Problems With Sunday School Lessons

[DavyCrocket2003]

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.

Okay, I hear ya. You're right. I carelessly worded my post. When I referred to teaching true doctrine, I probably should have said learning true doctrine. When you teach true doctrine, and people learn/receive it, it changes them. Just as you said, many people were taught great things by Jesus and other prophets, but they rejected their words and were not changed in any positive way. There is a direct relationship between what someone puts into a lesson, talk, or discussion, and how much they get out of it. "True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior" (President Packer).

Studying Hebraic literary patterns may or may not change your life. But it can help open the words of Isaiah to your understanding. I know personally that Isaiah is some of the most powerful scripture I have ever read. It teaches us things about the nature of God and about our relationship to him. When the meaning of those words strike your mind and your heart, the power is enough to make you tremble. Anything that will aid in that process is worth while in my opinion. However, it is as a means to an end. Sure, I believe that almost all knowledge is inherently of value. It's just a matter of sorting good, better, and best. I believe that the Sabbath day is a day for pursuing "the best." The things learned and taught at Church IMO should either be the core principles of the Gospel directly, or some supporting knowledge that will help us attain them.

Perhaps when I say core principles of the Gospel, we are thinking of different things. If so, I am sure that I am at fault. I believe that there is an ocean of knowledge and understanding awaiting the faithful seekers of truth. In fact, I believe the level of light, truth, and knowledge we posses corresponds directly to our progress along the straight and narrow path. My hands down favorite chapter from last years manual of teachings of Joseph Smith was the chapter titled "Gaining Knowledge of Eternal Truths." It is a real gem. Here are a couple of highlights:

A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge.

Knowledge is necessary to life and godliness. Woe unto you priests and divines who preach that knowledge is not necessary unto life and salvation. Take away Apostles, etc., take away knowledge, and you will find yourselves worthy of the damnation of hell. Knowledge is revelation. Hear, all ye brethren, this grand key: knowledge is the power of God unto salvation.

As far as we degenerate from God, we descend to the devil and lose knowledge, and without knowledge we cannot be saved.

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.

God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them, for the day must come when no man need say to his neighbor, Know ye the Lord; for all shall know Him … from the least to the greatest.

Wow! Great stuff! I love the teachings of Joseph Smith!

Anyway, it is obvious that we have a great deal to learn. I think that God teaches us in a really unique, profound way. You would think he would give us something easy, something sort of... trivial or something to start with. No. He starts us with the most profound and powerful doctrine in the Gospel: Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that the "first principles and ordinances of the Gospel" are not only first in order, but first in importance as well. As we progress in our level of understanding, we don't move on to some different set of advanced, top-secret principles reserved for the elite inner circle. Rather, we move on to an advanced, top-secret level of understanding of the same principles. I believe that everything builds on the principle of Faith in Jesus Christ. Just like there's a difference between twenty years of experience and one year of experience repeated twenty times, there is a difference between progressing with regards to the core doctrines and rehashing the same boring elementary lessons about Gospel principles over and over.

The Gospel is a seed. If planted it will grow. You never leave the original seed that you plant and pass it up for a better one. When it develops into a beautiful tree bearing fruit that is sweet above all that is sweet, it will not be a different tree. It is the same tree that was placed gently into your outstretched hand all that time ago, barely more than a speck, nothing more than a sliver of faith.

That is what I mean by "core principles," the principles that will carry us into God's very presence if we hold fast to them. The rod of iron leads straight to the tree of life. Any material not constituting that rod in some way is an unwanted detour taken from the perspective of a Sunday school lesson. Or at least, that is my take on the matter. What do you think?

 

[Orontes]

There is a direct relationship between what someone puts into a lesson, talk, or discussion, and how much they get out of it. "True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior" (President Packer).

Anything that will aid in that process is worth while in my opinion. However, it is as a means to an end. Sure, I believe that almost all knowledge is inherently of value.

Perhaps when I say core principles of the Gospel, we are thinking of different things. If so, I am sure that I am at fault. I believe that there is an ocean of knowledge and understanding awaiting the faithful seekers of truth. In fact, I believe the level of light, truth, and knowledge we posses corresponds directly to our progress along the straight and narrow path.


