Ben Spackman’s thoughts on Sunday School

[Bernard Gui]

22 hours ago, rongo said:

I think when you start pulling on the thread, it becomes most of the books as non-historical --- not parts of them. 

If there was an invasion of Canaan by Israelite tribes, then there certainly would have been war atrocities (which are always called genocide in our day). When you hold their feet to the fire, most LDS higher critics acknowledge that they don't believe there ever were tribes of Israel --- that they are cultural mythical heroes that people already in Canaan later came to identify their descent and attachment to. But that isn't the end of the thread --- continued pulling unravels almost everything. It leads to the same place as the "the Book of Mormon can still be inspiring if the people, places, and events never existed/happened." Many people have long since made that peace with the Bible, in order to accommodate the opinions of the higher critics.  

What do higher critics offer in the way of salvation? Serious question. 

[filovirus]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My observation is that understanding and studying the gospel is connected more with the baptism of fire and the gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost than it is with well-correlated instruction and lesson manuals (not that there's anything wrong with that). That spiritual power is what absorbs the “shocks” (one role of the “Comforter”, an very apt title in this case) about the covenants we make, the history we learn, and the policies that are in place. I left out doctrine because that “distills” upon us in a non-shocking way.

There are many in the CoJC that are starting to follow that line of thought. It is called an awakening, something similar to a born-again moment that other religions teach. This "awakening" is a covenant that they enter into with the Lord brought on by the baptism of fire. Many with this line of thought do not believe that the current leaders of the CoJC are called of God and rely solely on what Joseph Smith taught.

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, filovirus said:

There are many in the CoJC that are starting to follow that line of thought. It is called an awakening, something similar to a born-again moment that other religions teach. This "awakening" is a covenant that they enter into with the Lord brought on by the baptism of fire. Many with this line of thought do not believe that the current leaders of the CoJC are called of God and rely solely on what Joseph Smith taught.

What they are is modern day Godbeites.

[SkyRock]

The stated purpose of Sunday meetings is to help members have spiritual experiences.  Teaching of gospel truths is done properly through the Holy Ghost.

A poorly done talk or weak lesson still can be a vehicle for a spiritual experience.  The burden is on us to open our hearts to the Holy Ghost and seek for the words, thoughts, and feelings conveyed by the Holy Ghost. 

In other words, you get what you put into to it, just like with prayer, fasting, studying, pondering, service, etc.   Do you want the mighty change so you are transformed into a new being?  Then open your heart.

[let’s roll]

On 6/8/2022 at 7:19 PM, JarMan said:

I don't want to violate board rules, but because it's so relevant to the thread I'll share some personal information. I'm a 48 year old lifelong member. I've always had doubts and things because I'm kind of a science-y guy. But part of the fun has always been to combine my understanding of science with my understanding of the gospel to come up with a worldview that made sense to me. I've been a part of this board for a long time and I fondly recall past years when this board was mostly about apologetics instead of discussing rainbows every other thread. (But I digress. . .) I came here for years to be enlightened by those who understood the scriptures and church history much better than me and could help me understand how to continue to piece together seemingly incongruent parts. I did a ton of apologetic-type reading and research and over time became comfortable with a lot of the answers. There were things I still had to "put on the shelf" but I was okay with doing that because, after all, won't we have an eternity to sort everything out? I served in many callings over the years--and here comes the part that's relevant to this thread--for the first time I was called as Gospel Doctrine teacher. I started part way through a NT year and I resolved I was not going to teach the same class I had been a student in my whole life. From primary to seminary to BYU to Sunday School it had always been the same boring, sanitized, mindless, rote, flavorless gruel. It was gonna be different this time. I threw myself into this calling in a way I never had before with any other calling. I wanted to know the history so I started seriously researching the history. I wanted to understand the words that were always so familiar but just not quite understandable. So I started studying modern translations and reading commentary from a wide range of sources and found out to my delight that there was much more to these stories than I had imagined. I worked a lot of this extracurricular material into my lessons. People seemed to enjoy my classes and I got a lot of pleasure out of people telling me how much they had learned or had their interest held. A few times I was worried I had colored too far outside the lines but my bishops were always very complimentary about my classes and never offered a word of criticism or correction. One bishop acknowledged I was taking a different approach, but just smiled and told me my testimony shined through it all and to keep doing what I was doing.

