• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Problems With Sunday School Lessons

tomato1236

Ninja Master
Problem #1:
I recently moved back home with my folks and attended their ward. Yesterday was my second Sunday, and both weeks the teacher recommended that we read this or that book by whom and whomsoever. The first week the guy literally had a stack of 5-6 books on the table and read off their titles and authors.

Do you see an issue with this?

Problem #2: One of the teachers was reading from Isaiah. This isn't the problem. He was going verse by verse picking them apart by his understanding of their meaning, and at times, taught things about the different translations of the septuagent and KJV that was proof that there was no way that Joseph Smith made it all up.

Do you see an issue with this?
 
#1 problem, Teachers are told that they can only teach from the manuals so I don't think it is right that he is suggesting books for you to read while in class.

#2 problem, it seems strange he would do that in that setting.

I think that I would talk to the Bishop about it so he can address it with the individual or he can tell you why it was OK.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Problem #1:
I recently moved back home with my folks and attended their ward. Yesterday was my second Sunday, and both weeks the teacher recommended that we read this or that book by whom and whomsoever. The first week the guy literally had a stack of 5-6 books on the table and read off their titles and authors.

Do you see an issue with this?

Problem #2: One of the teachers was reading from Isaiah. This isn't the problem. He was going verse by verse picking them apart by his understanding of their meaning, and at times, taught things about the different translations of the septuagent and KJV that was proof that there was no way that Joseph Smith made it all up.

Do you see an issue with this?

No, I don't see a problem with any of that. Sunday School isn't meant to be a testimony meeting. It should engage the mind.

Per this statment: "He was going verse by verse picking them apart by his understanding of their meaning..." if the fellow says something that doesn't seem kosher to you, then hopefully you would be interested enough to search out the "right" answer.
 

tomato1236

Ninja Master
No, I don't see a problem with any of that. Sunday School isn't meant to be a testimony meeting. It should engage the mind.

Per this statment: "He was going verse by verse picking them apart by his understanding of their meaning..." if the fellow says something that doesn't seem kosher to you, then hopefully you would be interested enough to search out the "right" answer.

The verse by verse part is fine. I don't see a problem with that. But teaching evidences seems fishy to me.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi Tomato1236;

Though I am not a scholar, I sometimes attend meetings with scholars on certain subjects and find it interesting that, even when the subject is very, very specialized, the degree of disagreement throughout the room is significant sometimes. Still, they most often allow the speaker to present his data because they realize that much of the important progress is made outside in the halls, as they discuss the implications of what was said; what value it has to current models of thought; why some of it was wrong (thus strengthening prior conclusion) or why some of it was correct (thus modifying prior conclusion).

Having this as a background, If I can, could I just throw out a few thoughts I had about this issue of teaching historical issues in general.


1) Not all types of doctrines are of equal value.

Truths upon which salvation is based need to be as correct as possible and I think in these doctrines one can go terribly wrong if one is not grounded in the best facts one can obtain. However, there are many non-salvational “doctrines” and speculations we make that are untrue, especially regarding history. Many errors of historical data do us little salvational harm if we get them wrong and do us little salvational good if we get them right. Historical doctrines ARE important to the extent that the affect Salvational doctrines.

If your teacher speculates incorrectly regarding Isaiah sometimes, well, so does everybody else, including the best world class scholars. If the teacher gets faith in God and baptism and the holy Ghost correct, then he’s worth a great deal. We all are specialists and do well in some areas of knowledge and struggle in other areas.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there are very few specific things we really know (that we REALLY KNOW). There are many things we believe in strongly, but we do not know if these beliefs are true. And there are thousands of things we merely speculate on as we consider the nature of this existence. Most very ancient historical data in general (and Isaiah specifically) tend to fall into the speculative area. Thus, if the teacher is speculating, then he’s merely doing what 99% of others are doing AND, importantly, the TYPE of doctrine he is teaching, may not BE salvational and important but simply a model of what might have been going on. If you analyze forum arguments, most of them involve speculative issues, and are argued with incomplete and poor data. Often arguments arise from the mixing of speculation with bits of belief with bits of knowledge.

2) Engaging the mind.
Regarding Orontes statement that lessons should “engage the mind” (post #4), I think Orontes has, once again, cut to the chase. I attended a (non-LDS) church lecture where the minister spoke on “Why God created man”. His theory was that “God was lonely” and needed companionship just as old people want pets. Though the underlying presumption was incorrect, the content of his lecture, contained firm data y that I could pick through for bits and piece of what was important. My mind was engaged in the analysis of WHY some churches could teach this as doctrine and how such a presumption would drive their speculations and doctrines that would result from this specific belief. For me, the doctrine taught was incorrect, but my mind still fascinated by the implications of the doctrine being taught.