That is what I mean by "core principles," the principles that will carry us into God's very presence if we hold fast to them. The rod of iron leads straight to the tree of life. Any material not constituting that rod in some way is an unwanted detour taken from the perspective of a Sunday school lesson. Or at least, that is my take on the matter. What do you think?

Hi Davy,

I agree with your general post. I don’t think I would define core principles as: “the principles that will carry us into God's very presence if we hold fast to them.” I would define a core principle as something fundamental to a larger position. I don’t think a core principle necessarily needs to be able to achieve an end goal alone.

As far as your post and the thread topic this is the information we were given: the first problem is identified as the teacher providing extra reference material. The second problem is identified as the teacher going into detail on particular verses, giving a position on the meaning and contrasting Septuagint and KJV translations, with the intent to show Joseph Smith couldn’t have “made it all up”. I don’t see a problem with either would be point. Providing extra study resources is a nice thing for the teacher to do. A teacher drawing a conclusion is what teachers do. Contrasting translations in the hope of bolstering the class’ belief in Joseph Smith appears to be the teacher’s attempt to tie the lesson to the Restoration. What I get from this is mundane. It is a teacher into his topic. Whether the fellow’s conclusions were coherent or rubbish, we don’t know. We do know he referenced other sources, that seems to indicate he doesn’t mind people checking out things on their own. My sense is if there is any problem it is with the poster of the thread, and not the teacher. Phrasing like recommended books “by whom and whomsoever” and “picking (verses) apart by his understanding of their meaning” indicate to me a person who dismissed the teacher. It sounds like someone with an attitude problem toward his parent’s home ward teacher.


Note: I liked the Joseph Smith quotes you provided.

 

[tomato1236]

Henry B Eyring, The Book of Mormon Will Change Your Life

"
Then John described a teacher who had persuaded some students to prove something. The teacher’s challenge was to not go to inappropriate movies and to see whether the students could feel the effect in their lives. According to John’s report, they did. They could feel the companionship of the Holy Ghost returning.
John felt that all the sermons in the world trying to prove there was a Fall would not be nearly so effective as the person trying to do the right thing and then feeling the power of the Holy Ghost in his or her life. There is a difference we can feel between our fallen natures and our being lifted above them by the power of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the effects of the Atonement.
You want your students to see that their challenge is not to prove that the Book of Mormon is true but to prove to God that they—the students—are true. When they do this, they will know the book is true. And when they prove that they will do what the book says, God will tell them more:
“And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.
“And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation” (3 Ne. 26:9–10).
As you prove the Book of Mormon to your students, you will realize you do not prove it through arguments. You do not even prove it through great examples or stories. Those will help, but your students will prove the Book of Mormon by saying, “I believe it is true; I will try it.” Once they have proved themselves to God, then the proof will come to them because they will see the spiritual fruit."

 

[tomato1236]

Dallin H Oaks, Testimony:

"
One of the greatest things about our Heavenly Father’s plan for His children is that each of us can know the truth of that plan for ourselves. That revealed knowledge does not come from books, from scientific proof, or from intellectual pondering. As with the Apostle Peter, we can receive that knowledge directly from our Heavenly Father through the witness of the Holy Ghost.
When we know spiritual truths by spiritual means, we can be just as sure of that knowledge as scholars and scientists are of the different kinds of knowledge they have acquired by different methods."

 

[tomato1236]

Howard W Hunter, Faith--The First Step:

"Suppose that all things could be proven by demonstrative evidence. What then would become of the element of faith? There would be no need for faith and it would be eliminated, giving rise then to this query: If faith is the first step or principle of the gospel and is eliminated, what happens to the gospel plan? The very foundation will crumble. I submit that there is a divine reason why all things cannot be proven by concrete evidence.
Those who doubt are prone to ask for proof or a sign that they might believe. The prophet Alma spoke to his people on this very subject and said to them, “Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. "

 

[tomato1236]

Dieter F Uchdorf, The Power of a Personal Testimony
"For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term testimony is a warm and familiar word in our religious expressions. It is tender and sweet. It has always a certain sacredness about it. When we talk about testimony, we refer to feelings of our heart and mind rather than an accumulation of logical, sterile facts. It is a gift of the Spirit, a witness from the Holy Ghost that certain concepts are true."