I went through the church history year and hit all the hard issues using the church essays as the excuse to "go there." Often I would start the lesson with a perceived problem and we would work through the class so that by the end we had a solution. This was my way of working in all of the apologetic stuff I had learned over the years and felt very solid about. We spent an entire lesson on the MMM, discussed the First Vision Accounts openly and frankly, talked about race and the priesthood, and so on. I exposed every problem I knew about and had time to address and provided a faithful answer to the problem as best I could. I think I got people's attention, made them uncomfortable a little bit, and opened their eyes some and yet my instructions from my leaders were to keep on.

The Book of Mormon year was wonderful. I love the Book of Mormon. I truly believe (present tense) that it's the greatest work of literature ever produced. I was spending upwards of 20 hours each week preparing for my lessons and just enjoying the process of studying it with a purpose. I asked hard questions. Mostly these were about why the theology in the Book of Mormon is different from other standard works. I spent a lot of time on the faith/works paradigm in the Book of Mormon and identified teachings from other church leaders that seemed contradictory. We talked about of lot of important LDS theology that's absent from the Book of Mormon.

When we got to the OT year I threw myself in with even more vigor knowing this was my weakest area, but also knowing that understanding the OT would help me understand the Book of Mormon better. I didn't know this strategy would contribute (among other things) to a complete loss of my testimony. I studied the OT using both secular sources and faithful sources from other religious traditions and for the first time the OT began to make sense to me. I was finally getting a version of the stories and scriptures that didn't dance around the hard parts or distort the obvious meaning of what I was reading. OT people were typical ancient people who did typically atrocious ancient things, all the while thinking they were satisfying their pagan, blood-thirsty gods. But through it all--all the war, famine, destruction, captivity, and barbaric rituals--some of the people were able to develop an ethical code based around some core principles that resonate with us still today. This makes sense to me from a historical perspective because this is what was happening in other ancient societies around the world. The (partially) contemporary Greeks are a perfect example. I finally understood why the OT was so brutal. It's for the same reason Homer is so violent. It's because ancient people actually were very cruel and barbaric and both the OT and Homer are actually ancient texts. (Moderns may be just as brutal, in my opinion, but they're brutal in distinctly modern ways.)

The problem with all this is that Lehi and his family came out of this very same ancient culture, yet act surprisingly modern. Or rather, they act the way moderns are supposed to be. The Nephites don't take slaves from their defeated enemies. They show restraint against their enemies in warfare. They fight defensive wars only. They don't kill or conquer territory for their God. They don't perform wholesale butchery of defenseless people. These are the opposite of the ideals of ancient people.

Warfare and such is just one layer, of course. You also have to consider that the doctrine emanating from the Lehites is distinctly modern, or at the very least, not pre-exilic. There are dozens or hundreds of other anachronisms that others have pointed out. I held for years to ideas of expansionism or "creative interpretation" put forth by others to explain the anachronisms. But when I finally stepped back and looked at my world view that was supposed to accommodate both faith and reason, I realized it was a mess beyond repair. I had put so many things on the shelf there was literally nothing left but what was on the shelf. The most obvious answer here, applying Occam's (overused, but in this case, appropriate) Razor, was that I had built a castle of sand. And now, strangely, I have peace. The gospel never brought me that.

Thanks for sharing.  Would you mind sharing how you would describe your relationship with Deity during the events you described and how you would characterize the current state of that relationship?  Thanks.

Edited June 10, 2022 by let’s roll
Typo

[Rain]

4 hours ago, SkyRock said:

The stated purpose of Sunday meetings is to help members have spiritual experiences.  Teaching of gospel truths is done properly through the Holy Ghost.

A poorly done talk or weak lesson still can be a vehicle for a spiritual experience.  The burden is on us to open our hearts to the Holy Ghost and seek for the words, thoughts, and feelings conveyed by the Holy Ghost. 

It is really hard to teach children when they are physically hungry.  That hunger stands in the way of their concentration often.

A poorly done talk can be a vehicle for spiritual experiences, but sometimes when you don't feel you've received answers for months and years or when you struggle with this or that in the gospel a poorly taught lesson can stand in the way of receiving those spiritual experiences.

4 hours ago, SkyRock said:

In other words, you get what you put into to it, just like with prayer, fasting, studying, pondering, service, etc.   Do you want the mighty change so you are transformed into a new being?  Then open your heart.

We like to talk a lot about how the responsibility is on the individual, yet the church gives a lot of resources (outside the lesson manual) for teaching so that seems to show that there is some responsibility on the teacher as well.  