3) Allowing teachers to take a provisional positions on non-salvational speculations
Another philosophical consideration is that the teacher seems, to at least be TAKING a position and discussing a tangible model of what might be correct. There are teachers that water down the issues so much that there is nothing left to consider doctrinally.

If a teacher offers a position, then one can mull it over and consider the theory in multiple ways and then modify it, culling the error and retaining what is fine, in such a way, come closer to a coherent model as to what the truth is.

One of the early Christian prayers described some of the principles early christian converts were to learn :
“1 Let the one who is to be instructed in piety be taught before baptism: knowledge concerning the unbegotten God, understanding concerning the only begotten son, and full assurance concerning the Holy spirit. 2 Let him learn the order of a distinguished creation, the sequence of providence, the judgment seats of different legislation, why the world came to be and why man was appointed a world citizen. 3 Let him understand his own nature, of what sort it is. Let him be educated in how God punished the wicked...5 And how God, though he foresaw, did not abandon the race of men, but summoned them at various times from error and folly into the understanding of truth....6 Let the one who offers himself learn during his instruction these things and those that are related to them. (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - # 8 Instruction for the Catechumens (AposCon 7.39.2-4)
I once belonged to a non-denominational Church where the minister could not deviate from the very simple but important principles such as : Jesus died to save us; we should love one another; we should have faith in God, etc. He could not discuss most of these other principles issues since the congregation was so very mixed in their beliefs that to deviate from the few things the members DID agree on meant certain dissension and argument.

You also did not say if the teacher was correct or not in his doctrine, but you seem to be taking exception to HOW the teacher taught Isaiah.


4) All provisional models are based on our varying (and constantly changing) levels of understanding
My 3 yr old son once asked about the nature of nuclear reactions (a subject I know only a minuscule amount about). If we were going to have a "Father-Son" discussion, then I had to offer an explanation that I thought a three-year old could understand. My "explanation" involved atoms “getting angry at each other” and colliding in violent ways. My explanation on magnetic attraction might have involved two magnets “have ends that like each other and want to be together like mommy and me, and the other ends “don’t like” each other and “want” to be as far apart as possible.

The explanations were, for chemists and physicists, pure rubbish, but they were a models that a three year old could understand. That model would, of course, have to change as my son aged and increased in knowledge and understanding. IF he was unable to let go of the original models, then he could never modify his thinking so as to advance to the more correct models. Now, that he is older and I have to ask HIM to explain nuclear reactions to me since his understanding has surpassed mine.

I enjoy early Judao-christian history and the doctrinal themes described their sacred texts and diaries and hymns, etc. However, almost all the early models one makes about history are somewhat erroneous and provisional and, (if one is true to themselves), must be altered as one gains better information. For example, both early and the more modern biblical pictures portray an incorrect and incomplete version of history. One can see this visually in the early pictoral models of bible stories. Consider a picture of “Jacobs ladder” taken from a 1557 Luther translation :

1557lutherjacobsladder.jpg

The picture has the stock story elements : Jacob, whose head is on a stone, angels with wings upon the ladder; God the Father is up in heaven; allwith a very quaint and very incorrect middle ages and very european village in the background. The point is that the mental historical picture we make (and we all must speculate if we are to consider history in any depth), is incorrect. Consider another picture from (I think) the 1534 Luther translation (the version that caused such a furor when Luther intentionally changed the ten commandments in exodus ...) :

1532lutherannointingofdavid.jpg

Again, it is a stock mental picture. We see the priest anointing David, however, all of the men are dressed in very fine and very european clothes. If you study such pictures, almost all of them contain multiple anachronisms and mistakes. Still, however contaminated the model is, with non-factual data, it attempts to represented an authentic historical fact.

part two of two follows
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
part two of two


A picture from the 1611 King James has Zelicah (Potiphars wife), trying to seduce the young Joseph in the middle of a completely european city with multiple people in typical european dress, looking on.

The point is simply that we all have imperfections and biases in how we imagine history to be. We have imperfections and biases in doctrinal and moral rules as well. We cannot help but contaminate our speculation with bits and pieces of speculative data that float around in our brains and in our hearts.

This is how I see us in our relationship with truths.
I do not think that holding on to our current understanding “at all costs” is the truest representation of faith, nor an efficient way to gain truths and clearer perspective either in life or in religion. I think we need to be specifically looking FOR the errors in our speculations and learn to be grateful when we find them.

This was one principle that I loved about the LDS theology as I understand it. It is a journey toward truth that is propelled forward by discovery of error rather than some desperate holding on to tradition for traditions sake.

I hope you can train your mind to be engaged in productive thought during all of life’s lessons. If nothing else, you will learn what you do not want to do when YOU teach a lesson and why you do not want to do it, and what you think is better. Learning what doesn’t work well is as important as what does work well.