"A testimony is a most precious possession because it is not acquired by logic or reason alone..."

"We receive this testimony when the Holy Spirit speaks to the spirit within us. We will receive a calm and unwavering certainty that will be the source of our testimony and conviction irrespective of our culture, race, language, or socioeconomic background. These promptings of the Spirit, rather than human logic alone, will be the true foundation upon which our testimony will be built."

 

[tomato1236]

John K Carmack, The Soil and Roots of Testimony

"
Desire begets faith and testimony. Testimony isn’t achieved by logic and study. For example, we can list hundreds of evidences that the Book of Mormon and the New Testament are true, but the skeptic can probably match us point by point. Without desire, the skeptic is “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim. 3:7.)"

 

[tomato1236]

Charles Didier, Testimony

(interesting he mentions public forums...)

"
Let us now examine the keys of the spirit of revelation.
Key number 1 is to know for yourself. Do not be dependent on someone else.
Key number 2 is to know by the power of the Holy Ghost. Do not look at reason, logic, or the philosophies of men and theories of the world.
Key number 3 is to know by searching the scriptures and the revelations given and published in our day by the prophets—the First Presidency and the Twelve. Do not listen to apostate, unauthorized voices or speculation.
Key number 4 is to know by asking your Heavenly Father in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ. Do not turn to public discussions and forums. The purpose of having and using certain keys is always very simple: to open the right door with a particular key. The purpose of these spiritual keys is to open spiritual doors, one by one, to come to a plain testimony as described by the prophets. When children first start to read, they look at the letters and ask what they are. After a time they can recognize the letters by their names and put them together to form a word. And then a miracle happens. They can read a word, then a sentence, then a book. The steps of gaining a testimony follow the same pattern. We want to know; we begin with what we know; and when we know, we further enrich our knowledge by sharing and practicing what we know."

 

[tomato1236]

Marion G Romney, A Child of God

"
That man is a child of God is the most important knowledge available to mortals. Such knowledge is beyond the ken of the uninspired mind. Neither logic, science, philosophy, nor any other field of worldly learning has ever been, or ever will be, able to find it out. Those who limit their search to such learning techniques will continue to be as they have always been, “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim. 3:7.)
The only means by which such knowledge can be had is divine revelation. Fortunately for us, as has already been shown, it has been so revealed repeatedly from Adam until today. "

 

[tomato1236]

Neal A Maxwell, God will yet reveal:

"God’s plan, however, is not something to be deduced by logic alone, nor is human experience deep enough or long enough to inform us adequately. It requires revelation from God."

 

[tomato1236]

Elder Loren C Dunn, Did Not Our Heart Burn Within Us?

"With all the logic and outward evidences of the truthfulness of the gospel, it still comes down to the witness of the Spirit.
“Did not our heart burn within us?” is as applicable today to a person seeking the gospel of Jesus Christ as it was during the time of Christ or in John Murdock’s day."

 

[Orontes]

Henry B Eyring:

"As you prove the Book of Mormon to your students, you will realize you do not prove it through arguments. You do not even prove it through great examples or stories. Those will help, but your students will prove the Book of Mormon by saying, “I believe it is true; I will try it.” Once they have proved themselves to God, then the proof will come to them because they will see the spiritual fruit."

Dallin H Oaks, Testimony:

"That revealed knowledge does not come from books, from scientific proof, or from intellectual pondering. "

Howard W Hunter:, Faith--The First Step:

"Suppose that all things could be proven by demonstrative evidence. What then would become of the element of faith? "

Dieter F Uchdorf:

"For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term testimony is a warm and familiar word in our religious expressions. It is tender and sweet. It has always a certain sacredness about it. When we talk about testimony, we refer to feelings of our heart and mind rather than an accumulation of logical, sterile facts. It is a gift of the Spirit, a witness from the Holy Ghost that certain concepts are true."

"A testimony is a most precious possession because it is not acquired by logic or reason alone..."

John K Carmack:

"Desire begets faith and testimony. Testimony isn’t achieved by logic and study."

Charles Didier, Testimony

(interesting he mentions public forums...)