[rongo]

Notes from the zoom meeting with the general Sunday School presidency:

---

When President Pace was extended the call to be general Sunday School president in 2019, he asked President Nelson what his vision and focus should be. With no hesitation or thought, President Nelson answered, "Helping individuals and families study the gospel in the home, and improving the quality of teaching at church." 

Like the two great commandments, the focus on "home centered, church supported" is really two sides of the same coin. They complement and support each other, and without the "home centered" part, there is no power or influence in the "church supported" part. 

We need to move beyond "Come Follow Me," which is a minimum standard baseline. If that is the extent of it (checking boxes, "doing" CFM), we are living beneath our privileges. Still, "good, better, best," and for many, the bare minimum would be progress and a starting point. 

We need to be careful about relying on "after market" supplements (podcasts, purchased extra-curricular helps) as the mainstay of lessons. There is no substitute for "pure doctrine" and the scriptures.

The Church is able to analyze Gospel Library usage, which gives some idea of usage and utilization, but this doesn't give a full picture [rongo: there are people like me, for example, who prefer paper scriptures and don't use apps for study, who will always be beyond LDS Tools or Gospel Library analytics].

In 2018, President Nelson gave four promises for those who embrace the "home centered" program: 1) The Sabbath will be a delight, 2) Children will be filled with enthusiasm for learning, 3) The influence of the devil will vastly be decreased, 4) There will be dramatic and sustained positive changes in families.

In 2020, President Nelson promised that embracing "home centered" program would give divine help in navigating the upheaval and difficulties of our time and enable spiritual survival.

To those called to preside over teaching, what are you going to do differently? Are we going to just keep doing the same things we've always done?

Our teachers have a sacred trust to teach with the power and authority of God. Leading inspired discussions is important, but teaching is so much more than that. Per handbook guidance, words such as "moderator," "facilitator," or "discussion leader" should not be used when calling or setting apart teachers. They are to be called as teachers.

[rongo: a graphic was shown of an X and Y axis intersecting at right angles to give four quadrants. The top was labeled "doctrine by the Spirit." The right end was labeled "discussion." The bottom was labeled "information, history, context." The left was labeled "lecture"]

Question: what quadrant should church teaching be in? After discussion, most agreed "quadrant #1" ("doctrine by the Spirit/discussion). The point was made that this is generally true, but navigating the quadrants is fluid, and there is no rigid, set "preferred location." The teacher needs to know the needs of the class and individuals and be flexible in moving through quadrants ("discussion/info," "info/lecture," "lecture/doctrine by the Spirit"). 

We were shown a copy of the new integrated manual that will be launched after the Elder Uchtdorf broadcast on Sunday (it should show up in the Gospel library in place of "Teaching No Greater Call"). 

Teacher council meetings: are they happening, or did they run out of steam long ago (mileage will vary based on locale). Observations: often, the "share and counsel" and "teach a principle" parts are well-covered, but we run out of time for the "practice and invite" part. Recommendation: hold meetings to 45 minutes, and split them equally into 15 minute blocs and then make sure you efficiently "cover" all three areas.

Primary is its own organization and teacher training is supervised by the primary presidency --- often using substitutes during sharing time to cycle through teachers. Primary presidents **may** choose to have their teachers join the Sunday School teacher council meetings instead (up to them). 

Handbook references for Sunday School leaders should be studied on our own. 

[rongo: this surprised me] Stake Sunday School presidencies should also visit Relief Society classes to observe lessons --- but consult with the bishops and the RS presidents first. Don't just show up and have some random strange guy in a suit in a RS class.

Experienced teachers often feel like they know it all and have nothing to gain from teacher trainings. Try to instill humility and a feeling like they can gain and grow. 

Ward Sunday School presidencies should find out from ward councils what the specific teacher improvement needs in the ward are. 

Edited June 10, 2022 by rongo

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

[rongo: this surprised me] Stake Sunday School presidencies should also visit Relief Society classes to observe lessons --- but consult with the bishops and the RS presidents first. Don't just show up and have some random strange guy in a suit in a RS class.

We were told that the stake Sunday School presidency should be visiting gospel doctrine, youth Sunday School, elders quorum, and Relief Society lessons in the stake. That's a lot of classes! I'm wondering what women will think about visits from "men in black?" What would men think if unknown women from the stake came to observe elders quorum meetings? 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, filovirus said:

There are many in the CoJC that are starting to follow that line of thought. It is called an awakening, something similar to a born-again moment that other religions teach. This "awakening" is a covenant that they enter into with the Lord brought on by the baptism of fire. Many with this line of thought do not believe that the current leaders of the CoJC are called of God and rely solely on what Joseph Smith taught.

