, I hear you and sometimes it frustrates me because these people are important and intelligent...they just don't know.

Edited to add:  My Dad found out two years ago about the stone and the hat...he is in his late 90s!!  He laughed at me and scorned me for mentioning it. I gave him documentation from an old Ensign ...He was not devasted..but very surprised of course.  We just need a dialogue outside the internet to help these people...many just 20 years younger than my Dad.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Jeanne

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

You've read the Gospel Doctrine "manual", I assume?

There is no "final authority".  There are occasional statements such as "explain that..." (with doctrinal or scriptural interpration).  But those are short and concise and would take about three minutes per class to cover.     There are references to various scripture, suggested discussion topics and questions, sometimes an "attention activity" or a story that's meant to allude to the scriptural passage.  All of these are open ended.  It would be impossible for the manual to cover or predict every possible permutation and provide "final authority".  The church doesn't work that way, anyway.  There are very few "final authority" doctrinal statements.  Most of the details are left for people to seek the Holy Ghost's guidance.

Sunday School basically is the opposite of your last sentence.  It IS a free for all where all ideas are granted equal time and validity, as long as they fit within the broad umbrella of possible interpretations of LDS scripture and doctrine.

When Mormon said this, I think he meant X.  Hand goes up, "I think he meant Y, and this is how I've related to myself."  Hand goes up, "I think he meant Z, and here's why."  It's not a bad thing.

 

 

 

I've been a member of 9 different wards, in the four different states since i was 24, and I can only speak from my personal experiences (and yes, i've read the different gospel doctrine manuals).  However, when i say that we need a manual to be a final authority, i'm not talking about stamping out "I think he meant X.  Hand goes up, "I think he meant Y, and this is how I've related to myself."  Hand goes up, "I think he meant Z, and here's why."

I'm talking about someone presenting the idea that the BOM is not historical, for example.  I don't think there's anything wrong with voicing that personal opinion, but it's not what the church teaches and that should be made clear.  In an LDS Sunday school class, an opinion that does not agree with what the church teaches probably shouldn't have equal time, voice, and authority as those things the church does teach. 

The church (ie. the manuals the church gives the teachers to use) should be the final authority.

Edited December 2, 2016 by bluebell

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You're undoubtedly wrong

 

(-;

Likewise.