Good Luck Tomato1236 in coming to grips with these things in your spiritual journey.

Clear
sisiss
 
Last edited:

DavyCrocket2003

Well-Known Member
No, I don't see a problem with any of that. Sunday School isn't meant to be a testimony meeting. It should engage the mind.

I agree. But unless it somehow changes something inside of us, it's all for naught. I think sometimes people forget that. The power of teaching correct doctrine is that it actually does change people. If we start straying from expounding the core doctrines of the Gospel, we leave behind the real life sustaining bread and meat and instead of having our cups filled, we go away empty handed.
 

Arkholt

Non-vessel
Perhaps the wards I've been in have been different, but the Sunday School teachers simply teach from the scriptures and the congregation gives their comments. There usually isn't a whole lot of time to talk about a bunch of other books, because often there isn't enough time to cover the entire section that is meant to be covered. There is just too much discussion.

I think that's really what should happen: discussion. I don't think a teacher should be up in front just talking away and giving a bunch of his opinions. I think the entire group should get involved. Sacrament meeting is for listening to the speaker. The other two hours are for discussion of gospel principles.

Perhaps that doesn't show my opinion on the OP, but it's my opinion on what Sunday School, in general, should be.
 

tomato1236

Ninja Master
Awesome. Well my favorite answer is from Davy Crockett. Reading from non-scriptural books is great. Teaching them in church means you're teaching the wisdom of men. Reading the bible is terrific. Reading people's writings about the bible in sunday school is teaching the interpretations of men. Discussion is terrific. I encourage this when I teach. My lessons basically start with me asking thought provoking or controversial questions about fundamental truths, and watching to see the sparks fly in the group. By the end of the lesson, however, I have introduced the concepts in the manual as the solution to the debate that has inevitably arisen. This helps the peeps to start asking the questions to which the PROPHETS teach the answers instead of staring at the floor, or getting wrapped up in my incredible mortal and ultimately corrupt interpretations of scripture.

When all is said and done, the point of lessons in church is to help others to feel the spirit, which isn't generally achieved by showing off, or teaching them your personal revelations rather than the prophet's.
 

tomato1236

Ninja Master
This forum should be the ultimate and most obvious example of how far we get when we debate doctrine, even among members of the same faith. We get nowhere. We might flatter ourselves with our terrific reasoning and debating skills, but in the end, who is converted? Who goes away with a feeling of spiritual excellence? Only those who came searching, and only those who were taught by the spirit. Try teaching something that hasn't been revealed, or something that's just your opinion and feeling the spirit. No one else will either.
 

FFH

Veteran Member
Tomato,

It's hard to tell from your opening post, but one of the things that the teacher might have been trying to point out to everyone was that the verses of Isaiah, found in the Book of Mormon, correct the errors found in the KJV, thus proving that Joseph Smith is a true prophet, seer and revelator.

If you compare the verses of Isaiah, found in the Book of Mormon, to the King James version, you'll find that the errors found in the King James version have been corrected in the Book of Mormon.
 
Last edited:

tomato1236

Ninja Master
Tomato,

It's hard to tell from your opening post, but one of the things that the teacher might have been trying to point to everyone was that the verses of Isaiah, found in the Book of Mormon, correct the errors found in the KJV, thus proving that Joseph Smith is a true prophet, seer and revelator.

If you compare the verses of Isaiah, found in the Book of Mormon, to the King James version, you'll find that the errors found in the King James version have been corrected.

It was almost that. Actually there is a verse where it says one word in the kjv, another thing in the septuagent (or however you spell it) and the Book of Mormon verse has both words, demonstrating that unless he knew greek, he couldn't possibly have known to put both in unless he was inspired.

That's terrific.
 

FFH

Veteran Member
It was almost that. Actually there is a verse where it says one word in the kjv, another thing in the septuagent (or however you spell it) and the Book of Mormon verse has both words, demonstrating that unless he knew greek, he couldn't possibly have known to put both in unless he was inspired.

That's terrific.
Yes indeed it is..., thus proving the validity of Joseph Smith as a TRUE prophet, seer and revelator.

There is no doubt, if you spend time studying the differences between the Joseph Smith translation (inspired version) of the Bible and the flawed King James version. The Joseph Smith version of the Bible is flawless and so are the verses of the Bible found in the Book of Mormon, all Joseph Smith translation (inspired version) corrections included.
 

FFH

Veteran Member
Here's an example of the corrections to the King James version of Isaiah, found in the Book of mormon.

Isaiah 2
12 For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

2 Nephi 12
12 For the day of the Lord of Hosts soon cometh upon all nations, yea, upon every one; yea, upon the proud and lofty, and upon every one who is lifted up, and he shall be brought low.