That never, ever crossed my mind. It seems nuts to me, an example of misapplying a good principle. I also think it is an example of rationalizing disbelief in the current leaders' calling since belief in their legitimate calling can be held along with the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, filovirus said:

There are many in the CoJC that are starting to follow that line of thought. It is called an awakening, something similar to a born-again moment that other religions teach. This "awakening" is a covenant that they enter into with the Lord brought on by the baptism of fire. Many with this line of thought do not believe that the current leaders of the CoJC are called of God and rely solely on what Joseph Smith taught.

Where is this happening? Could you provide more details?

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, SkyRock said:

The stated purpose of Sunday meetings is to help members have spiritual experiences.  Teaching of gospel truths is done properly through the Holy Ghost.

A poorly done talk or weak lesson still can be a vehicle for a spiritual experience.  The burden is on us to open our hearts to the Holy Ghost and seek for the words, thoughts, and feelings conveyed by the Holy Ghost. 

In other words, you get what you put into to it, just like with prayer, fasting, studying, pondering, service, etc.   Do you want the mighty change so you are transformed into a new being?  Then open your heart.

That is shifting the burden a bit too far. The reality is that if you teach truth the Holy Ghost flows. I have shared this before here but the greatest gospel teacher I have ever known told me that if you teach truth the Holy Ghost will teach what it needs to. He also said that the way to know that that is working is someone comes up to you afterwards and thanks you for teaching about X when the talk or lesson had nothing to do with X. You weren’t doing the teaching at that point.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

Notes from the zoom meeting with the general Sunday School presidency:

---

When President Pace was extended the call to be general Sunday School president in 2019, he asked President Nelson what his vision and focus should be. With no hesitation or thought, President Nelson answered, "Helping individuals and families study the gospel in the home, and improving the quality of teaching at church." 

Like the two great commandments, the focus on "home centered, church supported" is really two sides of the same coin. They complement and support each other, and without the "home centered" part, there is no power or influence in the "church supported" part. 

We need to move beyond "Come Follow Me," which is a minimum standard baseline. If that is the extent of it (checking boxes, "doing" CFM), we are living beneath our privileges. Still, "good, better, best," and for many, the bare minimum would be progress and a starting point. 

We need to be careful about relying on "after market" supplements (podcasts, purchased extra-curricular helps) as the mainstay of lessons. There is no substitute for "pure doctrine" and the scriptures.

The Church is able to analyze Gospel Library usage, which gives some idea of usage and utilization, but this doesn't give a full picture [rongo: there are people like me, for example, who prefer paper scriptures and don't use apps for study, who will always be beyond LDS Tools or Gospel Library analytics].

I noticed an assumption several years ago when they saw the access was Saturday night or Sunday and the assumption was everyone doing it last minute. I don't doubt there was a lot of last minute, but for me at the time it was either reviewing or printing something I had been already studying. So the assumption without verification didn't mean much to me. 

6 hours ago, rongo said:

In 2018, President Nelson gave four promises for those who embrace the "home centered" program: 1) The Sabbath will be a delight, 2) Children will be filled with enthusiasm for learning, 3) The influence of the devil will vastly be decreased, 4) There will be dramatic and sustained positive changes in families.

In 2020, President Nelson promised that embracing "home centered" program would give divine help in navigating the upheaval and difficulties of our time and enable spiritual survival.

To those called to preside over teaching, what are you going to do differently? Are we going to just keep doing the same things we've always done?

Our teachers have a sacred trust to teach with the power and authority of God. Leading inspired discussions is important, but teaching is so much more than that. Per handbook guidance, words such as "moderator," "facilitator," or "discussion leader" should not be used when calling or setting apart teachers. They are to be called as teachers.

[rongo: a graphic was shown of an X and Y axis intersecting at right angles to give four quadrants. The top was labeled "doctrine by the Spirit." The right end was labeled "discussion." The bottom was labeled "information, history, context." The left was labeled "lecture"]

Question: what quadrant should church teaching be in? After discussion, most agreed "quadrant #1" ("doctrine by the Spirit/discussion). The point was made that this is generally true, but navigating the quadrants is fluid, and there is no rigid, set "preferred location." The teacher needs to know the needs of the class and individuals and be flexible in moving through quadrants ("discussion/info," "info/lecture," "lecture/doctrine by the Spirit"). 