"
Let us now examine the keys of the spirit of revelation.
Key number 1 is to know for yourself. Do not be dependent on someone else.
Key number 2 is to know by the power of the Holy Ghost. Do not look at reason, logic, or the philosophies of men and theories of the world.
Key number 3 is to know by searching the scriptures and the revelations given and published in our day by the prophets—the First Presidency and the Twelve. Do not listen to apostate, unauthorized voices or speculation.
Key number 4 is to know by asking your Heavenly Father in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ. Do not turn to public discussions and forums. "

Marion G Romney:

"That man is a child of God is the most important knowledge available to mortals. Such knowledge is beyond the ken of the uninspired mind. Neither logic, science, philosophy, nor any other field of worldly learning has ever been, or ever will be, able to find it out.” (

"The only means by which such knowledge can be had is divine revelation. Fortunately for us, as has already been shown, it has been so revealed repeatedly from Adam until today. "

Neal A Maxwell:

"God’s plan, however, is not something to be deduced by logic alone, nor is human experience deep enough or long enough to inform us adequately. It requires revelation from God."

Elder Loren C Dunn:

"With all the logic and outward evidences of the truthfulness of the gospel, it still comes down to the witness of the Spirit."

Tomato1236,

There is no comment with any of the series of quotes in your many posts.

Do you think these quotes justify your dismissing your parent’s home ward teacher? If so how? If not, what is the relevance?

Do you believe Sunday School is supposed to be a testimony meeting?

Do you believe knowledge claims are allowable in a religious context outside of personal revelation?

If yes, then your personal issues with the teacher remain a puzzle. If not, do you reject the Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s manuals as they contain conclusions and points from larger scholarship and not simply testimonials? Do you reject the Topical Guide and Bible Dictionary found in standard LDS scriptures as these are not revelatory, but simply collections a data put together based on the general knowledge at the time of publication?

 

[tomato1236]

Tomato1236,

There is no comment with any of the series of quotes in your many posts.[/QUOTE]

No comment was necessary. The quotes say it pretty well.

Do you think these quotes justify your dismissing your parent’s home ward teacher? If so how? If not, what is the relevance?

I think these quotes speak for themselves. I'm not trying to dismiss my teacher. Parts of his lesson were great. I posted the quotes because these are the words we are to be looking to as members of the LDS church for guidance. They don't require my imperfect clarification.

Do you believe Sunday School is supposed to be a testimony meeting?

Testimony meeting is supposed to be a testimony meeting. The purpose of Sunday school is to increase testimony through teaching by the spirit. Please see all the quotes. Again.

Do you believe knowledge claims are allowable in a religious context outside of personal revelation?

Knowledge claims? Like what? Like, "I know that this verse here and this verse here, when compared, prove that joseph smith was a prophet"? or "I know that that Leviticus is not in the New Testament"? You can say whatever you want in Sunday School, but it doesn't mean it will be ideal. The ideal is teaching principles from the scriptures, fortified with testimony, that your class will feel the spirit. Here are quotes from the teacher helps in the Sunday School Manual. It is not a series of testimonies born in sequence, but note the emphasis on testimony building as a central in good teaching.

"Cleopas and his companion asked the Savior to stay with them, and as they sat to eat they recognized him as the resurrected Lord. He then vanished from their sight, and they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:32).
The scriptures that prompted the disciples’ hearts to burn were from the books of Moses and the prophets—the scriptures that we know as the Old Testament. As you teach these same sacred truths, the Holy Ghost will testify of their truthfulness to your class as he did to Cleopas and his companion.
Studying the Old Testament should strengthen class members’ testimonies of the Savior and their commitment to live his gospel. Guided by the Spirit in their study, class members should be able to testify with Job, “I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth” (Job 19:25). "

• "1. Invite class members to offer prayers before and after the lesson. During class, pray in your heart for the Spirit to guide you, to open the hearts of class members, and to testify and inspire.
• 2. Use the scriptures (see “Focusing on the Scriptures” below).
• 3. Bear testimony whenever the Spirit prompts you, not just at the end of the lesson. Bear testimony of the Savior. Frequently invite class members to bear their testimonies. [testimony meeting?]
• 4. Use hymns, Primary songs, and other sacred music to prepare class members’ hearts to feel the Spirit.
• 5. Express love for class members, for others, and for Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.
• 6. Share insights, feelings, and experiences that relate to principles in the lesson. Invite class members to do the same. Members could also tell how they have applied or taught what was discussed in previous lessons. "

If yes, then your personal issues with the teacher remain a puzzle.