Even the grammar is corrected.
 
Last edited:

tomato1236

Ninja Master
Yes indeed it is..., thus proving the validity of Joseph Smith as a TRUE prophet, seer and revelator.

There is no doubt, if you spend time studying the differences between the Joseph Smith translation (inspired version) of the Bible and the flawed King James version. The Joseph Smith version of the Bible is flawless and so are the verses of the Bible found in the Book of Mormon, all Joseph Smith translation (inspired version) corrections included.

That's great, but if it were so important to prove Joseph Smith was a prophet by comparing bibles, why don't the apostles and prophet do so over the pulpit at general conference? I mean the proof is RIGHT THERE! They must not care about truly converting the membership of the church.
 

FFH

Veteran Member
That's great, but if it were so important to prove Joseph Smith was a prophet by comparing bibles, why don't the apostles and prophet do so over the pulpit at general conference? I mean the proof is RIGHT THERE! They must not care about truly converting the membership of the church.
It's up to us to study it out on our own. As Elder Bednar stated in conference, we cannot just read the scriptures, we must study, ponder and pray about them. We must do further investigations/studies on our own.

Conference talks are edifying and mostly about basic scriptural principles, nothing complicated. It's not supposed to be used an indepth study of the scriptures, but more about edifying the saints.

We must study it out on our own to gain a deeper testimony.

See this link:
subscribed.gif
Book of Mormon Corrections to the King James Version of the Bible
 
Last edited:

tomato1236

Ninja Master
It's up to us to study it out on our own. As Elder Bednar stated in conference, we cannot just read the scriptures, we must study, ponder and pray about them. We must do further investigations/studies on our own.

Conference talks are edifying and mostly about basic scriptural principles, nothing complicated. It's not supposed to be used an indepth study of the scriptures, but more about edifying the saints.

We must study it out on our own to gain a deeper testimony.

See this link:
subscribed.gif
Book of Mormon Corrections to the King James Version of the Bible

Great, but we're not talking about problems with personal study. We're talking about Sunday School lessons.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
No, I don't see a problem with any of that. Sunday School isn't meant to be a testimony meeting. It should engage the mind.

I agree. But unless it somehow changes something inside of us, it's all for naught. I think sometimes people forget that. The power of teaching correct doctrine is that it actually does change people. If we start straying from expounding the core doctrines of the Gospel, we leave behind the real life sustaining bread and meat and instead of having our cups filled, we go away empty handed.

To me this post is problematic on a number of levels. I understand what I think you wanted to say, but even so…

I reject the notion that something must change the inside of a person or it is for naught. This idea is far too stark a claim. Knowing the capital of the Assyrian Empire was Nineveh does not change the inside of a person, it does provide proper context when discussing the story of Jonah for example. Understanding Hebrew poetic devices does not change the inside of a person, but will allow accessing the Book of Isaiah a much easier task.

I reject the notion that correct teaching does change people, if the idea is the one necessitates the other. Christ, who by definition was the perfect teacher, had a very small sustained following and was rejected by the bulk of those who heard His teaching. If you simply meant correct teaching may change a person, then the statement doesn’t have much force. I think the reality is the Gospel and Church entails a pro-active element. A fellow could be teaching something true that may or may not be picked up on by the listener. What one person finds boring, may inspire another. Too often people extrapolate their experience as the standard for all: their personal dislike is made normative "I didn't like X therefore the failure is with the X, and not with me".

Per core principles: I don’t know what to make of this idea. On the one hand this could be taken as advocating nothing above Primary for all. On the other hand, I doubt there are many in the Church who can expound core principles coherently: if this means giving a clear explanation of fundamental ideas that ground the faith. For example, the Atonement would qualify as a core principle. How many can explain the rational mechanics of this notion? I think the vast bulk wouldn’t be able to move much beyond explanations that rival Trinitarians trying to explain the Trinity. If one accepts Christ’s words “Great are the words of Isaiah ” then it would seem going into detail on those words from a variety of sources would be a good thing. If detail on the Book of Isaiah doesn’t count as proper exposition of core principle then perhaps the idea of core principle for core principle’s sake isn’t the only standard to be loyal to. Finally, if expounding nothing but core principles is the meme, it moves in the direction of testimony which is something than Sunday School.

I do think I understand what you wanted to say: church should edify and avoid the “philosophies of men”. This is all fine and good, but I don’t think edification is only found in regurgitating the same year after year. Primary and Gospel Doctrine classes should not be the same. I also think the fear of the “philosophies of men” is often simply an excuse for anti-intellectualism. There is a richness in the Gospel that is too often passed by unacknowledged simply because of laziness.
 
Last edited:
Top