That sounds consistent with what I've always felt and understood from gospel resources on teaching.

6 hours ago, rongo said:

We were shown a copy of the new integrated manual that will be launched after the Elder Uchtdorf broadcast on Sunday (it should show up in the Gospel library in place of "Teaching No Greater Call"). 

Teacher council meetings: are they happening, or did they run out of steam long ago (mileage will vary based on locale). Observations: often, the "share and counsel" and "teach a principle" parts are well-covered, but we run out of time for the "practice and invite" part. Recommendation: hold meetings to 45 minutes, and split them equally into 15 minute blocs and then make sure you efficiently "cover" all three areas.

Primary is its own organization and teacher training is supervised by the primary presidency --- often using substitutes during sharing time to cycle through teachers. Primary presidents **may** choose to have their teachers join the Sunday School teacher council meetings instead (up to them). 

Handbook references for Sunday School leaders should be studied on our own. 

[rongo: this surprised me] Stake Sunday School presidencies should also visit Relief Society classes to observe lessons --- but consult with the bishops and the RS presidents first. Don't just show up and have some random strange guy in a suit in a RS class.

Experienced teachers often feel like they know it all and have nothing to gain from teacher trainings. Try to instill humility and a feeling like they can gain and grow. 

Ward Sunday School presidencies should find out from ward councils what the specific teacher improvement needs in the ward are. 

 

[Rain]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

We were told that the stake Sunday School presidency should be visiting gospel doctrine, youth Sunday School, elders quorum, and Relief Society lessons in the stake. That's a lot of classes! I'm wondering what women will think about visits from "men in black?" What would men think if unknown women from the stake came to observe elders quorum meetings? 

I think what you said here is key "but consult with the bishops and the RS presidents first". If teacher improvement is under Sunday School it makes sense to see how teachers outside of Sunday School are teaching. But since the RS presidency is called over RS it makes sense to talk with them to see what if any needs they feel their own teachers have.  More of SSP is a resource for those classes outside of SS, not as a leader for them.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, ksfisher said:

🙂

I am sorry your tendersensibilitiess cannot handle some honest criticism.😏

Edited June 10, 2022 by Teancum

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Religion is not science nor is it scientific alleged "factual religious history" (a myth as imagined as religious parables, but without their ability to teach).

Yes I know this is how you see it. I still believe you are small minority in the church as well as how most people approach their religion.

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Dumbing down?

Yes indeed.  Just see @JLHPROF comments.

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not enough!!!

Huh?

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We still cannot understand that all could be fairy tales or observations but it doesn't matter.

We should be discussing the significance of the lessons of the stories, not documentation or linguistics, and applying the lessons to our lives.

And you think that happens in most LDS ward SS classes? Certainly not in my experience.

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If we cannot do so ourselves then "dumbed down" Sunday school is the answer, so some who get it can enlighten those who can't.

The lessons are not important

The MEANINGS of the stories and how they can improve our lives, are everything!

And as noted I don't think this happens much.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

It is really hard to teach children when they are physically hungry.  That hunger stands in the way of their concentration often.

A poorly done talk can be a vehicle for spiritual experiences, but sometimes when you don't feel you've received answers for months and years or when you struggle with this or that in the gospel a poorly taught lesson can stand in the way of receiving those spiritual experiences.

We like to talk a lot about how the responsibility is on the individual, yet the church gives a lot of resources (outside the lesson manual) for teaching so that seems to show that there is some responsibility on the teacher as well.  

I count those members that attend your lessons very lucky, either currently or in the near future. You'll make for an excellent GD teacher! You're not all about yourself. You really care about each member and you will empathize with people like me or others that struggle with things. Wish I could attend!

[rongo]

15 hours ago, bsjkki said:

After teaching RS, I came to the conclusion it was meant to be a gospel living support group. I think that is its purpose. I think Come Follow Me has shifted Sunday School to that same arena.

The zoom meeting gave me the sense that they do **not** want Sunday School to be a Bob Newhart group therapy session.  

15 hours ago, bsjkki said:

 I enjoyed the new gospel topics essays. For others, they destroyed their faith. When in a faith crisis, it seems we don't provide a place to ask hard questions. I'm not sure how to fix that. I came here. I read the controversies and stayed. I sometimes wish there was a place to discuss harder questions in person but how would we do that? 