I'm sorry you're mystified.

If not, do you reject the Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s manuals as they contain conclusions and points from larger scholarship and not simply testimonials?

I accept the manual and agree with what it says. It is full of teachings of principles, and examples and likenesses of Christ, but it seems rather void of attempts to prove anything.

Do you reject the Topical Guide and Bible Dictionary found in standard LDS scriptures as these are not revelatory, but simply collections a data put together based on the general knowledge at the time of publication?

I don't. The topical guide points you to scriptures. If satan himself points me to scripture, I'm still reading scripture. He can't make the scriptures say something evil.

The bible dictionary is terrific. It contains explanations of times and places and principles. There are no attempts in the bible dictionary to say, "x+y proves the bible is true, and because of that proof, you should be convinced and believe."

 

[tomato1236]

Tomato1236,

There is no comment with any of the series of quotes in your many posts.

I regret that rather than discussing what IS in the quotes, or acknowledging their content at all, you look to my words to qualify them. These are the prophets. If you're really looking to learn about Sunday School best practices, look to the words of the prophets. One of the quotes even mentions that we shouldn't look to public forums for our answers. I recognize that once I've given my input, it becomes debatable. Can't you debate the words of the prophets?

 

[Orontes]

No comment was necessary. The quotes say it pretty well.

I think these quotes speak for themselves. I'm not trying to dismiss my teacher. Parts of his lesson were great. I posted the quotes because these are the words we are to be looking to as members of the LDS church for guidance. They don't require my imperfect clarification.

Testimony meeting is supposed to be a testimony meeting. The purpose of Sunday school is to increase testimony through teaching by the spirit. Please see all the quotes. Again.

Knowledge claims? Like what? Like, "I know that this verse here and this verse here, when compared, prove that joseph smith was a prophet"? or "I know that that Leviticus is not in the New Testament"? You can say whatever you want in Sunday School, but it doesn't mean it will be ideal. The ideal is teaching principles from the scriptures, fortified with testimony, that your class will feel the spirit. Here are quotes from the teacher helps in the Sunday School Manual. It is not a series of testimonies born in sequence, but note the emphasis on testimony building as a central in good teaching.

"Cleopas and his companion asked the Savior to stay with them, and as they sat to eat they recognized him as the resurrected Lord. He then vanished from their sight, and they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:32).
The scriptures that prompted the disciples’ hearts to burn were from the books of Moses and the prophets—the scriptures that we know as the Old Testament. As you teach these same sacred truths, the Holy Ghost will testify of their truthfulness to your class as he did to Cleopas and his companion.
Studying the Old Testament should strengthen class members’ testimonies of the Savior and their commitment to live his gospel. Guided by the Spirit in their study, class members should be able to testify with Job, “I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth” (Job 19:25). "

• "1. Invite class members to offer prayers before and after the lesson. During class, pray in your heart for the Spirit to guide you, to open the hearts of class members, and to testify and inspire.
• 2. Use the scriptures (see “Focusing on the Scriptures” below).
• 3. Bear testimony whenever the Spirit prompts you, not just at the end of the lesson. Bear testimony of the Savior. Frequently invite class members to bear their testimonies. [testimony meeting?]
• 4. Use hymns, Primary songs, and other sacred music to prepare class members’ hearts to feel the Spirit.
• 5. Express love for class members, for others, and for Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.
• 6. Share insights, feelings, and experiences that relate to principles in the lesson. Invite class members to do the same. Members could also tell how they have applied or taught what was discussed in previous lessons. "

I'm sorry you're mystified.

I accept the manual and agree with what it says. It is full of teachings of principles, and examples and likenesses of Christ, but it seems rather void of attempts to prove anything.

I don't. The topical guide points you to scriptures. If satan himself points me to scripture, I'm still reading scripture. He can't make the scriptures say something evil.

The bible dictionary is terrific. It contains explanations of times and places and principles. There are no attempts in the bible dictionary to say, "x+y proves the bible is true, and because of that proof, you should be convinced and believe."

The quotes do say things, but not necessarily anything to do with your issues with your parent’s teacher. Some of the quotes are concerned with revealed knowledge. Some are concerned with gaining a testimony. Some are concerned with faith. Some are concerned with revelation itself. Unless you want to attempt to link the various quotes to a larger point they appear separate from your problems with your parent’s home ward teacher.