It's really a case of "location roulette" when it comes to asking and discussing hard questions in person (face-to-face), which is why people interested in that seek out online forums. There is a need/demand for it, but leaders would have to be darn sure about those answering. People were really invigorated at the "ask anything" Q&A firesides I was asked to give years ago, but having that be a widespread thing done by many people in many places would be a disaster. The Brethren themselves are not good at all at answering hard questions in Q&A, in my experience; local people who are good at it are better.

We did a fireside in France after the FAIR Conference in Germany in 2009, and the stake presidency that had set up the fireside had just been released. The new stake president was **very** nervous about what was going on (who are these people), and met with us with an interpreter before allowing the fireside to go on. He did not allow Q&A. After it was over, one lady commented to me and my wife (her name was Zarida --- I still remember that) that she wished there were more things like that. We had a man from Church Archives, Jeff Bradshaw, me, and Scott Gordon. When my ward put on a series of firesides with "ask anything" Q&A afterwards (that went long into the night), it was a real shot-in-the-arm for a lot of members, but I don't know how you could replicate that with quality control for other areas. It really depends on local variation. 

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why then do you attend?

We enjoy the fellowship. Let me reiterate that . . . we attend the ward because we enjoy the fellowship with our fellow Christians. The vast majority of them also teach us via their lived lives. We attend Sacrament because we enjoy taking the sacrament and remembering and recommitting to our covenants we have made with God. We enjoy and learn from some of the talks. However we attend the ward for the fellowship with those of a like mind.

[filovirus]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Where is this happening? Could you provide more details?

(This is off topic from the original post, so skip if you have no interest)

Well, I do a lot of driving for work, so I listen to podcasts. All types. I decided to start listening to some lds positive podcasts and as I was doing a search, I found one titled "The Doctrine of Christ". It was current and had quite a few episodes. So I listened to the newest one, and something seemed to be just a bit "off" from normal teaching. So I listened to a couple more until it struck me that these are members of the CoJC who do not support the current leadership as prophets of God.

I dug a little deeper and found that they have a facebook group. So I joined. One of the questions to join is: do you more believe the words from the scriptures or the words from the current prophets and apostles (I'm paraphrasing here). Of course I answered the one that would allow me to join. It actually has quite a large following.

Anyway, it seems that the members "awaken" to the knowledge that the CoJC has gone astray, but they still support the standard works of scripture as the word of God, including the BoM and D&C. They call this awakening being "baptized by fire". Most it seems are still members of the CoJC and attend regularly. Where they differ is that they no longer believe in teachings of modern day prophets after Joseph Smith. This, I believe, is their way of getting around some of the more controversial history or teachings. Blacks and the priesthood. The proclamation regarding the family. Tithing and WoW issues. It's almost like a reboot back to Joseph Smith.

I don't know if they care to be temple recommend holders. It seems that they believe that Brigham Young instigated most the temple ordinances and rituals, so those are not needed for salvation. I have seen that they are collecting money to build a temple, but not sure for what purpose. They do believe that Joseph Smith will return in some capacity to lead the saints. They are also waiting for a new Joseph Smith type figure to lead the CoJC.

I probably got some of this wrong, so if anyone else has any information, they can correct me.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

Notes from the zoom meeting with the general Sunday School presidency:

 

[rongo: a graphic was shown of an X and Y axis intersecting at right angles to give four quadrants. The top was labeled "doctrine by the Spirit." The right end was labeled "discussion." The bottom was labeled "information, history, context." The left was labeled "lecture"]

Question: what quadrant should church teaching be in? After discussion, most agreed "quadrant #1" ("doctrine by the Spirit/discussion). The point was made that this is generally true, but navigating the quadrants is fluid, and there is no rigid, set "preferred location." The teacher needs to know the needs of the class and individuals and be flexible in moving through quadrants ("discussion/info," "info/lecture," "lecture/doctrine by the Spirit"). 

Did they discuss at all how a teacher or class spends time in quadrant #1 without using the other three quadrants to do it?  Like, if we removed the other three quadrants and were not allowed to do them, how would we teach just for quadrant #1?

(I'm asking because it seems like teaching in #1 is only possible through #2-4, but your notes make it sound like leadership does not see #1 as being dependent on the other quadrants, and I'd like to understand that better).

Quote

We were shown a copy of the new integrated manual that will be launched after the Elder Uchtdorf broadcast on Sunday (it should show up in the Gospel library in place of "Teaching No Greater Call"). 