You put forward one should teach by the Spirit. Unless you want to argue teaching by the Spirit precludes bringing extra reference material and telling the class what they are, the idea alone doesn’t support your issues with the teacher.

Reading through your posts my impression remains the same: you had/have some kind of negative reaction to your parent’s teacher (and perhaps think others should also have the same negative reaction). Your negative reaction may be from some kind of hostility to a “wisdom of men” meme. This might be part of a larger anti-intellectualism or it might be you simply didn’t like that the teacher used to word “prove”. Regardless, my read is your negative reaction is more about you than the teacher.

 

[tomato1236]

Okay.

 

[Katzpur]

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?

I've kind of put off responding to these questions because I have mixed feelings about how I feel. After having sat through the same Sunday School (and Relief Society) lessons for four decades now, I sometimes think I am going to lose my mind if I don't end up learning something new from a lesson. When the teacher teaches exclusively from the manual, I seldom do, and go home feeling that it was all a waste of my time. I know that's what they are told to do, but since the manuals (particularly in Priesthood and Relief Society) are available to the class and we are encouraged to read the lesson before attending the class, I have often wondered why bother to attend in the first place. If I've read the lesson and the teaches doesn't introduce anything other than what I've already read, it really does seem pretty pointless.

I think, though, that if I were to attend a Sunday School class where the teacher did either of the things described in your OP, I'd think right away, "This guy has an agenda." I love it when the teacher (or someone in the class) suggests a good book on a particular subject, but 5 or 6? I'd feel like I was back in school and was being given an assignment I had to complete in order to pass the class. I also love it when I am made aware of some new "evidence" of Joseph Smith's prophetic mission. But again, what you have described sounds like the teacher had just found an excuse to give a lesson on his favorite subject and was going to take advantage of the fact that he had a captive audience. In that case, I think I'd leave feeling kind of resentful that I hadn't heard the lesson I'd come to hear.

Perhaps it's more a matter of the extent to which I felt the teacher had strayed from the material in the manual and for what purpose. I really do hate it when I realize midway through the lesson that the material being presented has relatively little to do with what's supposed to be taught.

 

[Katzpur]

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...

Now I really like that approach! I have occasionally (pretty much every time I teach) raised thought-provoking questions, but probably not for the right reason. As I've prepared to teach lessons, I've often found that I have discovered something that I really want to share with the class. I ask questions to see if the class members have ever thought about something from the same perspective I have. But see, that would be teaching them my "personal revelations" rather than the prophet's. I really like what you say you do. I think I'm going to have to try that the next time I teach. I really do like getting people to start thinking about things a little deeper than they are used to.

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.

I agree, but as I said, I'm afraid I have to plead guilty.

 

[Katzpur]

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.

This is a really good point! You know, I almost get the feeling, when someone gets too awfully carried away doing this, that he's really trying to convince himself. ("Methinks the teacher doth protest too much.") Maybe the reason the General Authorities don't do this is that they don't need to. Their testimonies are so strong that it probably doesn't even occur to them to be looking for reasons to believe.

 

[Katzpur]

Reading through your posts my impression remains the same: you had/have some kind of negative reaction to your parent’s teacher (and perhaps think others should also have the same negative reaction). Your negative reaction may be from some kind of hostility to a “wisdom of men” meme. This might be part of a larger anti-intellectualism or it might be you simply didn’t like that the teacher used to word “prove”. Regardless, my read is your negative reaction is more about you than the teacher.

Man, I am not seeing this at all! I mean nothing Tomato has said seemed to me to have anything to do with anything personal against the teacher. I'm trying to figure out where you might have got that from. I don't see anything wrong with a teacher introducing material that is from outside the lesson manual, even teachings that are not from the prophets. I know I've brought in thoughts from philosophers, non-LDS theologians, etc. that seem to tie in with what our prophets have said. I think the whole thing really gets back to what the teacher is trying to accomplish. People who take advantage of their calling to show off or promote their own opinions really annoy me. Without having been in attendance at the classes Tomato was referring to, it's hard to say if that's what was happening. If it was, though, I can definitely see his point.