I haven't even heard this manual (TNGC) referenced in years.  Who exactly is using it at church?  Is this the manual for Teaching in the Savior's Way and I've just forgotten that's what it's called?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

(This is off topic from the original post, so skip if you have no interest)

Well, I do a lot of driving for work, so I listen to podcasts. All types. I decided to start listening to some lds positive podcasts and as I was doing a search, I found one titled "The Doctrine of Christ". It was current and had quite a few episodes. So I listened to the newest one, and something seemed to be just a bit "off" from normal teaching. So I listened to a couple more until it struck me that these are members of the CoJC who do not support the current leadership as prophets of God.

I dug a little deeper and found that they have a facebook group. So I joined. One of the questions to join is: do you more believe the words from the scriptures or the words from the current prophets and apostles (I'm paraphrasing here). Of course I answered the one that would allow me to join. It actually has quite a large following.

Anyway, it seems that the members "awaken" to the knowledge that the CoJC has gone astray, but they still support the standard works of scripture as the word of God, including the BoM and D&C. They call this awakening being "baptized by fire". Most it seems are still members of the CoJC and attend regularly. Where they differ is that they no longer believe in teachings of modern day prophets after Joseph Smith. This, I believe, is their way of getting around some of the more controversial history or teachings. Blacks and the priesthood. The proclamation regarding the family. Tithing and WoW issues. It's almost like a reboot back to Joseph Smith.

I don't know if they care to be temple recommend holders. It seems that they believe that Brigham Young instigated most the temple ordinances and rituals, so those are not needed for salvation. I have seen that they are collecting money to build a temple, but not sure for what purpose. They do believe that Joseph Smith will return in some capacity to lead the saints. They are also waiting for a new Joseph Smith type figure to lead the CoJC.

I probably got some of this wrong, so if anyone else has any information, they can correct me.

Are they polygamists then?  That is one controversial historical issue that their approach can't avoid.

Edited June 10, 2022 by pogi

[SkyRock]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is shifting the burden a bit too far. The reality is that if you teach truth the Holy Ghost flows. I have shared this before here but the greatest gospel teacher I have ever known told me that if you teach truth the Holy Ghost will teach what it needs to. He also said that the way to know that that is working is someone comes up to you afterwards and thanks you for teaching about X when the talk or lesson had nothing to do with X. You weren’t doing the teaching at that point.

The Spirit teaches and guides independently of the words expressed.   That is why the same passage of scripture can provide different answers and guidance.   All spiritual learning is done through the spirit and the spoken or written word is merely the vehicle. 

Many years ago I was in a ward that was mostly young married adults with the median age for men being 28.  The  Elders Quorum was huge, well over 100 attending each week.  The High Priest group was the bare minimum.

The two Elders Quorum instructors couldn't be more different.  One was a young lawyer and gave scholarly lessons.   The other worked construction and gave humble basic lessons.   Often I would have a better spiritual experience with the second, even though I appreciated the lessons of the first.   He just humbly sought guidance from the Holy Ghost and did the best he could.   It worked.

Neither lessons would have mattered if I was distracted and not paying attention. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

(This is off topic from the original post, so skip if you have no interest)

Well, I do a lot of driving for work, so I listen to podcasts. All types. I decided to start listening to some lds positive podcasts and as I was doing a search, I found one titled "The Doctrine of Christ". It was current and had quite a few episodes. So I listened to the newest one, and something seemed to be just a bit "off" from normal teaching. So I listened to a couple more until it struck me that these are members of the CoJC who do not support the current leadership as prophets of God.

I dug a little deeper and found that they have a facebook group. So I joined. One of the questions to join is: do you more believe the words from the scriptures or the words from the current prophets and apostles (I'm paraphrasing here). Of course I answered the one that would allow me to join. It actually has quite a large following.

Anyway, it seems that the members "awaken" to the knowledge that the CoJC has gone astray, but they still support the standard works of scripture as the word of God, including the BoM and D&C. They call this awakening being "baptized by fire". Most it seems are still members of the CoJC and attend regularly. Where they differ is that they no longer believe in teachings of modern day prophets after Joseph Smith. This, I believe, is their way of getting around some of the more controversial history or teachings. Blacks and the priesthood. The proclamation regarding the family. Tithing and WoW issues. It's almost like a reboot back to Joseph Smith.

I don't know if they care to be temple recommend holders. It seems that they believe that Brigham Young instigated most the temple ordinances and rituals, so those are not needed for salvation. I have seen that they are collecting money to build a temple, but not sure for what purpose. They do believe that Joseph Smith will return in some capacity to lead the saints. They are also waiting for a new Joseph Smith type figure to lead the CoJC.

I probably got some of this wrong, so if anyone else has any information, they can correct me.

I believe they're a remnant type group, similar to Snuffer.
https://doctrineofchrist.com/

There's a marked increase in these types of groups and beliefs.
They are all waiting for a "Davidic Servant" or "End Time Servant" or "Marred Servant" or "One Mighty and Strong".
Mostly they accept the Book of Mormon, hate Brigham Young and believe he and Willard Richards/Heber C. Kimball/John Taylor changed the gospel Joseph taught into what became the Utah Church - Brighamites.
They reject certain sections of the D&C, especially 132.
Often they have unique ideas on priesthood authority or keys.

They equally hate President Nelson, especially since he recommended the Covid vaccine.  They don't believe the leaders of the Church are actually prophets at all.

There's actually quite a few variations in this movement.  I think Snuffer was first.  So of course more began appearing.
There was even a conference a few months back https://www.rescuingtherestoration.com/

Big fat nothing burger if you ask me.

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are they polygamists then?  That is one controversial historical issue that their approach can't avoid.

No, like Snuffer they either don't believe Joseph was a polygamist or that he was fallen because of it.

Edited June 10, 2022 by JLHPROF

[SkyRock]

11 hours ago, Rain said:

It is really hard to teach children when they are physically hungry.  That hunger stands in the way of their concentration often.

A poorly done talk can be a vehicle for spiritual experiences, but sometimes when you don't feel you've received answers for months and years or when you struggle with this or that in the gospel a poorly taught lesson can stand in the way of receiving those spiritual experiences.

We like to talk a lot about how the responsibility is on the individual, yet the church gives a lot of resources (outside the lesson manual) for teaching so that seems to show that there is some responsibility on the teacher as well.  

The church is the vehicle.  We must actually get in.  The teachers should do the best they can, but they are just like we are, flawed souls trying the best they can.  Likewise, speakers in church are not paid professional clergy, and many just try their best and have limitations.   Resources only go so far.   

Everyone should pray for help from the Holy Ghost and pray for a spiritual experience during the meetings. 

Yes, life is difficult and full of distractions.   I have gone to many church meetings distracted by my young children, health problems, work problems, etc. and mostly gotten nothing out of it more than just knowing I went.  I have prayed for answers for years that never came.   

And sometimes a random word from a mediocre talk will actually provide me with an answer for which I have been searching.   

And sometimes I have found answers to be the Lord wants me to increase in patience and humility and learn more than suffering.   I don't always like those answers.   They are not quick and easy miracles.   But I am grateful for the blessings I have received and changes that came from trials.

 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes I know this is how you see it. I still believe you are small minority in the church as well as how most people approach their religion.

I have studied this solution for over 60 years and it is the only rational explanation I have found, as I see it.  Anyone with a philosophical background could and probably already looks at it this way.  I really don't see how the notion that "most people approach their religion differently" is relevant to anything.   Why would you even say that? 

Notice that this view of physics is exactly the approach I am using with religion.   Religion is based on the experiences we have and how we as humans create the reality which seems to match, using "paradigms"

I intend to start a thread on this soon- most contemporary philosophers now accept variations of this view that when we have an experience, we create a paradigm to explain it- so science - and I and others would say religion- produces views of what we call "reality" based on human perception.   

The human brain sits in a "box" made of bone with only human senses to tell it what is "outside" the box - and it takes the input and creates PERCEPTIONS of what we think is "reality" while all we "actually" know is what our brain tells us.   

Here, let me have a pro teach you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-aP1J-BdvE

If you get it right away, you can stop at about minute 7 or so but it only gets better- so I highly recommend the whole video that keeps pushing it pushing it home.  Great stuff.

So we create God based on our observations and experiences, just like we create reality AS WE KNOW IT.   God is REAL INSOFAR as we have experienced "HIM" according to our testimonies and religious experiences.   Want your own?  Read Moroni 10!

Do most people see reality this way?   How is that relevant? 

Do most people see God this way?  How is that relevant?

Most people need to think it through for themselves and examine the evidence.   

Are most people going to do that?

Remember all that Rorty stuff?   Same thing.

 

Quote

 

" To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

Remember this video?   Same thing

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?language=en

.... and a thousand others.

This is not wacko Bukowski preaching his wacky observations of the Church of Jesus Christ, but is speaking of Humanity Creating Worlds.

We are doing it right now.

No, "most people" don't see it that way.   

Best to you, mi amigo! 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2022 by mfbukowski